Evidently. Or at least that women/feminists/“gynocentric” society as a whole deserves to be punished with violence for the fact that hotties aren’t seeking them out to sex them up:
There’s even a wikipedia page about them: Incel - Wikipedia
I’m not sure I want to read it all that carefully.
The common thread that virtually all the vehicle attacks have had in the past ten years is that they were white rental vans. Clearly we should stop letting people rent white vans.
That’s vanracist!
Government-issued sex partners. Seriously.
And they’re not talking about robots or fleshlights?
Are Canadian prisons as notoriously rapey as American ones? This guy may get his celibacy removed involuntary…is that ironic?
In a world of aggressive victimhood and bad ideas, I’m not sure.
Btw they are so pumped up with the press they are getting, I found a dozen references to acid-facing on various sites before quitting, plus a recipe for it which was no doubt a poke at all the normies reading their sites. And that’s enough internet for a while.
Darn those pesky rights of the accused! Darn them to heck!
A lot of people are disappointed that this wasn’t an organized terror attack, it was just one disturbed person. Others are sad that he wasn’t Muslim, others because he wasn’t killed. How you react to news of this nature says a lot about a person.
Unfortunately, I suspect these may become more common. We can perhaps tighten vehicle rental procedures a tad but vehicles will always be commonplace as well as pedestrians. Perhaps we can install a few barriers here and there but it’s going to keep happening.
They could become 10x more common and still not be something rational people are going to waste much time worrying about.
While I’m not disappointed that this terror attack wasn’t “organized” in the sense of a larger network or conspiracy rather than an individual perpetrator, as I said before, I object to downplaying it as “just one disturbed person”. That’s not how it would be described if the “one disturbed person” were a radical Islamist extremist.
For example, the Orlando nightclub massacre is routinely and officially described as a terror attack by someone who had been radicalized by internet exposure to terrorist propaganda but had no personal connections to a terrorist group. Those killings were the work of “just one disturbed person” just as the Toronto van attack was, but they’re typically identified as radical-Islamist terrorism.
The Toronto killer appears to have been radicalized by an online hate/terror movement, just as the Orlando killer and the Charleston killer were. His attempted “incel rebellion” launch was an act of terrorism in service of his evil ideology, just as their massacres were.
I think that as a society we need to stop giving a pass to individual white male mass murderers espousing violent white-supremacist/misogynist/homophobic ideologies, by dismissing them as merely “disturbed” or “mentally ill” individuals. If you’d call it terror when the sole perpetrator is an Islamist-extremist fanatic, then it’s terror when the sole perpetrator is a white-nationalist or misogynist fanatic.
“Terrorism” and “loner” aren’t mutually exclusive at all. I don’t understand why some people think terrorism has to mean organized group thing while lone wolf means it can’t be terrorism.
Right. See the US definition above.
With regards to the “incel” movement - we can mock them, but that’s not going to make their grievances go away. We can mock until the next attack and next mass murder - and the next, and the next. At some point, the issue can’t go unaddressed. Ignoring something doesn’t make it go away.
That’s certainly not a viewpoint I agree with. I was just explaining to bobot why his proposal (“I propose that we ask them”) probably isn’t going to happen, or at least not anytime soon.
Well, I’m not going to fuck them, but if you want to take one for the team…
How do you think we should address it? (Genuine question, not being snarky.)
Make them feel heard, stop mocking them, agree that their gripes are legitimate or that the issue that needs to be addressed is legit. Talk about their concerns at length, in public, in a serious and understanding way.
Nobody should be coerced into sex, obviously. But whenever there is a mass shooting attributable to Islam/neo-Nazi/mental-illness/white-supremacist/incel/racism etc., it is totally nonsensical for society to say “We’ll ignore or mock it and the issue will go away on its own.”
Saying “these people should go seek help” isn’t the solution, either - people who are angry don’t think, “I’m angry, therefore I need to get help”. They think, “I’m angry, therefore I need to take out my rage on what makes me angry.”
We can talk about it in a serious way, or an understanding way. No one is going to take the complaints from mysoginists whose obvious distain of women is keeping them from getting laid in a way that’s both.
I don’t mock them. There’s no need to. They’ve been around a long time, and their sites used to be overall sad places to visit before they became more like the entitled manchild wing of the MRA. It isn’t a static group, people will pop in and out of inceldom depending on their fortunes and attitudes. It doesn’t have set goals. Overthrowing Chads and Stacys is not a real goal.
They’ll say, for example, they want single mothers to be assigned to incels, because single mothers have zero social value. That is real, classic, and illustrative of the focus on equitability and problem-solving and the complete lack of social concepts. There’s a good chance that a lot of them post inflammatory things just for lulz, but an equally good chance that not everyone in the group can recognize satire or distortion. And this is all set in jaw-dropping misogyny.
So incel goes out into the world (through the web), every bit the embodiment of this environment, finds a girl with high social value, and conveys to her his interest. She most likely flees, and the incel goes back to ground and is reminded that women only want Chads. That’s pretty much it.