I can totally see why some guys become radicalized when a good portion of society DGAF.
There are lots of pressures on people to conform in one way or another to goals and ideals that are largely unachievable - none of them are an excuse for driving cars into crowds.
From the limited interactions I've seen online most incels don't realise they aren't unattractive physically but by nature of their personality which causes a vicious feedback loop.
When I was younger I didn't have a huge amount of success with women (I was by nature shy and introverted, still am to an extent) but I realised early that was my issue and no-one elses, things improved as I matured and became more confident in who and what I am but had they not I'd still have been happy enough - I was for years after all.
Some people are going to be without a partner for life, despite their desire for one. Maybe they are profoundly ugly, or not very smart, just kind of a boring (or annoying) personality, or a mix of the above... It's not always going to be an issue that they can fix. And as a result, they feel unloved and alone, sometimes worthless. It seems pretty obvious to me why society should care about this in more than just the supremely selfish "how does this hurt me" way.
I'm all for sympathy and understanding. But what kind of sympathy can regular people give without falling into the logic that everyone is entitled to a partner? How should we prevent that sympathy from turning into pity, which feeds the narrative that there is necessarily something wrong with not having a partner?
As a society we are able to do various things that go beyond sympathy for a wide range of individual misfortunes - we can assist the poor (throgh welfare programs and charity), and we can anonymize university applications and make buildings and media accessible to those with physical problems. I think part of why incels don't get much sympathy is because there's nothing society can do about that problem to help any particular individual. It can also be hard to empathise with; everyone has been single at some point, and on the whole, most peoples' experiences dictate that it's probably not as bad as being poor or disabled.
In my experience, it's not remotely close, been poor is far worse than been single.
Yeah but has everyone been single _all of the time_? Your reasoning reminds me of the "suck it up, we all have been bummed out before" mentality toward depressed people.
> most peoples' experiences dictate that it's probably not as bad as being poor or disabled.
Empathy isn't soap, it won't be spent. You can feel empathy for the poor, the disabled, _and_ the chronically alone.
Ah, let's just go ahead and "dismantle" one of the most basic psychological needs, that's a great solution.
>Ah, let's just go ahead and "dismantle" one of the most basic psychological needs, that's a great solution.
Sex itself may be a basic psychological and physiological need (for most people, not for everyone,) but "the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners" is not. The latter is entirely a cultural and social construct.
Why would you literally quote one fragment of one sentence from claudiawerner's comment just to misconstrue it entirely in rebuttal?
I was referring to companionship rather than sex.
> "the idea that one's worth is determined by having sexual partners" is not. The latter is entirely a cultural and social construct
I think claudiawerner is making an extremely uncharitable assumption in the first place that the primary complaint is about ego rather than loneliness.
But, even granting that point: it does not seem, to me, like a "cultural and social construct" that one's self-esteem would be affected by this type of loneliness. I find that claim self-evidently absurd, to be honest.
> Why would you literally quote one fragment of one sentence from claudiawerner's comment
Because that's the point that I wanted to reply to.
> just to misconstrue it entirely in rebuttal?
I think you are the one misconstruing my argument.
That wasn't my assumption at all. Ego is irrelevant to feelings of self-worth, which is a basic psychological need, as is togetherness. It's not self-serving the ego to want to feel like one has some worth. My point was only that the idea of a man's worth being in the number of sexual partners he has had is harmful to men overall, and places undue pressure and causes doubts about self-worth.
I think you’re equivocating between two extremely different things. I would actually agree it’s not necessary or good for men to derive any self-worth from the difference between, say, 5 or 15. But it’s probably unavoidable for men to derive some degree of self-worth or self-esteem from the difference between zero and non-zero, which is the situation under discussion.
I don't see why that's unavoidable. Humans have shown tremendous development in overcoming their (what was assumed to be insurmountable) biology and associated reponses, and of course the cultural factors which influence responses through upbringing. Perhaps we should feel empathy for those people, but I think it's a mistake to think it is immutable. Most Buddhist monks, for example, do not consider being or not being a virgin, much less having an active partner recently, to be worth of much status.
I think it is a leap to assume sympathy would escalate to entitlement. As deeply social species, it is in everyone to need love, both receiving and giving it, to have intimacy. Entitlement is a value judgment that should not be relevant to have empathy for this; when people's deep needs are unmet permanently, they hurt, and in turn that hurt can turn back to society. (Not talking about anything extremist just to be clear, I mean it clearly shows in our mundane daily lives if the people we interact are healthy, content, loved people vs not.)
I agree that having a romantic partner is often touted as an absolute normativity, and people often make the mistake that a romantic partner can fulfill all of their affiliative needs, but I think it is an artifact of our hyper-individualistic settings where there is rarely an alternative, rather than mere entitlement.
And assuming therapists can contain and heal this "hurt-payload" of the entire society is naive IMHO. There is a better, peer-to-peer topology that scales and to me it is best expressed in words "Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another" (I am not even Christian and not trying to invoke religion here, just really like how this particular expression captures the idea). This agapic love (as opposed to consumptive, erotic love) might be the cure. To answer your question, I think the best we can do is "We are sorry you are hurting in loneliness, while we hope you find love in whatever form you need, don't forget we also love you in our own, fellow human way, why don't you come over for board games and dinner because we enjoy your company?"
In general, this is less true than it often seems. It won't be possible to reach every individual, but I can think of some things that would help a lot of individuals who find themselves excluded.
For example, sociologists (or even just friends) identifying traits that lead to exclusion, and then others developing and incorporating antidotes to those traits in media and relationships.
If it's people being unfit, find ways to make fitness more culturally appealing to more people (disassociating fitness with "jockness" would be one way to help e.g. nerds want to be more fit). If it's smell, find a way to make soaps or dietary changes or microbiome therapies or whatever more available and appealing.
If it's specific behaviors, find ways to show those behaviors and non-pejoratively show narratives in popular shows of people freeing themselves from those unappealing behaviors.
If there's some missing adaptation to society's norms and unspoken means of communication due to being excluded at very a young age, maybe someone can create a LARP that teaches those. If it's just being in the wrong place, make it easier for people to move and reinvent themselves in a new place with a culture that fits them better.
I was however attracted to her because she filled her profile in properly describing her outlook and the things she found interesting and it was grammatically correct (somewhat ironically given she is Hungarian and English is her third language).
What I find most interesting about this reaction is that it often comes from people who wholeheartedly believe in kindness, compassion, and empathy. In almost every other context.
Yet for these people, they're told that their feelings don't matter while everyone else's does. No wonder they sometimes react poorly. Perhaps if we want to avert their radicalization, we could consider the possibility of treating them with the same sensitivity we readily offer others when they express subjective pain and suffering.
Equality of outcome for all animals, but some animals are more equal than others.
I'm very ugly, I'm very single. I don't expect anyone to do anything about it for me. You just have to get on with life and make the best of it. Be a nice person and try to enjoy yourself.
If the worst thing you have to deal with in life is having a sub-optimal face then you're probably pretty luck! Act like it.
As you say, there often isn't anything obviously actionable. It's just that in some cases, for some people, going from nothing actionable to dismissive can be a good way to convince them to find people who at least offer a hint of empathy.
Again, you're completely right. There's absolutely nothing anyone can do for them. Except, I think it might be the case that listening with sincerity might be an option.
This carries the implication that some people are just losers in life, so their happiness and welfare should be dismissed as unimportant. This isn't a popular idea in modern Western society, but it's perfectly valid and I would much rather resolve this cultural hypocrisy the other way around.
We should care because one of the most basic needs is not met for these people. They also don't get much sympathy or help.
But more importantly, basic needs of those who would actually end up in these partnerships - many of those guys throw so many red flags and are so clueless about human communication/relationships, that I just dont see potential for healthy relationship.
I am not saying that is reason for lack of partners, there are plenty on dysfunctional relationships out there. But that the prognosis is another hellish relationship.
It's like long-term bullying at school. Ninety-nine percent of the time, the "worst" that happens is that someone is broken and their self-esteem is permanently damaged and everyone else moves on with their lives. But then there is that one percent (or whatever fraction you choose) who snaps and you get some serious carnage out of it.
And nobody cared until the lowest-ranked monkey killed a few other monkeys. Then, suddenly, caring.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/31/radicalizing-the-roman...
The answer is: not a single one. Literally all of them, if your read their stories in detail, have history of serious mental health and behavioral issues, have history of violence. The have either history of inability to communicate with anyone (as in avoiding people and not talking - and not because they were bullied) or history of mistreating people who try.
The nice bullied lonely guy suddenly snapping into carnage is a myth. It does not happen. The nice bullied lonely guy may end up with ptsd and low self esteem and issues, but they don't end up suddenly killing bunch of people.
It's not a myth.
Certainly but why the generalization? You could not say "none of them are an excuse for bombing people" when talking about discrimination against muslims or would you?
> but I realised early that was my issue and no-one elses
They issue arises when people are bullied or considered inferior for that.
It's not really a problem society can solve for them. Plenty of people have shitty lives, either they can't find a partner because they had the misfortune to be born ugly or maybe they were born with some awful disability, maybe they live in constant physical pain... Most of these people don't become angry bitter sociopaths.
What would you expect society to do for them? Is it just sympathy they want?
Within every Incel is someone who's life has gone down a dark path. I bet a lot of them are doing it just to belong - having no friends hurts a lot more when you're young, schoolchildren can be really horrible to eachother.
Or maybe men don’t have a need to be as emotional as women? After all, you could easily justify committing suicide as a rational solution to “my life is shit and will never get better”.
The fact that women attempt more suicides (plea for help / attention => emotional) whereas men commit more suicides (they’re actually serious in their assessment that living is pointless) also suggests this. Happy to hear opposing arguments / data.
Why should it give a fuck if instead of hungry for love, they're just hungry. Or sick. Or anything other than fine, really.
> Most of these people don't become angry bitter sociopaths.
Citation needed. The amount of angry bitter sociopaths ranting about all kinds of things suggests that many are.
> What would you expect society to do for them?
The same society would do for any health issue, be it mental of physical. Help fix it, not belittle, mock and ostracize.
I believe that the issue lies in a) not feeling desired and b) the way to deal with that. There are people who share their fate but suffer far less. I'm sure it's not enough to drop some self-help blurp and "wow, why didn't I think of that", but I believe that therapy can help. I have no idea what kind of therapy is most effective though. But I'm sure even just handing out pamphlets will be much more effective than mocking and dehumanizing them and asking for their removal from society.