It’s a mixed up muddled up shook up world.
And of course, that challenge was also not quite as it was assumed. What I cited was not as incorrect as you thought it was, hey, nobody is perfect. Altough yes, SlackerInc is still full of shit.
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21045667&postcount=56
Yeah, no kidding. Anybody who drops 130 links on us and says, “Read all these and tell me what they say!” is going to be met with polite suggestions that he shove his links up his butt and irrigate his colon with them.
After going on about “counters” and “points”, you abandoned the thread after MrDibble backed me up. The thread isn’t locked; no one is stopping you from going back there, picking up where he and I left off, and embarrassing yourself further, although those of us who care about the integrity of science might prefer you not.
As far as science + incels… How is it scientific to group women into “Beckys” and “Stacys” without knowing them or talking to them? My 48 years tells me that these shits just need to get out more. Forget the dating apps. Talk to a girl about anything. I guarantee most of them will not strike you as a Becky or a Stacy. That is, if you actually have a conversation.
Well so much for ignoring that you were correct only as a nitpick.
As pointed out the cite was related to what CO2 would do in the atmosphere in human terms, your nit was very similar to what Republicans tried to point out that because computer climate scientists ignored Milankovitch cycles, that then the whole effort of modeling was off, so they claimed that therefore the atmospheric models were flawed, only for the scientist in a hearing had to point out that those cycles are not looked at because the effects of those cycles to the current warming are not important.
So again your nit was ok, just not much relevant. Weathering of CO2 is eventually important when taking thousands of years into account, just not as much for the decades where the cite I used does not mention much about weathering, because weathering is not great for us when the dumping of CO2 to the atmosphere is more massive in the relative short run.
Without insulting them. 
Skywatcher I just noticed your avatar. Very cool!
Ha! There we go. We should just start a “Help for Incels” thread where we can post things that aren’t good to talk to women about. Lines not to lead with:
“I think Trump is a hero! How about you, young lady?”
“You’re not on your period, are you?”
“Why the fuck is your hair orange?”
And many others! Shit, we could make a book and make millions off incels. Hey, it’s not like they’re spending any money on girls, right? 
Just one more comment, I actually did not bother to return to the thread because I thought your point was just a nitpick. In reality it did not counter the main point of the article I cited so I let it go.
What it is important is that what the article I cited does stand and the issue should had been with the article, not the poster. And your weathering point about the rocks does stand too, just saying.
Thanks much. Found it on some stock photo site.
So, I’m going to wade back in here and… yes… give some anecdotal credence to TheFuture. I’m sorry, but the point of this place is to fight ignorance, right?
I know of a large group of heterosexual females who are purposely blocking off… i.e., not dating… large groups of heterosexual males. My daughter is part of this group… her friends (and Sophia has a lot of friends) are in this group… and they just refuse, absolutely refuse, to date Trump supporters.
And I shit you not. Those boys have no chance. The political leanings of dating (and friend) partners matters to iGen females in a way it would not have mattered in 1984. And if you’re 17yo and a Trump supporter… or go around calling people “fags”… or complain about women/minorities/sexual identity issues… you’re very likely getting shut out by over half of the female population of your school.
So… lesson for the incel caught in such an unfortunate development?
Don’t be a Trump supporter, understand that different perspectives matter, and stop being an asshat. In other words: it’s not them, it’s you.
So Venice.
The vague impression I’ve gotten is that Incels don’t think your beliefs, political or otherwise, are the issue; that would be more depth then they believe women have. They’re of the opinion that women will willing be sextoys for human shit sculptures if that shit is sculpted into The Ideal Man™. In fact I gather that they think that women prefer men who are worthless trash on the inside.
Yes, but the plural of the word anecdote is not data. 
Begbert: Possible.
GIGO: who said “data”? 
My point was that there is some evidence in my life that girls are, in fact, group-blocking swathes of male prospects.
Ok, but the point is that while there is evidence for examples of what you say, there is more evidence also that the incel community nowadays has turned toxic and one has to be weary about their word and the solutions they are trying to push.
IMHO this is one result of technology allowing people with similar interests to get together, It can lead to a lot of progress on many fields, but in this case the feedback that one gets from several incel groups is not about how to deal with their condition with good advise, but what they get is one big bad feedback loop. When one gets isolated people from their neighbors and local businesses, and with a weak sense of community, one should not be surprised that they re-affirm each other about how not to solve the issue properly, but as to how to get “even” for the alleged slights that they believe are unfairly subjected to.
This is right, but rest assured that it’s worse than that. I know this wasn’t an open invitation for an essay about these clown, but joke’s on you.
What incels believe is that women are genetically programmed to specific and predictable mating behaviors, and that they cynically and ruthlessly exploit men to extract resources from them in accordance with that programming. They believe that women are sociopaths, and that everything they do is a willful attempt to increase their own status, socially or financially or in terms of security, etc.
What’s going on with the “blackpill” stuff is more understandable once you realize that they believe all women are literally narcissistic automata. They think that if you don’t fit into the specific objective criteria that women are looking for, you have no chance at forming a relationship with a woman – those criteria being, primarily, aggressive testosteronish violent behavior, and being hot. This isn’t, like, “girls like bad boys with big muscles” as a general lamentation; it’s “this facial bone must have a ratio of bla bla bla to the whatever bone, and your wrist must be of this circumference, and your shoulder to waist ratio barf barf, or women are programmed to have contempt for you and they will spit on you and will mock you and belittle you because they think you’re nothing.” They are obsessed with bone structure, and believe stuff like weak chins and especcccccially lack of height dooms them to failure in the dating world. They’re big proponents of plastic surgery, for instance, as basically a (again literally) life-saving intervention. They get dangerous leg-lengthening operations. Really brutal and sad stuff, until they start shooting people. It is critical to their worldview that all of this is “proven scientific fact” about the “unvarnished nature of male-female sexual and relationship dynamics,” as the incel wiki says. Because that means it’s indelible. These aren’t, like, trends. They’re laws, and it is infuriating to them that it is suggested that they “be nice” or “be interesting” or “have interests,” because they know that those things are (again - literally) meaningless when it comes to sex.
What they think is going on in the world is that younger women are just out there competing to fuck the top 20% or so of men, in terms of objective physical attractiveness, and that as they age they either marry one of those who has resources, or they cheat on the ones they form relationships with until they accrue their own independent wealth by getting divorced, or by forming relationships with “betas” who will pay their bills (these betas are the exception to the physical attraction thing, because they are being ruthlessly taken advantage of and “cucked” while they work and provide financial security, you see). They think this is evolution in action, and trying to deny it is just a politically motivated attempt to sweep the laws of the universe under the rug. They want to be wanted, but if you’re not one of the “Chads,” women hate you. You can’t be wanted by a woman if you aren’t a violent attractive psychopath to at least a sufficient degree.
So in other words, they believe in what is already a pretty mainstream misogynist narrative, in the broad strokes. What’s special about them is the community they’ve formed to reinforce these notions to the point of believing it’s science. They might allow that it’s not literally true that every woman is repulsed by a man below a certain height or with a certain bone structure, but they believe that the exceptions to the rule are so empirically unusual that they can be disregarded completely. That’s important, because while they claim they want relationships and want love, their overall worldview is pretty fundamentally exclusive of the possibility that they’ll find it. Which justifies hatred, and justifies violence. Women aren’t human to them.
So what’s especially frustrating about a nitwit like The Future, here, just like the way modern day white supremacy works, is that all of that stuff can be sub-surface and they can go around dopily asking “which part of this isn’t true?” That’s what he’s doing here - he’s hiding the “power level” of true inceldom and focusing on the stupid little anecdotes that form the links in the chain that they use to “prove” that women are vermin, except vermin that you need to feel sexually fulfilled. The actual hatred can be implicit, and they can just point to silly studies that “prove” stuff like, whatever, serial killers receive love letters in prison. Because of course that is true; they do receive those! And there’s presumably interesting stuff going on there. No problem for a regular person to concede those things as true. But to an incel, that is a datapoint that is part of the capital-T Truth of the world, which is that ALL women are helplessly sexually drawn to violent monsters with high cheekbones, because they are compelled to fuck them and have children, and then take the money of unsuspecting Ned Flanderses while they fuck more Ted Bundys on the side, thereby extracting the resources to provide safety and security for themselves and their kids, without ever sacrificing their sexual “capital” in a way that doesn’t please them. Science!
That blackpill wiki is just a list of those datapoints, which are used in more or less transparently misleading ways, depending. “Teenage boys with ADHD have double the amount of sexual partners vs. ‘normal’ teens…” Interesting, and as far as I’m aware there’s no reason to disbelieve it. But to an incel, what’s important there is that it’s driven by the “quite likely higher perceived social dominance, greater impulsivity ("ADHD and the Dark Side of Leadership" by Elizabeth Ann Bodalski study demonstrating link between ADHD and a low arousal threshold; also found in psychopaths) and their greater chance of being perpetrators of violent acts.” The violence and the social dominance, no cites for those, but hey, we started with a fact, and anyway c’mon it’s probably totally that.
And so on. Instead of people whose position is something like “these factors are significant, and it’s interesting, and should be paid attention to and maybe there should be an ongoing cultural effort to highlight them, but meanwhile even if we’re less likely to find love because of these pernicious biases, obviously people still do in all kinds of circumstances, and there’s no point in taking it out on every single woman in the world,” (which actually would pretty directly mirror a lot of ideas that would ring true in feminist thought) their belief system is that if there’s any effect at all, that means it’s a universal law, and they’re the victim of it, and there’s no point in fighting it, so you might as well hate them all and wear it like a badge of honor.
Some have suggested this is counterproductive.
N/m, dp
I came into this thread saying this, GIGO:
… which is seemingly buttressed by your cite. So, yes, we agree: the internet & social media is amplifying a lot of dangerous attitudes and behaviors.
However, this doesn’t mean that the newest generation of adults (my daughter turns 18 in 2 months, guys and gals! Holy s***, when did that happen?) are not far more selective and willing to wait based upon traits we didn’t consider important when we were the same age. Because they are.
Ever seen a group of girls rescue a friend from a bad date? Once Sophia and her friends started texting/snapping/IG’ing(?) the boy because their friend felt like she was being forced to drink, with one finally going and picking her up. With these phones, young ladies’ social network and escape hatches increased exponentially, and they realize they don’t have to put up with shit we would’ve remained silent about 40 years ago. Like being pressured to drink.
So… you’re right, GIGO. Society is changing and people are using the internet to amplify their problems with this. But society is changing and I see it with my kid and her interactions.