Glad to hear it! But I’m not sure if I’ve seen anything from evo-psych that was more than an untested hypothesis, at best. I’ve seen lots and lots of wild guesses, arbitrarily insisting some behavior is due to evolution rather than culture.
So, in other words, women are just “asking for it”, so they deserve whatever horrible things happen to them, and it gives you the excuses to do it?
Incels don’t have relationships because women are “bad”, it’s because you and your ilk are very, VERY sick.
Dude, you’re really pushing your Democratic Liberal Credentials with this post.
:rolleyes:
That’s good. Because the OP’s got a good head start.
There’s a lot of validity to the idea that there’s a lot about climate science we don’t understand, including natural cycles in climate change.
That’s a far cry from saying climate deniers have a leg to stand on wrt human beings being a prime agent of the recent changes in Earth’s climate.
This is a tiny, miniscule, almost indistinguishable step up from “Just Asking Questions”.
And interjecting with it, even if your intentions are pure (which, given your posting history, hmmmm :rolleyes:), is asinine at best and actively counterproductive at worst.
There are plenty of us Democrats who loathe political correctness (the real, “woke” kind, not the basic decency Trump falsely labels as such), feel the #MeToo movement has swung the pendulum too far, etc. We’re just not very visible online. But as I pointed out in another thread, without us the “woke” caucus would have a handful of House seats, maybe two or three senators or governors, and that’s it. A Mondale-style wipeout in every presidential election. 9-0 SCOTUS. So you need to learn to accept that we are a crucial part of your party, even if you outnumber us 60-40 or 70-30.
Which is paradoxical, since obviously he’s unfamiliar with getting good head at all.
Try the veal btw, it’s lovely.
No. That’s not the way it works.
The way it works is that first, I have to read the study, and to judge whether I think it showed any of those things. (Is this the study titled “Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?” for which you provided a direct link that does not go through an incel wiki? If it’s a different study, then again, as has been repeatedly said by multiple people in this thread, if you actually want us to discuss it then provide such a link.)
And then the way it works is that, once I’ve read and considered the study, in order to respond to your claim that these studies support what incels are saying, I need to compare the study to specific things that incels are saying. Yet again: what specific claim(s) that incels are making do you think that the specific study supports?
If you can’t answer that, then I’m forced to conclude that either you don’t know what the study says (in which case you can’t know whether the specific study supports incel claims or not); or you don’t know of any specific claims that incels are making which you think it supports (in which case either you don’t know what incels are claiming, or you don’t think the study supports any of those claims).
In case that was too much to read, let me give you part of it in shorter form:
-
If the study you’re referring to is not “Relationship Involvement Among Young Adults: Are Asian American Men an Exceptional Case?”, then provide a direct link to whatever study you are talking about in the quoted post. (If it is that study, then you’ve already done so, and I have a page open to it.)
-
For at least the third time: spell out what specific claim(s) incels are making that you think the study supports.
I’d rather have a Doge: I hear those can take themselves for walkies.
Yeah, but you hardly forgive 'em the same for trying to fuck your leg.
Well, they don’t swim very well. I think it’s sinking.
Very doge.
I browsed some of the links in the OP. Not all “science” is created equal.
All the studies posted are sociological, not biological. And while small sample sociological studies may be interesting, they don’t really “prove” anything. There’s no indication that their relatively extra-small to small test groups are indicative of the population at large, and a lot of indications that they aren’t. I imagine that “women that view on-line porn”is a very small and unrepresentative sample of all women, and one that is impossible to verify as well.
And I don’t think entertainment preferences mean nearly as much as these incels think they do. By the same logic, I could say that teenage boys obviously want to be murdered by slashers and that adult men want to die violently on a battlefield.
Watching incels pursue women is like watching a dog chase a car. Because if they caught one, they wouldn’t have any idea what to do with it after they were done humping the tires. Sad, really.
Unless I missed it, we have yet to be told what they think they mean.
Funny how these incels always loop back to race. I guess that’s why Slacker white-knights for them.
i’m pretty sure we mostly agree that climate change exists and is a serious problem. So do you think that if somebody posted a link to climatechange.we’realldoomed/wiki* and said ‘here are 130 cites that science proves everything on this site; what are we going to do to make everyone’s last days more pleasant?’ everybody here would just nod their heads and agree?
I think it’s a lot more likely that the result would be a combination of ‘why don’t you link to someplace more reliable’, ‘130 cites! nobody’s going to read 130 cites. Pick one to start with’, ‘what do you mean, everything? which cites prove which statements on the site?’, and ‘we might not all be doomed if people would just get off their butts and do something about it! stop encouraging people to give up!’
Speaking of obfuscations: I’m still waiting to see what, precisely, it is that the OP thinks any one of the specific cites backs.
*not to the best of my knowledge a site that exists
A domain name can’t contain an apostrophe, or any character other than an alphanumeric or hyphen.
So, no, it can’t exist. 
Here’s a thread where I shit on GIGObuster (we’re both pro-“climate change is a thing and it’s bad”) for posting incorrect information about climate change:https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=845831
Not 130 cites, mind you. But bad science or the misinterpretation of good science by people who don’t understand it should always be challenged.
So SlackerInc is full of shit.
Except that
*Girls don’t want to play like that
Just want to talk to the boys
Just want to do what’s in their hearts
And the girls want to be with the girls
Girls are getting into abstract analysis…
And the boys say, “What do you mean?”*
Because
*Girls ask: can I define decision?
Boys ask: can I describe their function?
Oh the girls still want to talk
Would like to talk about those problems
And the boys say they’re concerned
That they are concerned with decisiveness
And it’s a hard logic I know and the girls get lost*
Keep Talking…
The other thing is that, of COURSE you ask for more rigor in cites that ask you to change what you believe is true. This is not a problem. The things I believe are true I believe because of accumulated experience, including accumulated evidence, over a lifetime.
Show me a picture of a ship on a body of water and tell me it’s the Atlantic Ocean, and I’m likely to believe you, because a lifetime of experience has convinced me that ships sail on the Atlantic Ocean. Even if there’s no proof that it’s the Atlantic, I’m not gonna challenge you.
Show me a picture of a ship on a body of water and tell me it’s sailing the Inner Sea that runs beneath the surface of the hollow Earth, and I’m gonna ask for a shitload more rigor in your cite. You want me to change everything I believe? Gonna need more than a grainy photograph for that, buddy.