Why incels take the "Blackpill"–and why we should care
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Modern dating is mostly based on how someone looks, in those short milliseconds before they decide to swipe left, or right. I think that recognizing when you may not be what women want, and that attempts in modern dating have and will continue to fail, why not just back away instead of continuing to put yourself through that?
I have a male friend under 170cm like that and a woman friend who uses Badoo just because it has a minimum height filter that she sets to 190cm.
My girlfriend also has minimum height that she selected for.
It's just a nature of life.
I just think people have the same right to not work their ass off if they don't see the ROI just like other people have the right to set the minimum height.
It is also very clearly a subculture as well as a political movement.
It's important to understand the life circumstances and propaganda that pushes young men to identifying at incels.
Western countries are going to reap what they are sowing.
Feel free to copy and paste this question into your LLM of choice:
"What has happened throughout history to countries with lots of young men who don't have work or money?"
So what happened? Well a 8 inch vibrator is going to satisfy better than any man ever can. With none of the above risks.
Which then creates a group of men who dont get sex.
"Incel" is now widely used as a negative-connotation catch-all term for young loner men almost with the implication that they chose this life for themselves rather than being denied opportunities by society.
The truth is everyone can get laid, and it's not very hard at all. But the pre-requisite is liking the people who you want to sleep with, which is hard when you hate women.
They need to get off the manosohere and actually engage with women like fellow human beings, not prize catches in a mating game.
Maybe they just want attention or they're just lonely, which is a very real epidemic. Lots could be said about the state of society, such as lack of the "third space", loneliness capitalism, declining birth rates and more. But people will always get to choose their romantic partners, else it's rape because it is non-consensual. Forming groups over rapey entitled whining is not something that should be "cared about" but treated as harmful and dangerous.
There is nothing wrong with not having a romantic partner. and frankly, people need to get along with themselves first before all that. It's very sad that they don't realize there is so much more to life beyond sex and romance.
But in the end, society owes individuals nothing when it comes to finding romantic partners. it would benefit society if more people paired up, it's healthier for everyone involved and for society at large. But the strict social law that must be upheld is that individuals either adapt to the preferences of their desired romantic partners or to living a celibate life and all the consequences that come with that. There is no third option that is valid. They're not involuntary celibates, they are voluntarily maladapted.
A lot of these people don't see potential romantic partners as people, simple humans like themselves, but as boxes to check or a trophy to win in a game. Whatever the cause or reason is, they feel like if they play by the rules of a certain game, then they are entitled to a romantic partner as a reward.
My main point being, society/"we" must take a strong stance against this nonsense and say that we really don't care about people who refuse to get help and are holding hostile and harmful beliefs. They can accept that the world owes them nothing in this regard, they can seek help to arrive at that same conclusion or be treated as dangerous elements of society who should expect hostility not "care" or attention.
I don’t see how this article is suggesting that.
> we really don't care about people who refuse to get help and are holding hostile and harmful
Blackpills aren’t hostile or harmful.
By the way, if a phenomenon is large enough not to be called off as an individual’s quirk, I think society SHOULD care. Something is possibly wrong. And this has large impact on society itself.
If their reasoning boils down to "society owes me something, but since I can't get what I am owed, I will do ______" then I disagree.
> By the way, if a phenomenon is large enough not to be called off as an individual’s quirk, I think society SHOULD care. Something is possibly wrong. And this has large impact on society itself.
Something is always serious wrong with society, because it comprises of humans. 100 years ago 60%+ of humans in this same society couldn't vote or open up bank accounts. Marital rape was legal. Women's role in society changed because of advancements in medicine , transportation and technology in general. These guys don't want to accept that reality. And I agree with what you said, it is a problem, society shouldn't care about them or this problem, no more than it should with other criminally inclined groups. Gangs are a problem, no one is saying we should care about gangsters, law abiding citizens agree hostility against gangs is a good things. that's how I suggest they be treated.
To be clear, I have no hostility against being celibate. the problem is when they add "involuntary" to it, as if they are being coerced. Our default setting is celibate, you have to work to change that condition. Imagine saying I'm "Involuntary non-billionaire" or something like that. That term suggest an implied entitlement, that's why they should be treated with hostility. Plenty of people live their entire lives celibate with devolving into this state.
There's also the practice of having parents/congregation decide on marriage partner. I wonder if some of the would-be incels have traditionally been masked by that. Society (or rather, the economy) has strong reasons to make children happen; stronger than I think you make it out to be. It will find a new way to do match making.
I'm no psychoanalyst, but I suspect how children are raised in their developmental years (<13yo) is the bedrock that is causing adults like this. If a person doesn't learn to have healthy platonic relations with the opposite sex in those years, it leads to complications and problems in personality like this.
A lot of people were raised to have societal expectation from a time society was vastly different or they were raised by families that are holding on to those historical times. But modern society no longer requires Women to play their historical role, men simply need to adapt to this reality.
I for one am happy for Women, as one would be for their sisters or mothers being liberated and empowered. A person who finds their romantic success to be a higher importance than other people's ability to live a more fair and just life to be sociopathic.
That said, society does have it's own issues in that every aspect of it penalizes not having friends, family or romantic partners. Even if someone adapts to celibacy, society won't let them be. But then again, society has a lot of issues that are more important.
This also applies in other matters like race relations for example. People whom historically have been afforded better opportunities suffer when people from all races are treated fairly. That is what justice looks like. Not having an unfair and unjust entitlement does not translate to suffering from a systemic issue. Accepting just and fair outcomes and adapting to a current reality is a healthy way of adapting.
The reason I feel strongly about this is because historically, when groups of people have a social complaint and they feel wronged and their entitlements taken away from them, they tend to turn to violence or some other social harm. They end up implementing injustice at mass scale. For example, regardless of your views on the topic, abortion laws in America today are designed to degrade liberties of women (regardless of anyone's intent). Fairness and equality to all members of society is not a systemic issue that needs correction. Failing to obtain a romantic partner of interest is not an unfair situation, for men or for women alike.
If you say yes, think about what expectations for men there are and whether those constitute a systemic issue. Hint: https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleDatingStrategy/comments/ma8h0...
The best thing you can do is actually listen to the things the boys and men say about why they are depressed, feel disadvantaged, etc. instead of just dismissing them and saying they just have to learn how to deal with it. There really is quite a lot of truth in there to be found.
> The best thing you can do is actually listen to the things the boys and men say about why they are depressed, feel disadvantaged, etc. instead of just dismissing them and saying they just have to learn how to deal with it. There really is quite a lot of truth in there to be found.
No, that is not the best I can do. the best i can do is refer them to someone equipped to help people like a psychologist, pastor, priest or their own parents even. I did not dismiss their struggle or situation, I am dismissive of their blaming of society or women for their situation. We all have our struggles, blaming others unfairly should not be tolerated. They are hostile and dismissive towards the fact that people get to make choices over their own bodies. The moment they start holding other people or society responsible, then I consider them hostile and anti-social elements instead of humans worthy of care and compassion. So long as they accept other people's rights to make choices that affect them, then their struggles are worthy of societal care and empathy from others.
Sorry, no one gets to undermine other people's rights and liberties and then ask for compassion or understanding.
Nope. You can't say "designed" and say "regardless of intent". Pick one. Either they were designed (and therefore done with intent), or not done with intent (and therefore not designed).
Perhaps you meant "have the effect" instead of "designed"?
If that's your only idea... How about an orientation and self-care program instead?
Would US voters have reveled in invading Iraq on flimsy premises if their own kids were at risk?
Also, armed services can participate in humanitarian missions along with the military training. Right now, there is no country. Everyone is doing their own thing, perfectly content letting the lower classes do the dirty work.
If I understood the article, many of these people were bullied in when young. So you suggest they join the military to get more bullying ? Granted, I do not know what basic training these days is like, 40 or so years ago, depending on the service, it could have been brutal.
Yes, the draft was ended but there were many reasons for that to have occurred. Some conservatives have wanted to being it back, but they never followed through because even they know there are/were many selection issues.
For example: gay vs non-gay, draft women. These two items alone could cause tons of law suits. Never mind the fact kids of the rich had ways of avoiding getting selected.
With all that said, I have seen military service help many kids, plus I knew a few who it really made this situation much worse. So like everything else "it depends".