5 ms·

Why incels take the "Blackpill"–and why we should care

25 points by nreece 1y ago

anovikov 1y ago
There was a good channel to make use of those young men in the society: Army conscription, back in the good old days. Then selfish boomers took it, along with many other good things, away, because they didn't want to fight in Viet Nam. Now these people will have nothing better to do than 'lie down and rot'.
- Flemlo 1y ago
  I was quite happy when I was not forced into military and the generator after me was no longer forced (Germany). If that's your only idea... How about an orientation and self-care program instead?
  - anovikov 1y ago
    Well, this is a point where two problems meet: the need to beef up armed forces (especially in Germany! that faces Russian threat and completely unreliable allies), and a generation of young men with nothing to do.
    - unsnap_biceps 1y ago
      The article talks about them choosing not to do anything, so it's unclear to me why you believe forcing them into a role would result in any sort of positive outcome?
      - anovikov 1y ago
        Because most of the time, most of the people do good things only when they are forced to.
- notepad0x90 1y ago
  You solution is to give socially failing and disgruntled young men who're mad at the world, professional military training and weapons?
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    What better way to incentivize young people to care about elections? 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.
    - notepad0x90 1y ago
      Don't get me wrong, I support mandatory military service, but for everyone. not just whiny people who call themselves "incels". It will solve many critical social issues we have in the US.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        Yes, I guess I inferred a universal mandate.
  - anovikov 1y ago
    After going through military service, they will be a lot less failing and a lot less disgruntled. Plus, they could be kept there for a very long time and when the military is very large, very experienced due to long service years, and is comprised of people with no positive life experiences and no positive expectations of civilian life - so after a short initial adaptation period, no longer longing to return to it - it can be used to do many beneficial things, such as building actual empires, squashing authoritarians worldwide, building contiguous, continent-wide spaces free for borderless trade and investment.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    That's what we did for all of human history. We kind of just kill men, their lives aren't very important in the grand scheme of society. The best thing a lot of men can do is die for some cause.
- jmclnx 1y ago
  You should watch Full Metal Jacket :) 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".
  - anovikov 1y ago
    Mandatory military service is like monarchy, or democracy for that matter: good thing to keep, super easy to lose, next to impossible to get back once you lost it.
hd4 1y ago
something in me hopes people here will question the fundamental hypocrisy in the derisive term "involuntary celibate"
- jdlshore 1y ago
  It’s a name the community chose for itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
  - hd4 1y ago
    Given this is a sociological phenomenon, it makes more sense to give them a more scientific designation even though some of their members may have called themselves in an ironic sense. "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.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      They didn't necessarily choose the life, but there's a lot of overlap between alt-right propaganda and the red-pill incel sphere. A lot of these young men are set up for failure, but then are propagandized to blame their failure on everything external, particularly women and minorities. 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.
- unsnap_biceps 1y ago
  While I understand the term fits as "derisive", I'm not understanding why you think it's a hypocritical term. It seems pretty clear that "involuntary" is correct, and a definition for celibate is "having or involving no sexual relations", so that seems to fit as well.
  - hd4 1y ago
    Precisely because it's routinely used to attack them as having agency in the matter of being an "incel".
notepad0x90 1y ago
You know, I'm not convinced "we" should care. People get to choose their romantic partners, and they can set any standards they want. If anyone feels entitled over other people's sexual choices, they should either seek help or be treated as potential criminals, because that is a very rapey intent. 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.
- flowerthoughts 1y ago
  > 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. 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.
vitarnixofntrnt 1y ago
[dead]
xiphias2 1y ago
Incel is not a subculture, just a name for men who can't get laid. 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.
- raffael_de 1y ago
  There is actually nothing about height in the article.
  - chomp 1y ago
    > They believe that dating and social success are entirely determined by one's looks and/or genetics.
    - thefz 1y ago
      TBH the whole point of mate selection is exactly this.
- krapp 1y ago
  >Incel is not a subculture, just a name for men who can't get laid. It is also very clearly a subculture as well as a political movement.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    Yes, these things are all related. The manosphere, the alt-right, and incelism are on a venn diagram with a lot of overlap. It's important to understand the life circumstances and propaganda that pushes young men to identifying at incels.
- cykros 1y ago
  Amusingly, the term incel was actually coined by a woman who was herself an incel. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455
Simulacra 1y ago
Maybe because I didn't meet my wife until I was 35, I think there is some rationality in all of this. 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?
richliss 1y ago
With AI and robotics killing off huge amounts of entry level jobs in the next 5 years, the number of young men who are angry is going to absolutely explode. 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?"
- Craighead 1y ago
  [dead]
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
incomingpain 1y ago
sex ed taught women to fear sex; pregnancy, stds, utis, and lets not talk about the depth of emotional risks. 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.

25 points by nreece 1y ago

There was a good channel to make use of those young men in the society: Army conscription, back in the good old days. Then selfish boomers took it, along with many other good things, away, because they didn't want to fight in Viet Nam. Now these people will have nothing better to do than 'lie down and rot'.

Flemlo 1y ago
I was quite happy when I was not forced into military and the generator after me was no longer forced (Germany). If that's your only idea... How about an orientation and self-care program instead?
- anovikov 1y ago
  Well, this is a point where two problems meet: the need to beef up armed forces (especially in Germany! that faces Russian threat and completely unreliable allies), and a generation of young men with nothing to do.
  - unsnap_biceps 1y ago
    The article talks about them choosing not to do anything, so it's unclear to me why you believe forcing them into a role would result in any sort of positive outcome?
    - anovikov 1y ago
      Because most of the time, most of the people do good things only when they are forced to.
notepad0x90 1y ago
You solution is to give socially failing and disgruntled young men who're mad at the world, professional military training and weapons?
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  What better way to incentivize young people to care about elections? 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.
  - notepad0x90 1y ago
    Don't get me wrong, I support mandatory military service, but for everyone. not just whiny people who call themselves "incels". It will solve many critical social issues we have in the US.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      Yes, I guess I inferred a universal mandate.
- anovikov 1y ago
  After going through military service, they will be a lot less failing and a lot less disgruntled. Plus, they could be kept there for a very long time and when the military is very large, very experienced due to long service years, and is comprised of people with no positive life experiences and no positive expectations of civilian life - so after a short initial adaptation period, no longer longing to return to it - it can be used to do many beneficial things, such as building actual empires, squashing authoritarians worldwide, building contiguous, continent-wide spaces free for borderless trade and investment.
- const_cast 1y ago
  That's what we did for all of human history. We kind of just kill men, their lives aren't very important in the grand scheme of society. The best thing a lot of men can do is die for some cause.
jmclnx 1y ago
You should watch Full Metal Jacket :) 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".
- anovikov 1y ago
  Mandatory military service is like monarchy, or democracy for that matter: good thing to keep, super easy to lose, next to impossible to get back once you lost it.

hd4 1y ago

something in me hopes people here will question the fundamental hypocrisy in the derisive term "involuntary celibate"

jdlshore 1y ago
It’s a name the community chose for itself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel
- hd4 1y ago
  Given this is a sociological phenomenon, it makes more sense to give them a more scientific designation even though some of their members may have called themselves in an ironic sense. "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.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    They didn't necessarily choose the life, but there's a lot of overlap between alt-right propaganda and the red-pill incel sphere. A lot of these young men are set up for failure, but then are propagandized to blame their failure on everything external, particularly women and minorities. 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.
unsnap_biceps 1y ago
While I understand the term fits as "derisive", I'm not understanding why you think it's a hypocritical term. It seems pretty clear that "involuntary" is correct, and a definition for celibate is "having or involving no sexual relations", so that seems to fit as well.
- hd4 1y ago
  Precisely because it's routinely used to attack them as having agency in the matter of being an "incel".

notepad0x90 1y ago

You know, I'm not convinced "we" should care. People get to choose their romantic partners, and they can set any standards they want. If anyone feels entitled over other people's sexual choices, they should either seek help or be treated as potential criminals, because that is a very rapey intent. 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.

flowerthoughts 1y ago
> 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. 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.

vitarnixofntrnt 1y ago

[dead]

xiphias2 1y ago

Incel is not a subculture, just a name for men who can't get laid. 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.

raffael_de 1y ago
There is actually nothing about height in the article.
- chomp 1y ago
  > They believe that dating and social success are entirely determined by one's looks and/or genetics.
  - thefz 1y ago
    TBH the whole point of mate selection is exactly this.
krapp 1y ago
>Incel is not a subculture, just a name for men who can't get laid. It is also very clearly a subculture as well as a political movement.
- const_cast 1y ago
  Yes, these things are all related. The manosphere, the alt-right, and incelism are on a venn diagram with a lot of overlap. It's important to understand the life circumstances and propaganda that pushes young men to identifying at incels.
cykros 1y ago
Amusingly, the term incel was actually coined by a woman who was herself an incel. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45284455

Simulacra 1y ago

Maybe because I didn't meet my wife until I was 35, I think there is some rationality in all of this. 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?

richliss 1y ago

With AI and robotics killing off huge amounts of entry level jobs in the next 5 years, the number of young men who are angry is going to absolutely explode. 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?"

Craighead 1y ago
[dead]

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

incomingpain 1y ago

sex ed taught women to fear sex; pregnancy, stds, utis, and lets not talk about the depth of emotional risks. 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.