TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

essay analyzing incels

gamerlololdude

September 18, 2022
1 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/4217
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title essay analyzing incels
Author

gamerlololdude

Upvotes 1
Comments 39
Date September 18, 2022 10:11 PM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xhtoj5/essay_analyzing_incels/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/essay-analyzing-incels.1132545
https://theredarchive.com/post/1132545
Red Pill terms in post
incel
Top posts by gamerlololdude

Men in Canada: advocate to remove gender markers on drivers license to stop the practice of paying higher car insurance for being male

439 upvotes
July 15, 2022
/r/MensRights

Are there any rational reasons for getting married these days or it is an outdated legally binding agreement?

225 upvotes
July 10, 2022
/r/MensRights

Support subreddits for victims of abuse by women

166 upvotes
December 11, 2022
/r/MensRights

I don’t understand why sexual assault cannot be gender-inclusive these days, why is it still seen as a women’s problem?

128 upvotes
June 19, 2022
/r/MensRights

Showerthought: women get empowered to not need a man so men also need to get empowered to not need a woman

111 upvotes
February 12, 2023
/r/MensRights

Just because I produce testosterone, doesn’t mean I must be physically strong

89 upvotes
June 22, 2022
/r/MensRights

Services for male abuse survivors

62 upvotes
June 26, 2022
/r/MensRights

mothers more likely to commit infanticide, withdraw investment in children, redirect effort elsewhere

62 upvotes
January 17, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]bottleblank 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Specifically, the Incel identity and community is founded upon a shared hatred towards women and society

Would take issue with this as an inaccurate stereotype. There are some who display this attitude, but I don't think it's reasonable - within the very first page, even - to start shaping the reader's takeaway from reading the article by suggesting that these people are innately hateful. It simply reinforces the idea that they're evil criminals bent on being enemies of women, which I don't think is accurate.

The number of violence instances attributed (not necessarily accurately) to incels is single digit, in a "community" of thousands, in a subset of men in society who experience this social and romantic isolation likely measured in millions. That is not indicative of a violence problem, yet the whole first page is dedicated to speaking about how several tragic attacks represent the incel problem.

I also take issue with the idea that Rodger has become a "martyr", I don't think many incels legitimately hold this viewpoint and, amongst those who claim to, there is a substantial element of shock value and gallows humour, a meme culture based on being edgy, playing with the notion of unfairness and grief, and living up to the accusations levelled at them as a callous group of hate-fuelled aggressors.

Furthermore, the Incels formed within an online context characterized by anti-women and anti-feminist narratives referred to collectively as the manosphere (Ging, 2019).

Again we see a display of bias, an apparent preconceived image of who and what "incels" (and now "the manosphere" as a whole) are. This reads like many other mainstream narratives which demonise those who end up feeling the need to stand up for themselves, or seek solace in male environments with others like them.

Incels have been identified in connection with the rising threat of misogynistic violence (Center, 2021).

Yet again...

Look, nobody wants to be an incel, nobody wants to feel trapped and frustrated and deprived, nobody wants to feel like an enemy to society without good reason to display such attitudes. Incels simply want - need - socialisation, companionship, and intimacy. This is not some group of extremist woman-haters who decided out of nowhere, based on their own sexism and misogyny, to rally against women. They want to love and to be loved, they want to be social with women.

This is not some kind of violent extremist group, formed in a vacuum by those who naturally hold hateful opinions of women. This is a social problem which has external causes and reinforcement of the negative direction some men find themselves in. These men are human beings, with normal, healthy desires, trapped in social circumstances which deprive them of those things. This is what we need to be focussing on, not this almost completely untrue notion that they are a self-driven hate group who have only their own selfish motivations. We need to explore their humanity, their needs, desires, and thoughts, we need to understand the social pathways which drove them to be in this position. It is a human problem, based on human psychology, it is not simply a nebulous blight on humanity which can be dealt with in a mechanical fashion.

Social media and online forums have enabled the creation of these sorts of ideology-focused groups which can inspire a sense of community separate from that of real-world interactions and can spur the creation of extreme subcultures which lead individuals to justify violent or antisocial behavior (Holt, 2007).

Yes, well, I'm sure we can think of plenty more of those which are comprised of other types of people, but they don't get branded a social ill, they get praised as progressive groups standing up for the rights they were supposedly deprived of. Even if that's not the true nature of those groups. Attributing to social media the supposed extremism of incels, without pointing out the wider context, causes it to appear to be facilitating only this "hate group". Yes, it's a paper on incels, but in this context it simply reinforces - again - the notion that this group is somehow unique in its exploitation of social media to foster hate.

In order to address Incel groups and communities like them, it is becoming increasingly apparent that more information is needed

Really? Have you tried listening to, for example, the Incel podcast by Naama Kates, which interviews incels and incel-adjacent men (and sometimes women) in a fair and non-judgemental manner, allowing them to expose their feelings and their experiences in a relatively safe space? They're often sensible, reasonable, level-headed men who are simply frustrated and disappointed at their lack of social inclusion. They can and do express the life experiences which caused them to become who they are, discussing issues of degrading mental health, of social exclusion, of bad home lives, of wanting to be social but having been unable to due to circumstances they were unable to control. There are stories of suicide, of substance additions, of self-abusive behaviours, of having developmental disorders, of being socially excluded and treated like dirt. This is a serious problem, but not because they're hateful. It's because society does not care for those who are unable to develop social skills quickly and successfully, it does not offer help when that happens, it actively excludes and abuses those who struggle.

[–]bottleblank 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Incels share a lot in common with Pick-Up Artists

This seems like a bit of a stretch. PUAs rely on projecting an image of success, of claiming to be able to teach the ways of women to men who struggle to interact with them in ways which result in access to sex.

Incels are the polar opposite, and anecdotally those PUAs have been cited as the cause of many becoming incels, as those incels first try to solve their social inadequacy by seeking instructional media which they hope will teach them how to escape it and become successful with women. This, of course, fails and causes them to become frustrated and taken advantage of, believing themselves to have been misled, or too ugly for even that advice to succeed. They become dismissive and develop an active dislike for PUAs who they (often rightfully) believe to have sold them a lie, often quite literally "sold", as they offer paywalled courses and books which they claim will solve the problems experience by the (traditional, and soon to become colloquial) incels.

Additionally, this thesis seeks to demonstrate the methodological value that the combined use of network and language analysis has in the research of online hate groups like the Incels.

Poor value, in my opinion. If you analyse the language of a collective of comedians who tell dark jokes and use shock humour, you're going to come up with the idea that they're criminally evil, that they hold horrible opinions of certain groups of people.

Let's say, for example, that you have a disabled comedian who makes jokes about the troubles of being disabled. Within their jokes you will find insulting language, biases against disabled people, seemingly offensive slurs, and so on. Does this mean that they're ableist and hurtful towards disabled people? No! They are disabled, and describing their own experiences, commenting on social attitudes, and so forth. They're using sarcasm, irony, hyperbole, and other linguistic features to convey those things in a way which presents as humour. Computers don't understand this. To a certain extent you can analyse context, but if you simply search for and count slurs and aggressive language, you will be presented with a flawed analysis of the real attitudes of those people.

Likewise, incels frequently use gallows humour and edgy jokes to help them bond in an environment of hostile experiences, they seek to demonstrate being part of the in-group by embracing the cultural norms of it and show their shared negative experiences, by joining in with the memes, dark jokes, and use of derogatory language. This does not necessarily mean - as can be understood from the aforementioned Incel podcast interviews - that they hold genuinely hateful views.

The deficiency of this approach is highlighted by...

Comments were often dense with emotes/emojis and embedded media such as images, YouTube videos, tweets from Twitter, links to Reddit posts, and so on. These elements were removed from comments, leaving just the text content of each message.

Those emojis, images, links, and so on, they're important context. Emojis contextualise the intended tone of a text message, in the absence of aural cues. This could be anything from an implication of sarcasm to a wink emoji suggesting that the preceding text was a joke. Without this context, you are simply analysing words without their highly important context.

If I were to use a slur in this comment, and a language counting script decided that it was important to log that as an instance of violent language, even though I used it to demonstrate a point or to be sarcastic, that might lead a researcher to believe that I was expressing hate. This would be an inaccurate view of the situation, again lacking the context which would show that my intent was not to be offensive or aggressive, but something else, perhaps even something positive.

I wonder what the author of the paper would see if they subjected their own paper to the same analysis?

These tokens were then further processed using NLTK’s PorterStemmer, simplifying many words down to their root (such as by dropping -ing, -er, etc.) in order to facilitate more accurate computational analysis of the text.

I see. So "fucking" (a word commonly used to express frustration in general speech throughout society) might become "fuck", which might in turn be misconstrued as an instance of sexual language?

Furthermore, Incels.wiki is intended by its maintainers as a means of recruitment and for spreading their ideological framework.

I would dispute the accusation of "recruitment" as, again, nobody wants to become an incel. There might be greater purpose given as an incentive to join a political or religious extremist group, but no such ideological incentive exists for inceldom. The state of being an incel is one of perpetual misery and an expression of social ostracisation, of failure to "be a man", an admittance of insufficiency and lack of value. That is not aspirational, it offers nothing to anybody who isn't already in an unfortunate mental space with regard to social success (or lack thereof). These people may already be described as incels, albeit by the old definition of "involuntary celibate" - they may not have discovered a community to identify with, but they still suffer the same social problems and they may already hold similar views. There is nothing to "recruit" in that scenario, the only difference between being part of a forum and not being part of a forum is having people with similar experience to talk to. In other contexts we might call that a help group. We don't accuse Alcoholics Anonymous of "recruiting" alcoholics, do we?

I'm not suggesting that the efficacy of an incel group is anything like that of a substance abuse group, in fact I'm quite aware of the negative reinforcement which can come with being part of a forum with very negative, nihilistic, and self-reinforcing views. But it certainly isn't comparable to a political or religious extremist group. One of the defining factors is a sense of futility, not intention of forceful reform of society to match the group's ideology.

[–]bottleblank 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

With VADER, terms that are not scored within its model are scored as Neutral as a default. This lead to a significant over weighting of comments towards Neutral which may not have reflected the actual sentiment of the comment. Furthermore, Incels often use sarcasm in their comments, which is difficult for current natural language tools to interpret properly. Together these two factors significantly limited the application of sentiment analysis.

Indeed, so what value does this research have? The tools and methodologies are clearly flawed and insufficient.

Further, as I was reading this portion of the paper the question arose: you're measuring the sentiment of these words and phrases, but what about who they're directed to? The first portion of the paper contained significant references to the violent nature of this community, but as yet I see no analysis of the target of negative language. This is important, because any language which might be indicative of self-hatred, self-harm, self-deprecation, and suicidality, rather than hatred towards women and society as the introduction posits.

There may be some explanation later in the paper, but as it stands I'm seeing problematic methods, flawed reasoning, insufficient focus on the nature of the discussion regarding the personal aspects of the forum discussions, and a biased premise which completely ignores the formative experience of the individuals.

Again, as I continue to read, I see mention of analysis tools, a programmatical analysis of these discussions, increasingly removed from genuine human analysis of the sentiments and feelings of the content being analysed. I see why a comment on another thread about this paper described it as an uninteresting waste of time.

I would want to encourage further research, but "this ain't it, chief". Yes, it's easier to perform quantitative analysis with a pile of language parsing tools, but it absolutely fails to reach the root causes of the problem. Instead it simply reinforces (intentionally or otherwise) the idea that these men are violent misanthropes who wish harm upon the masses, and women in particular, based on incredibly shallow research which does not demonstrate awareness of the subject. I would also reiterate that much of this forum interaction is performative which, in itself, will heavily skew any linguistic analysis.

It requires qualitative investigation, true psychological analysis in order to establish the real experiences and emotions present in this problem. It requires discussion, trust, good faith, reciprocal co-operation with the incels, not simply misrepresenting them by way of inadequate tools and papers which, if I didn't know better, I might say were simply low quality academic pieces intended to demonstrate that the author is engaging with current trends, is comfortable with language analysis tools or Python programming, and is capable of writing papers.

I see nothing in this paper, so far, which indicates a genuine interest in solving anything or helping anybody. I don't see that it furthers the state of research in the given area. I don't see that it does anything productive, in an academic, medical, or social sense.

[–]bottleblank 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

This vectorizer was then used to further remove superfluous words in the corpus and create a reduced list of tokens for each comment. This reduced list was then used to create a dictionary and bag of words with Gensim.

Again continuing to strip words of their context. At this point I'm not sure there can be much of the original intentions of the forum posts left. Emojis, links, images - gone. Words stripped of suffixes which might be very relevant to their meaning. Tokenised subsets of words. What, really, remains of the original text? Very little, it seems to me.

With each new layer of text parsing, with each new Python library, with each new "simplification" of the array of language to be analysed, nothing remains of the original context - it cannot, by the nature of natural language. Text communication is already somewhat lacking in nuance and specificity, which is a problem for this type of analysis, but intentionally stripping away every aspect of that nuance and meaning, boiling the text down to primitives, cannot convey anything close to the content, intended sentiment, or even observed meaning of the originating source material.

At this point in the paper, we've moved so far away from the analysis of incels as to make the entire exercise utterly pointless. Now we're simply using a short list of words to see who used them and to whom. Why did they use them? What did they mean when they used them? Who could possibly know, with this little connection to the original text remaining?

It seems an incredibly naïve analysis process with little to no actual scientific value. I would ask the author what they intended their paper to demonstrate, because I'm struggling to find its purpose.

The author even admits, again, that these are noteworthy flaws:

A key limitation of the bag of words approach is the lack of consideration for grammar or context. There is no indication of the exact context in which the terms of a topic are being used and how that might affect their meanings. This can lead to issues in identify the larger discussion underneath each topic. Additionally, this issue is further intensified through the lack of accounting for tone.

So we really are just counting the frequency of word use. Lots of people on a forum specific to a certain group and subject matter frequently use words relating to those discussions. Good job, very clever, well done. Now what?

8,000 uses of the word "hi", within the top 5 most used words. That would seem to suggest that these people are highly social, no?

"Post", "did", "incel", "fuck". Those are the 4 words more frequently used than "hi". The top 30 most frequent words contain no sexist slurs.

I fail to see how any of this is useful.

[–]bottleblank 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Section 4.1: User Centrality appears to simply describe the social order of forums in general. Although this analysis is specific to an incel forum, it is not specific to such a forum, and the social order described happens in many other forums (of any subject matter), including Reddit subs.

There is mention of a "fakecel" being banned for eventually finding success in dating, which is somewhat exceptional in terms of forum behaviour, as most forums are not exclusive to members who identify as being a particular type of person.

This is a community restriction which I don't believe is very healthy, however I understand that thousands of men who are potentially incredibly lonely, depressed, and sick of hearing how other people are successful may not wish to witness "bragging" behaviour from those who may, even briefly, escape inceldom. Logically one might think that someone who is successful may be able to pass their "secrets" onto those who are not, but it is understood within certain communities focussed on lack of success, particularly in men, that these things cannot be taught.

In this worldview, one is, or is not, capable of being successful with women, and therefore somebody who has "ascended" (ie: found success, where none was expected previously) would be incapable of anything more than "bragging" - essentially, at that point, they would resemble a PUA. They would have no functional advice to give and would simply be seen as giving useless advice under the guise of showing off their ability to meet women.

However, if this user was indeed banned, as the paper suggests, for having eventually been successful, it would hint that his behaviour in real life was likely not as antagonistic and offensive as the paper points out that his contributions to the forum had been. This would seem to add some small weight to my thought that the behaviour presented on the forum is performative, an attempt to gain and keep favour with its membership, to demonstrate full in-group belonging with a culture which spawned largely from a place with a similar approach to social order.

Section 4.2 analyses top subjects of discussion. Although I understand that an academic paper may need to include this for completeness and context around the subject, for those who are not incel researchers, I would say that much of it is as expected. I would note that the graphs in this section are not well labelled.

The paper mentions distrust of authority, which one might expect for a group which feels abused and neglected, as they would not likely have good experiences with authority or the correctness of the behaviour displayed by authority figures.

It also mentions strong dislike and distrust of "volcels" and "fakecels", again this could be explained by mistrust of those who might seek to disparage and abuse the incels, much as their real-world experiences may have taught them to expect. Those who have grown up bullied, depressed, mistreated, in unstable homes, targets of ire and ridicule, these are people who would not respond well to potential infiltrators who seek only to mock and have fun at the expense of those who are there because they are psychologically damaged from prior behaviour of that exact type.

The sections on Frustration and Paranoia would fit this same pattern.

I will begrudgingly accept the relevance of these sections, despite them being incredibly obvious to me, as part of the completeness of the paper. Those who are not well versed in the subject may find them insightful, even if many of us who are familiar may not. Having said that, I am disappointed in the lack of analysis within those sections, there was no mention of potential causes of those behaviours and a lack of references to prior psychology-related papers which would explain them as a justifiable defence mechanism against previously experienced abusive behaviours.

4.2.6, Fantasy and Desire, again leans back towards an indication that incels are violent and wish for women to be suppressed. This is an unfair characterisation amongst what I suspect was a much more broad category of discussion. The highlighted comment suggests that "women have too many rights" and that trying to appease them is a route to subjugation of men. This I appreciate may seem a shocking comment to some, but when removed from its aggressive language there is - like many of the incel talking points - has a tiny central core of understandable frustration. Quoting people from incel forums, where they use their particular set of inflammatory language, does not fairly represent what they actually mean when read by an external observer.

I don't wish to claim to represent the person who was quoted as saying that, but I don't think it's easy to deny that women do have significant focus placed on their own problems and desires, whilst socially unsuccessful men do not - and in fact are often dismissed and ridiculed for suggesting that their lives are important too. This is what I took the core of the comment to mean, when parsed by somebody who understands much of the language used: that women have significant focus placed on them, that men - especially those less successful - do not, and that there is a consistent strong narrative which suggests that men as a group (no matter how socially successful, no matter how offensive towards women they may be) must increasingly defer to women's needs. The person quoted, according to my understanding of their comment, does not feel that they are likely to be well served by handing more social power to those who already have much of it, they feel that they would likely lose yet more of their already incredibly limited influence and individuality by doing so.

4.2.7 mentions, incredibly briefly, that the subject of mental health was present (17th most talked about subject, by their method of analysis). It is glossed over without delving into what that means or what was discussed, with as many words mentioning that incels disparage the intelligence of non-incels as to the fact that it is a topic of discussion at all.

[–]bottleblank 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It has never been as easy as it is now to create a forum or website dedicated to a specific subculture. This has opened the way for the growth of communities with extremist and dangerous ideologies to create communities of like-minded individuals through which they can develop justifications to commit deadly acts of violence (Holt, 2007; O’Malley et al., 2020; Witt, 2020).

It is difficult, though, to address these online hate groups and communities and it is becoming increasingly necessary to broaden the scientific understanding of the unique ways that these hate groups, such as the Incels, manifest within digital space. Research into Incels has primarily been focused on the individual, specific characteristics of the Incels themselves.

Again we're presented with the idea that this is a violent, dangerous community with a focus on developing an ideology which would result in physical and social harm, that this is a "hate group". There is no effort to withhold bias in this paper. It has been decided, by the author, that those who participate in it are harmful, that they are violent, and that is what we "must do something about".

In addition, it is suggested that this is a "difficult" problem to solve. This displays a critical lack of understanding of the root causes and, in combination with the previous point regarding bias, is precisely why incels are unwilling to engage with external research. They know they're likely to get used as a stick for researchers and media outlets to further beat them with. It's not "difficult" to talk to these people, again, as Naama Kates does on her podcast (I'm not trying to advertise for her, but it's one of very few outlets I know of where incels can speak freely and from the heart). That is how you achieve communication with incels; by being understanding, by showing them respect, by understanding that they are people with deep traumas and mental health scars caused, largely, by society. You don't engage with them, or with "the problem of incels" by writing academic hit pieces on them, "proving" that they're some kind of domestic terrorist sect. They're just normal men, sick of society treating them like evil, disgusting, untouchable outcasts. You would be too, if you were in their shoes.

The paper goes on to suggest, if I might paraphrase, that incels are a collection of backstabbing, paranoid criminals who, if someone should prove themselves undedicated to the cause, will turn on their own for being some sort of risk to the collective's goals. As I highlighted earlier (which is more than this paper did), there are justifiable self-defence reasons for this, based on past histories of abuse and ridicule. This forum is, to those incels, a safe space. They do not wish to be confronted with those who may brag, or insult, or otherwise exist within that community to (apparently) denigrate its own members. There is clearly much emotional trauma, this should be understood when analysing behaviours. Without this context, the message is simply "there is no honour amongst thieves".

Further, as users share stories of failure and disappointment in engaging with women, their masculinity is increasingly threatened, driving them further into their belief in the Incel worldview (Scaptura and Boyle, 2020).

Yes, because it validates their own experiences of failure and ostracisation. When presented with a personal history of such experiences, and confirming that the behaviours experienced were not unique to your own circumstances, it is (obviously) quite likely that it will reinforce your view that society does not, and will not, offer you or your incel peers (as an underclass of men) any opportunity to better yourself. It confirms that the experiences you had of being ignored, insulted, laughed at for daring to express any romantic or sexual interest, or even the same for platonic friendships, are widespread, endemic in society, that you did not simply happen to grow up around an unfortunate group of unsympathetic people, but instead that it is built in to our society. This seems like an entirely reasonable response when presented with confirmation that a broader structure or cultural attitude is responsible for your failure, which I would suggest is often true.

[–]bottleblank 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This investment in the Incel worldview also works as a positive feedback loop, because as Incels sink deeper and deeper into the Incel narratives, they further isolate themselves from non-Incels and while developing their social connections to other Incels. As a result, Incels increase their reliance on the Incel community as their primary social connection.

This stems from the original state of not having a satisfying social or romantic life. Those who do not suffer from this situation are able to form relationships, to willingly expand their social circle, and to seek satisfaction "in the real world". If you try, repeatedly, but experience failure and active rejection time and time again, your hope for a productive social life diminishes. When faced with what eventually appears to be certain rejection, people will stop trying because it hurts to keep trying and be repeatedly told that you are worthless. A forum such as the one being discussed offers, however problematic it might be, some social connection, which is preferable to none. Is it often counterproductive? Yes. Can it increase feelings of bitterness and spite? Yes. But to those who seek it, it's finally a source of understanding, of validation, of comradeship.

Within their circumstances and social isolation, many of the Incels also indicate some recognition of social inequality. This manifests within Incel discussions with frequent discussions of perceived racial disparities in dating, of the struggles of mental illness, and of the advantages which come with wealth.

Well, god damn, 31 pages in and we've finally encountered a mention of the root cause of the problem. Social disadvantage, poor mental health, developmental disorders, the experience of being a conventionally unattractive person or a person of a minority which is not typically included within the definition of being conventionally attractive. This is what the paper should've been about, not 20 pages of thinly-veiled accusations and almost meaningless textual analysis of word frequency and relationship mapping.

Furthermore, the Incel worldview also latches onto the threats to the patriarchal order presented by Feminism and increased rights afforded to women, providing the community a focus around the strengthening and restoration of patriarchal norms and structures (Bratich and Banet-Weiser, 2019).

Well, that didn't last long. A few lines acknowledging the actual problem, skimmed over quickly, and back to the reasons they're problematic. This is exactly what I think that quoted comment from the paper was about. This paper, this scrambling to "solve the incel problem", this parade of "research" pieces, it's not about solving the problem of lonely men being driven to poor mental health and early death due to loneliness, stress, and social rejection, no, it's about "making women safe" and "shutting down violent terrorists".

This is why incels don't care to talk to people they don't trust about the position they're in, because the response is not "oh, wow, that must be very difficult, I'm so sorry... but hey, there's this social event in town this weekend, would you like to come? perhaps I could introduce you to some people".

Instead the message received is "oh, really? you think you struggle? have you seen how women are disrespected by being constantly validated in their attractiveness? how they have twenty million problems more important than your own, even if some of them demonstrate that they have far more worth than you ever will? worse, you're one of those problems, you socially inept retard! you'd better try harder to make women feel safe, you'd better cater to every whim and fancy they have, because if you don't then you're scum - never mind the fact that people made you what you are, many of whom were women ungraceful in their expressions of your unworthiness of their time or attention, just keep kissing their feet, you deserve nothing more than to be a slave".

So to avoid appearing as a “normie” or “fakecel,” users react to suggestions of physical or sexual violence without challenged. Users will do little to respond to these sort of violent discussions outside perhaps a sarcastic dismissal or claims that users must be “just joking” about the violence.

Yes, because in that context that's often true. Do I agree with the kinds of humour and meme culture they perpetuate? No. But I do understand that because a comedian makes an off-colour joke about a particular group of people or a particular observation, it doesn't necessarily mean that they actually hate or wish to promote or commit violent acts. People make tasteless jokes out of frustration all the time, especially in casual discussion with close friends - and, remember, that's what this forum is. It's not intended to be polite company, it's not intended that you are the audience for the things they say, they're speaking with each other, to each other, in an environment they deem theirs. They set the tone, they know where the boundaries are, they know that most of this isn't serious. They make jokes about suicide, is that problematic too, because you think they're likely to promote or commit suicide? Or is it only a problem when women appear to be the target? Incidentally, I didn't see any mention of "rope" jokes, I guess that wasn't "important".

An aspect of the Incels that was not discussed within this analysis but which was apparent in the development of this research was the emphasis on the sexualization of children, specifically young girls.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Not enough to consider them violent, now they're child molesters too? Fuck me. Are we just replaying the gay panic game from a couple of decades ago now?

There is significant focus on virginity and women’s purity, often in the context of disgust towards women who are not virgins and those who have had multiple sexual partners. The other side of this focus of virginity is the fantasizing and idolization of the virgin woman.

I could tell you why a lot of that happens, but you should've figured it out yourself, given you're a "researcher".

There are two main causes for this:

  • They do not wish to be disrespected, as they see it, by being the nth sexual partner to a woman who has seen fit to have sex with just about every other man before them, because that is perceived as eventually settling for an unattractive man for his resources and financial stability after the woman loses her looks and is no longer able to attract the free and single men she has been used to sleeping with, based purely on attraction and not future prospects, intelligence, or respect

  • They do not wish to engage with women who will see their inexperience a something to be ridiculed and shamed for, therefore (however unlikely) the perceived solution is to sleep with a woman who has not had sex and therefore is at the same level of sexual knowledge as the inexperienced (incel) man, allowing for mutual exploration and tolerance of mistakes not granted by a relationship with a highly experienced woman who they expect to dismiss, insult, or publicly humiliate them for not knowing what they're doing

Could there be some in that community who fantasise about young girls? Yes, of course, in as much as there might be in any community. But I find the accusation, without context and understanding, to be disingenuous. It seems to me as though it's further justification for calling these men evil, violent predators, not content with the idea (or because the suggestion has not been taken seriously) that these men are terrorists, well, now surely we must give more justification for calling them evil, violent predators!

No matter the fact that many of them wouldn't dare touch a woman, or indeed a girl, our of abject fear, anxiety, inexperience, confusion, and not wanting to be seen as a sex pest, despite their externally repressed desires to engage in sex with a willing (and this word is important) woman. People speak about inceldom purely in the context of sex, but as I've highlighted before, this is not just about sex. It is about forming mutual bonds, it is about loving and feeling loved, it is about acceptance and togetherness. This is why prostitution is not a valid solution; the incels know that this is not a relationship based on want or appreciation, it is a transaction, and therefore it does not validate their need to be valued. The same would apply to non-consensual sex. Inceldom is not a rape fantasy, it is a desire to be in a loving, bidirectional, respectful relationship with somebody who (finally) understands, accepts, and admires you - you for who you are, not by coercion, not by financial means, not by having a house, but because they want to show you, specifically, acceptance and intimacy.

[–]bottleblank 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

This thesis demonstrates the importance of understanding the structure and language of the Incels.

No it doesn't. You proved nothing. You learnt nothing. You did not further the state of research, you did not come any closer to working out what the problem actually is, and you certainly did not make any advances towards solving it.

Further research should continue to build upon this knowledge and hopefully provide a path towards the development of effective tools for dealing with the growing danger of the Incel community.

No, it shouldn't, it should strive to investigate the psychological needs of the increasingly lonely and isolated men who feel the need to create these communities in the first place. It should explore the reasons they feel excluded, the reasons they feel trapped, the reasons they develop depressive, anxious, paranoid tendencies. Frankly I would suspect that psychology already has answers for these questions, because I've certainly provided some in my analysis of this paper and I know I can't be the first to think of them, not with decades of research into human behaviours with regard to trauma, abuse, exclusion, and expectations of others' behaviour causing maladaptive responses and coping mechanisms.

If you just gave a damn, just for one moment, you might understand where this is all coming from. But you, and other academics like you, simply don't care. If you did, you'd see that this problem starts somewhere social, and it's certainly not "because some men decided to hate women and formed a community around their shared hatred".

Look at school bullying. Look at dating dynamics. Look at propaganda demonising men. Look at mental health and developmental disorders. Look at class. Look at why these men feel the way they do, their past histories, the things which formed them, their formative experiences, their personalities. Listen to what they actually feel about women, rather than simply take a forum full of dark jokes and aggressive rhetoric at face value when it's likely not meant to be consumed through the lens of an outside observer with little to no understanding of the culture.

The methods use for this analysis can also be implemented in the study of similar online extremist groups or movements.

Oh really? Well then I hope it does a much better job than it did this time. Strikes me as a solution looking for a problem, given how little insight it provided in this paper, with acknowledgements of massive methodological shortcomings sprinkled throughout. It's a bad tool for this job, I suspect the same would be true for other applications of it where the problem is not linguistic, but deeper, social, and much more complex than a string parser can possibly comprehend.

The rest of the paper is an appendix (which doesn't seem to contain anything of great value) and the references section, so I won't bother to analyse those.

In summary, this paper was, indeed, a waste of time. Both for the author to have "researched" and written, and for me to have read and deconstructed its shortcomings.

If you've read through my analysis of this paper, well, thank you, and I apologise for having taken up so much of your time with select quotes from this 39 pages of drivel. We need better. This is not the paper which is going to solve the incel problem - not even if you consider the problem to be that incels are violent, which I do not - because it adds approximately nothing of value to the discussion and provides no useful conclusions or remedies. I suggest actually caring about the issue and what causes it. We might be a little closer to providing an out for incels right now if you had.

[–]Accomplished_Pipe877 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Worth it.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

Would take issue with this as an inaccurate stereotype. There are some who display this attitude, but I don't think it's reasonable - within the very first page, even - to start shaping the reader's takeaway from reading the article by suggesting that these people are innately hateful. It simply reinforces the idea that they're evil criminals bent on being enemies of women, which I don't think is accurate.

The incel.is forum bans women automatically. It’s in their rules and that is explained. That should be telling they set the standard for not being welcoming to women.

The number of violence instances attributed (not necessarily accurately) to incels is single digit, in a "community" of thousands, in a subset of men in society who experience this social and romantic isolation likely measured in millions. That is not indicative of a violence problem, yet the whole first page is dedicated to speaking about how several tragic attacks represent the incel problem.

incels is specifically labeling the violent and hateful kind of men who claim to be so due to social and romantic isolation (even though we all know it’s not the sex and intimacy they are after at this point). you can tell who is an incel by who identifies with it like you can tell who is a PUA by who calls themselves an alpha male. Not every man who is virgin struggling to find a partner is an incel. Since the term incel means a different thing from its original definition. Just like MGTOW is a different thing and MRA is a different thing. This happens with language. You see it on this sub with the term feminist. Which is not accurate the way it’s used here to its real definition.

[–]bottleblank 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The incel.is forum bans women automatically. It’s in their rules and that is explained. That should be telling they set the standard for not being welcoming to women.

That doesn't necessarily mean they hate women, only that their forum is for men. As I explain in one of my later comments, there may be good reasons for this, in terms of self-defensive behaviour and the need to create a safe space for exploring male inceldom.

incels is specifically labeling the violent and hateful kind of men who claim to be so due to social and romantic isolation (even though we all know it’s not the sex and intimacy they are after at this point). you can tell who is an incel by who identifies with it like you can tell who is a PUA by who calls themselves an alpha male. Not every man who is virgin struggling to find a partner is an incel. Since the term incel means a different thing from its original definition. Just like MGTOW is a different thing and MRA is a different thing. This happens with language. You see it on this sub with the term feminist. Which is not accurate the way it’s used here to its real definition.

Some still use the term in its original incarnation, but even if we simply focus on those who use the term in its modern usage, single digits of violent incidents still only represent a miniscule fraction of those who use that term as an identity.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

notice the terms incels use like “foids” which is a term meant to be derogatory to women. Also the whole incel view is skewed from the start. This isn’t shy guys who don’t know how to start dating and initiate sex with a specific woman they like after getting to know her casually, this is people who make it their identity that they have been denied access to women’s bodies they feel entitled to. Sexual activity is another bonding thing humans do for fun like talking. It isn’t this big deal that people make it out to be like even with the use of the term “virgin” when it’s a fairly dumb social construct that’s just harmful at this point (a relic from religious views and a time before birth control and STI treatment/protection).

Incels is like if you had a community of people who don’t know how to make friends but except instead of talking to a therapist/counsellor/social worker to learn social skills for making friends and joining places to practice, they aggregate in an echo chamber (that take note doesn’t allow anyone who got out of the incel loop because the moment someone succeeds they become a fakecel and kicked out) complaining and hating on others because of their inability to make friends.

You should read and analyze Eliot Rodgers manifesto. One can see the tumble to madness but also the logic of how one gets like that.

people don’t self proclaim to be incels and go on incel.is if they are just your average guy getting into the dating scene and wanting to get educated on sexual/reproductive health and healthy relationships. this is in fact a deliberate aggregation of people part of that manosphere.

You should look through archived r/MGTOW (banned now) posts. They became close to incel forums, using a lot of the similar terms and ideas. I have been on both. It’s like KiwiFarms (now scrubbed from the internet for how harmful it was). This wasn’t you average forum to discuss stuff for fun. This was hate and alt-right extremism breeding.

[–]bottleblank 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I'm starting to get the impression you posted this paper because it agreed with you, not because you thought it was a productive discussion point which would actually solve the problem at its root, or worth discussing to improve the academic discourse around the issue.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Solving the problem is not even what this masters student was doing. They just explained incels.is . Which is one part of working towards a solution. Solving would require you to go get a PhD probably in sociology of psychology building on top of this.

I am giving rebuttals to the points you wrote based on my understanding of the paper and experience from trying to understand this domain myself. Do rebuttal me too.

I analyzed Eliot Rodgers manifesto and have for several years been inside these communities to pick up patterns more organically rather than how here it was a software (like I could craft posts on r/MGTOW where people would agree with me like it’s the next prophecy and got access to the incels.co it was called a while back), I don’t know everything about it but I do like a discussion on it from people who understand the topic well.

I also analyzed stuff like BPD, ASD, limerence to see how these traits can play into inceldom. and a real life police report of and event where a men goes from normal to on the brink of such beliefs.

[–]IceCorrect 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If they are so dangerous there should be dozens of Eliot Rodgers, especialy if there are so many incels in those forums

[–]gamerlololdude[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

There are several notable people not just Eliot, dozen is a fair number, but those are just those that got caught and committed crimes. People who read this garbage get a warped view on women that can contribute to micro agressions

Take note that the incel forum is primarily a US thing but the incel mindsets exist in other cultures. There is a huge issue in India with men throwing acid on women’s faces who reject them. That is an example of violence from an incel mindset. Way more than dozens.

the r/MGTOW wasn’t as bad as the incel forums and you could still see the extremism brewing.

[–]bottleblank 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Some have been misattributed to incel communities.

The Minassian case:

Nevertheless, I am inclined to accept the assessment of all of the experts that [Minassian] did lie to the police about much of the incel motivation he talked about and that the incel movement was not in fact a primary driving force behind the attack. I note as well that [Minassian]’s father commented that when his son was talking to Det. Thomas, he was using the tone of voice and demeanour that he would use when doing a presentation, as if he was acting a part. (Justice Molloy, during the verdict of the case)

The Davison case:

Widely reported as "incel terrorism" when it seems to have been neither of those things. He did not identify as an incel and, in fact, was seen to express anti-incel beliefs. Further, the police did not consider it a terror attack, regardless of whether or not he was/was not an incel or a representative of their community.

These two "incel" incidents (which do not seem to be incel incidents) account for 16 deaths. That accounts for over 25% of the approximately 60 deaths attributed to incel killings, rather calling into question exactly how many of these deaths, how many of these incidents, actually have anything to do with incels as a community.

Take note that the incel forum is primarily a US thing but the incel mindsets exist in other cultures. There is a huge issue in India with men throwing acid on women’s faces who reject them. That is an example of violence from an incel mindset.

That's not incel behaviour, at least not as we recognise it here in the western world. Incels don't do that sort of thing, they barely approach women at all, let alone ask them out, so there's very little chance of a retribution attack happening in the event of a rejection. They already know they're going to be rejected, so they simply no longer try.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

lol if western world is the only thing allowed to use the term “incel” we won’t go far I understanding dynamic considering incel ideology is prevalent in other cultures despite not having the same word. Just like the gender identity spectrum exists in various cultures even if say non-binary is not exactly the same as two-spirit.

I’m afraid that is a generalization of incels. Take note that with the form it is explained that there are the inner and outer community. maybe inner gave up. But that wouldn’t be indicative of everyone considering the definition (explained on the forum and in the paper) is that an incel is someone who tried to get romantic relationships with no success. Like the popular post that was explained in the essay was about asking out 1000 girls. So there seems to be traction of people trying.

Also incel is not just people part of the incels.is forum

[–]bottleblank 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Explaining a forum does not an academic paper make. (Edit: Also you posted it with the title "essay analyzing incels", which... it wasn't, by your own admission.)

Even if it did, they spent most of the time talking crap about pointless linguistic analysis which ultimately explained nothing, and the rest of the time talking about how hateful and disgusting incels are, as though that's just a default part of an academic paper discussing the issue.

I don't think that's a very useful paper to write and I don't think it did a very good job of that anyway, whether that's a useful thing to do or not. I think it did a poor job at analysing the text, I think it failed to show anything useful in the analysis of the social structure and topics of discussion, I think it failed to convey anything of any useful value for any other academic to use to start looking at solving the issue. It was a paper for the sake of a paper - I'm only a BSc, but I would've expected myself to do better even for BSc, never mind MSc. Or MA, in the case of the author.

In fact it's likely to have contributed to the problem by producing yet more literature that can now be referenced "proving" how incels are all just naturally evil criminals, reinforcing that same narrative it drew from in its opening, and perpetuating distrust in incels by showing that academics couldn't give a baby rabbit shit about what's actually going on.

Solving would require you to go get a PhD probably in sociology of psychology building on top of this.

Outright solving it will be a long term collective effort, if it happens at all, but I would hope for better in the literature than this. I could contribute more to the subject than this paper did, and I'm absolutely 100% unqualified in psychology.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Then do it. Contribute to it. I would love to read your essay on it.

[–]bottleblank 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not my field and, as I'm not in that academic space any more, I don't know if I would have the time and energy to dedicate to it. That doesn't mean I'm not tempted, however.

In the meantime, I suggest checking out Naama Kates (journalist), who gives incels an opportunity to speak freely and fairly, and William Costello (Evo-Psych Ph.D student) who is one of the more aware of academics when it comes to what's really going on here.

I don't always fully agree with Costello (or Kates, for that matter, but I hold Costello to a higher standard as an academic), but I think he speaks well and shows willingness and enthusiasm to engage properly with the subject, not just follow lazy, toxic stereotypes and paint troubled and left-out men with the same broad brush most others seem to.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Maybe contact the author directly to have a debate. I could give you their Reddit account. But maybe formally is better search their name or maybe on the website through the university they can put you in contact.

Probably better for you to arrange your ideas into some document so that it is a productive discussion instead of how it’s been going here with “this isn’t useful” “all bad”

um evolutionary psychology is not a reputable field. It is closer to is-so stories. They tend to have heteronormative and cisnormative explanations so that already isn’t accurate to how humans work.

[–]bottleblank1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Probably better for you to arrange your ideas into some document so that it is a productive discussion instead of how it’s been going here with “this isn’t useful” “all bad”

This is Reddit, naturally I would be much more formal when writing a paper.

um evolutionary psychology is not a reputable field. It is closer to is-so stories. They tend to have heteronormative and cisnormative explanations so that already isn’t accurate to how humans work.

But this guy who wrote the paper, a social scientist, is more reputable somehow?

We'll just disregard entire fields as having nothing useful to contribute because we don't like them, shall we?

Listen. That's the solution - or at least the start of the solution - to this problem. You don't rate Evo-Psych, that's fine, but you don't have to believe every word of Evo-Psych to appreciate what Costello has to say on this issue. Most of what he discusses tends not to be "pilled" distortions of his field's research, but instead just sensible psychosocial analysis of the real world circumstances of incels.

[–]gamerlololdude0 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not that we don’t like them. They just have a history of being problematic in terms of what “knowledge” they contribute like racist and sexist and homophobic and transphobic like read this stupidity https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2015/10/Buss-2002-human-mating-strategies.pdf

[–]mimmimmim 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

incels is specifically labeling the violent and hateful kind of men who claim to be so due to social and romantic isolation

So they're all violent? How could you possibly know that?

(even though we all know it’s not the sex and intimacy they are after at this point).

How could you ever falsify this? This claim is arbitrary.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You should get access to the forum and analyze it. But also in the essay it is mentioned that they normalize violence. People encourage or think its a joke when hateful, aggressive, violent messages are prompted.

lol if you study human sexuality it will become clear that simply allowing these men to slide their dick in pussy is not the solution to removing misogynistic views. they need emotional support which they could argue is under intimacy but a partner is not a therapist and proper emotional support can be gotten from social workers. these people aren’t ready for healthy relationships with the views they hold. they have a warped understanding of human bonding and sexual activity is on the spectrum of human bonding.

[–]mimmimmim 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

You should get access to the forum and analyze it.

I am, unfortunately, familiar with incel.is if I'm remembering correctly the forum being discussed here.

But also in the essay it is mentioned that they normalize violence. People encourage or think its a joke when hateful, aggressive, violent messages are prompted.

There is a massive difference between being violent and... checks notes Joking about violence on an online forum. I do not agree that "normalizing violence" like this is a real problem, the way violent video games or TV shows don't lead people to violence.

lol if you study human sexuality it will become clear that simply allowing these men to slide their dick in pussy is not the solution to removing misogynistic views.

Your claim was:

(even though we all know it’s not the sex and intimacy they are after at this point).

Which this doesn't follow up in the slightest.

these people aren’t ready for healthy relationships with the views they hold. they have a warped understanding of human bonding and sexual activity is on the spectrum of human bonding

Your personal views of what they need have nothing to do with what they want. I wouldn't even disagree that they would do better with therapy than having sex, but that's irrelevant to what you said earlier.

Not only that but having genuine relationships (including SOs, friends, .etc) that are not therapists is also important. A therapist cannot replace an entire social or romantic life.

[–]bottleblank 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Not only that but having genuine relationships (including SOs, friends, .etc) that are not therapists is also important. A therapist cannot replace an entire social or romantic life.

This is an incredibly important point to note. The core problem at the centre of inceldom is lack of social success - loneliness, social ostracisation, inexperience, and sometimes eventual bitterness and/or depression and anxiety from constant rejection (explicit or implicit).

I think it's quite obvious that if you grow up surrounded by people who show you and tell you that you're worthless, that nobody likes you, that you are fundamentally disgusting as a person, you're going to develop coping and protection mechanisms from further hurt.

You might hide yourself away, you might develop an aggressive personality, you might take to disliking large portions of society - not unreasonably - because your past experience has told you that they consider you to be an outsider, an enemy, a problem, and so logically if you are their enemy then they are yours, given an environment of competition and social friction.

If you cannot find people willing to give you a chance, willing to invest in you, willing to help build you up as you would want to do for them, you have no mental buffer zone to protect you from more hurt, nobody to tell you that those who try to hurt you are wrong, nobody to reassure you that you are a worthwhile human being.

Likewise, if you have had no romantic or sexual success, you have no experience of being told that you are attractive, only experience of being told (and therefore developing a strong belief) that you are repulsive, and so you will learn to cope with that on your own. This obviously doesn't work for most incels, certainly most self-identified incels, given that "coping" might result in lashing out on forums, trying to come up with theories as to why they're so unattractive, and thinking that the world is horribly unjust, emotionally violent, and hyper-competitive in a way which excludes them from it.

That's why part of the solution to this is to actually start giving a damn amount men's mental health. To understand it, to work with it, to try to fill the gaps that are unfilled by the social and intimate relationships they need but lack access to. Not by assigning women to them like slaves, but by giving their minds the right kinds of signals to believe that they can be loved, appreciated, understood, and valued, so that they have a better platform from which to attempt a relaunch.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

yes and this is exactly what I am saying with what they need is emotional support which is something a social worker can provide. this is in the domain of mental health.

[–]bottleblank 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But you seem keen to perpetuate the idea that they are villainous scum, describing how dangerous and violent they "obviously" are?

How do you think seeing that kind of rhetoric might affect their mental health?

[–]gamerlololdude[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Where do I say this? This isn’t my essay btw.

There is violence attributed to incel ideology. That is well known.

[–]bottleblank 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There is violence attributed to ethnic minority communities too. We treat them, or are encouraged to treat them, as problematic individuals, rather than generalising thousands, millions of people according to the actions of a few. This is frequently failed to be applied to incels.

Where do I say this?

It's littered throughout your comments, implicitly and explicitly. Here, for example:

incels is specifically labeling the violent and hateful kind of men who claim to be so due to social and romantic isolation

[–]gamerlololdude1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That is in fact the way the term is used. It is important to give a definition.

Like reddit seems to not know what pedophile means for example. They think it’s a person that committed sexual assault.

Words have definitions so I am clarifying the way the term incel is used in academia like this paper.

Being an ethnic minority is an unchanging aspect of a person. They can’t chose to be ethnic minority or not. But people can chose to be incels or not and it is based on ideology so beliefs.

If we are debating why black people commit crimes vs Nazis commit crimes there is a difference between analyzing what is an outcome noted based on a person’s identity versus which kinds of beliefs lead to violence.

Being a Nazi like an incel is a group of beliefs that then lead to violence. Having black skin is not directly related to causing violence.

[–]IceCorrect2 points 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So for you incels are nazis. So your idea to "help" them is to insult, mock and just tell them to "men up". You you would have hands clean beacuse you advice them to seek therapy.

Based on all your responses you dont care about them, you dont treat them even as human, they are problem for you only beacuse small percentil could harm women and probably best outcome for them will be chemical castration or just ending themself. You are one of reason those people doenst seek help

[–]gamerlololdude1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No I did not say incels are Nazis.

I am giving you a comparison of where a problem is claimed to come from an identity (like being black) vs a world view (like being an incel).

Being black is an unchangeable attribute of a human. Being an incel is not.

I don’t even understand where you are getting from that I tell them to man up, or insult them or mock them.

Point to me where exactly are the words I wrote that make you conclude this is what is happening. It is like we are talking different languages here or something.

Where has anyone said chemical castration. That isn’t even remotely useful for this situation. Where does it say for them to kill themselves.

Such random arguments you are pulling out of thin air

[–]IceCorrect1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just like its not black guy from the hood fault he doenst have good role models who would help him as teenager the same come for incels. Imagine being akward and looking for help and all advice you hear from women is dont be creep (with no real definition) or that its not their job to do anything and insult them even more. Then comes you that call them nazis, then ask yourself how this guy can seek help if most of people see him as biggest threat and best part is when he compare himself to bad boys women fall in love and how suddenly he is even worst than them - his mind just blow away.

Tell me how social workers would help those men? Especialy when most of them are feminist with views like you on them

[–]gamerlololdude[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

read the case study and write down what the male cadet voices and demonstrates he wants

then break apart those ideas into categories of human needs as explained here: https://docdro.id/06gEBZs

this will give you an idea of what the male cadet actually needs which may not be apparent from wants.

it isn't like what he wants is the first human on earth. his wants are rooted in pretty basic needs. except that in order to fulfil them we need to better understand where they are coming from.

[–]gamerlololdude[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the joking and normalizing acts as encouragement. The essay explains how to is often to see stuff like “someone should do this”. And then eventually people do.

They want something that doesn’t exist that is the problem. Which can be best translated into analyzing what they actually need which would in turn cover their want.

Analyze this case study from the male’s perspective https://www.mpcc-cppm.gc.ca/documents/public-interest-investigations-and-hearings-enquetes-et-audiences-dinteret-public/registrar-investigation-enquete-de-la-greffiere/pii-eip-2020-013-final-report-rapport-final-eng.pdf?fbclid=IwAR088DiMnRYDbZKCVGFFOsUOvjtnOBgTJiAoQOk31g6LJoHwFAVjUxd2DBI#page129

Document what he claims to want and then analyze what he actually needs. This is psychology at play. Notice how what he wants is a fantasy idea and even if he were to get it it wouldn’t fulfil him. So there is something else he needs.

For incels a therapist can help them get to the point of having a social circle. the people on the forum that genuinely believe incel ideology can’t jump from not believing that garbage all of a sudden.

Some people are fine using social workers and helplines and peer support workers with formal friends for emotional support. Not everyone needs a romantic relationship. Friendship varies like doing stuff for fun with people vs talking about feelings but talking about feelings can be best done with a social worker because they would actually know how to be productive about them

[–]AndyBrown65 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi supervisor was female and the opening paragraph is all about Intel shooters, so I think the bias was going to show up early

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter