About degeneracy and degeneration. There are two schools of thought and inceldom is divided.

[NEB.feelsdevil]

What is degeneracy? We can define it as deviation from the norm. But what is the norm? Is it simply the current state of things? Or is it how things should be?

Either way, things are not good. Society is not doing well, men are not doing well, and we incels and our suffering are the direct result of that.

Some of the more conservative incels would say degeneracy all started with the sexual revolution and the sex-positivity movement, which led to the hook-up culture with the dating apps, which combined with extreme feminism is slowly leading to the destruction of the most stable and ideal family unit: the nuclear family.

The more conservative incels might say that promiscuity is the source of a lot of issues in modern society, and modern women having a very high body count with just a few top men who don't actually care for the women due to how many options they have available, causing women not to be able to pair bond anymore with less attractive men who would actually be a better choice for them long term.

In short, instead of women having a lot of sex with multiple men, women should only be having sex with one man, or very few men.

But there is also another system of beliefs about degeneracy that I subscribe to...

How did we actually get here? How did our lives get irreversibly fucked, and how did it turn out so bad for us?

It is because we essentially didn't have the chance to develop mentally because we couldn't go through the normal stages a normal man does: first time holding hands with a girl, the first kiss, teenage romance, losing virginity, having multiple long-term relationships, and eventually marriage and a family.

Each of these steps would further build upon the previous step, increasing your experience, social skills, getting mental validation, boosting your confidence, improving mental health.

We are literally degenerated because we couldn't go through the milestones mentioned above.

I strongly believe men need to get sex and affection from women in order to have a normal, healthly life. To me, degeneracy is women rejecting non-Chad men and causing inceldom.

Women themselves are the source of inceldom. Both literally because they give birth to subhuman boys, and figuratively because they create incels by deciding not to have sex with ugly men. They can end inceldom overnight by simply choosing to fuck ugly men.

Women are all chasing the same Chads who have a lot of options, so of course they don't care about the women at all, and they are abusive and toxic. Meanwhile, ugly nice men get nothing and their entire lives are ruined. Women could be in peaceful, stable relationship with men who would do their best to care of them, but all they care about is looks, so they only chase Chads who are bad for them.

I honestly can't imagine a worse type of degeneracy than a society where ugly nice men are starved of pussy, while undeserving toxic abusive Chad men are drowning in pussy.

 

[Diomedes_1112]

What is degeneracy?

I define it as a deviation from what is the natural order of life.

 

[chalk son]

they only chase Chads who are bad for them.

if only i didn’t automatically notice such an abhorrent thing…

 

[based_meme]

I honestly can't imagine a worse type of degeneracy than a society where ugly nice men are starved of pussy, while undeserving toxic abusive Chad men are drowning in pussy.

This kind of societal degeneracy is something has been known for millennia and the solution always has been to send them off to die in wars. The ancient solution to the inceldom problem in societies has always been culling us.

Insane.

Monogamous marriage was an attempt to find an alternative to this culling, which generally worked for the better part of civilized history. However, today with feminism and all of the rot and decay that it has brought into society, such as women's sexual freedom leading to Fisherian runaway selection, the destruction of the nuclear family and the culture war between the sexes, gynocentrism and the disenfranchisement of men, and many more problems, we're reverting back to the old days. China, as of right now, has approximately 40 million excess men who are single and will likely never marry - literally incels. This is higher than the entire population of some countries.

Inceldom is a staggering problem, and not just for us on an individual level (psychologically, emotionally, socially etc.). The problem is now becoming hard to ignore in the public consciousness. Unless there's a literal threat of annhilition facing modern societies (we can see it on the horizon - I mean, at least I can KEK), nobody in mainstream society will face reality and admit the underlying problems, which are exceedingly politically incorrect and "problematic" (this fucking word, I swear). If nothing changes drastically in the next 15-20 years, modern societies are going to go the way of the dodo.

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

China, as of right now, has approximately 40 million excess men who are single and will likely never marry - literally incels. This is higher than the entire population of some countries.

It's beyond over for chinacels

But even with excess women, I still think there would be a lot of incels.

As long as feminism is the active doctrine in society, inceldom will exist and both men AND women will suffer because of it.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Nature is innately cruel. Culturally offsetting nature's cruelties has been the story of civilization. Unfortunately the war hasn't yet been won, and this particular battle looks to be loss for now.

 

[based_meme]

Nature is innately cruel.

This is always an interesting turn of phrase to me whenever I hear it, as it ascribes conscious will and the capacity for moral agency to inanimate effects and forces that we collectively call "nature."

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

Nature is innately cruel.

Fuck nature

Unfortunately the war hasn't yet been won, and this particular battle looks to be loss for now.

I know nothing will change within my lifetime. I will die without experiencing genuine affection from women

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I know nothing will change within my lifetime

sad but true

 

[Ahnfeltia]

This is always an interesting turn of phrase to me whenever I hear it, as it ascribes conscious will and the capacity for moral agency to inanimate effects and forces that we collectively call "nature."

Aren't you conflating cruel as meaning "disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings" with cruel as meaning "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain"?

 

[Drekavac]

too long didnt read

 

[City Incel]

I more agree with the second

Fucking scam school teaching basic math at a slow pace and not teaching me how to fuck a schoolgirl

 

[Emba]

Nature is innately cruel. Culturally offsetting nature's cruelties has been the story of civilization. Unfortunately the war hasn't yet been won, and this particular battle looks to be loss for now.

This is always an interesting turn of phrase to me whenever I hear it, as it ascribes conscious will and the capacity for moral agency to inanimate effects and forces that we collectively call "nature."

I find nature to be Indifferent. nature simply doesn't gaf about how you feel about anything it does. It just, is.

that said. one can also consider nature to be "kind" because, it provides solutions to the problems it creates...

Ie: cold? Kill something and wear it. Hungary? Kill something and eat it. Cold rain? Build a shelter and make a fire in it... Horny? grape! Etc...

& ofc, this requires specific knowledge and skill to utilize...

but it is cruel in that without such specialized knowledge you will indeed perish.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

I find nature to be Indifferent. nature simply doesn't gaf about how you feel about anything it does. It just, is.

Like I asked @based_meme

Aren't you conflating cruel as meaning "disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings" with cruel as meaning "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain"?

that said. one can also consider nature to be "kind" because, it provides solutions to the problems it creates...

Ie: cold? Kill something and wear it. Hungary? Kill something and eat it. Cold rain? Build a shelter and make a fire in it... Horny? grape! Etc...

& ofc, this requires specific knowledge and skill to utilize...

but it is cruel in that without such specialized knowledge you will indeed perish.

My example of nature's kindness would've been something like a gentle breeze on a hot summer day, but yeah, nature can be kind*

* in the sense of "of a kind to give pleasure or relief "

 

[Emba]

Like I asked @based_meme



My example of nature's kindness would've been something like a gentle breeze on a hot summer day, but yeah, nature can be kind*

* in the sense of "of a kind to give pleasure or relief "

Sure.

 

[based_meme]

Aren't you conflating cruel as meaning "disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings" with cruel as meaning "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain"?

Cruelty (and it's opposite and related attributes, like kindness and compassion) is both an attribute of a person, which is defined as a conscious moral agent capable of both reasoning (includes moral reasoning) and the ability to take action (agency), as well as a valuation of any act that they take (as a result of their agency, which would then give those actions a moral weighting).

For a thing to be x as an attribute (or considered x) it has to be capable of x as an act - in this case cruelty. It also has to have personhood as a characteristic. Note: attributes are assigned i.e., moral valuations are assigned values that we linguistically differentiate as "cruel" and "kind," whereas characteristics are inherent to the thing.

When we say that "nature is cruel" or "nature is indifferent" even we're doing two things. First, we're treating "nature" as some conscious agent (person), and second, we're anthropomorphizing it and treating this imagined personhood of nature as something human or human-like. This is simply a category mistake. Nature is not even strictly a force in the sense of physics. It's a system with its own interconnected web of dynamics, but it is not a singular, reducible and measurable force.

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

too long didnt read

tl;dr: There are two sides in inceldom:

Some incels think women should be chaste and only have sex with their husband. They think women having sex with a lot of men is degeneracy.

The other side is the incels who think women should have lots of sex with ugly men. They think women only fucking Chad is the real degeneracy. I am part of this camp

 

[Manlet]

Enforced monogamy, sexual liberation clearly doesn't benefit incels otherwise the rate of virginity wouldn't be as high as it is under the extremly sexually liberated system we live in.
I don't think realistically we can ever keep females as breeding cattle or whatever and force them to have sex with ugly men on the regular, it's not realistic it's incel fanfiction.

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

force them to have sex with ugly men

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Cruelty (and it's opposite and related attributes, like kindness and compassion) is both an attribute of a person, which is defined as a conscious moral agent capable of both reasoning (includes moral reasoning) and the ability to take action (agency), as well as a valuation of any act that they take (as a result of their agency, which would then give those actions a moral weighting).

For a thing to be x as an attribute (or considered x) it has to be capable of x as an act - in this case cruelty. It also has to have personhood as a characteristic. Note: attributes are assigned i.e., moral valuations are assigned values that we linguistically differentiate as "cruel" and "kind," whereas characteristics are inherent to the thing.

When we say that "nature is cruel" or "nature is indifferent" even we're doing two things. First, we're treating "nature" as some conscious agent (person), and second, we're anthropomorphizing it and treating this imagined personhood of nature as something human or human-like. This is simply a category mistake. Nature is not even strictly a force in the sense of physics. It's a system with its own interconnected web of dynamics, but it is not a singular, reducible and measurable force.

I'm willing to agree that saying "nature is cruel" anthropomorphizes nature in the sense of

if nature were controlled by a person, then that person would be cruel

I just don't think calling something cruel necessarily imbues consciousness. You can insist it should, but I don't think it reflects actual use. Or would you insist that anyone using the turn of phrase "cruel joke" is imbuing jokes with consciousness?

 

[based_meme]

I'm willing to agree that saying "nature is cruel" anthropomorphizes nature in the sense of

I just don't think calling something cruel necessarily imbues consciousness. You can insist it should, but I don't think it reflects actual use. Or would you insist that anyone using the turn of phrase "cruel joke" is imbuing jokes with consciousness?

But jokes are created and spoken/written by persons. Jokes don't exist out there in the universe independently. When saying "cruel joke" it's implied that there is a joker ( ) who makes the joke. If you're talking simply about the expression, then that's just a metaphor. It's like if someone gets a new job and their car breaks down on the first day of work when they're on their way there. That would be a "cruel joke played by fate" or whatever, but it's generally understood that there's no actual cruelty being committed, because there has to be a person to do the cruelty to them. If someone played a practical joke on them and fucked with their car for laughs, then you would mean it literally and it would indeed be cruelty.

Take, for instance, a wooden work desk with lots of tiny splinters. You wouldn't call the table itself cruel for making it unpleasant and painful to work using it. You would say that the person (boss or manager), who picked the table for you and made you work on it knowing about the splinters, is cruel. Or you might even say that the carpenter, who built the table with the malicious intent of making the table full of splinters to make people's life difficult, is cruel.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Jokes don't exist out there in the universe independently

Some might say existence itself is a joke, but yes, you're right.

If you're talking simply about the expression, then that's just a metaphor. It's like if someone gets a new job and their car breaks down on the first day of work when they're on their way there. That would be a "cruel joke played by fate" or whatever, but it's generally understood that there's no actual cruelty being committed, because there has to be a person to do the cruelty to them.

If you accept metaphorical use of the term, why cannot "nature is cruel" be metaphorical?

Take, for instance, a wooden work desk with lots of tiny splinters. You wouldn't call the table itself cruel for making it unpleasant and painful to work using it.

Good point. "Cruel" in the sense of "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain" is generally only applied to systems and their consequences. Cases in point, human action -- e.g., making a splintery table -- is a consequence of the human system and may thus be called cruel, and it doesn't sound that strange to call capitalism, a system, cruel either. You think I'm onto something here?

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

Cruel

Women are cruel for denying me my humanity

They deemed me UNWORHTY of love and affection because I was born ugly. MY ONLY CRIME WAS BEING BORN UGLY

 

[Rapistcel]

What is degeneracy? We can define it as deviation from the norm. But what is the norm? Is it simply the current state of things? Or is it how things should be?

Either way, things are not good. Society is not doing well, men are not doing well, and we incels and our suffering are the direct result of that.

Some of the more conservative incels would say degeneracy all started with the sexual revolution and the sex-positivity movement, which led to the hook-up culture with the dating apps, which combined with extreme feminism is slowly leading to the destruction of the most stable and ideal family unit: the nuclear family.

The more conservative incels might say that promiscuity is the source of a lot of issues in modern society, and modern women having a very high body count with just a few top men who don't actually care for the women due to how many options they have available, causing women not to be able to pair bond anymore with less attractive men who would actually be a better choice for them long term.

In short, instead of women having a lot of sex with multiple men, women should only be having sex with one man, or very few men.

But there is also another system of beliefs about degeneracy that I subscribe to...

How did we actually get here? How did our lives get irreversibly fucked, and how did it turn out so bad for us?

It is because we essentially didn't have the chance to develop mentally because we couldn't go through the normal stages a normal man does: first time holding hands with a girl, the first kiss, teenage romance, losing virginity, having multiple long-term relationships, and eventually marriage and a family.

Each of these steps would further build upon the previous step, increasing your experience, social skills, getting mental validation, boosting your confidence, improving mental health.

We are literally degenerated because we couldn't go through the milestones mentioned above.

I strongly believe men need to get sex and affection from women in order to have a normal, healthly life. To me, degeneracy is women rejecting non-Chad men and causing inceldom.

Women themselves are the source of inceldom. Both literally because they give birth to subhuman boys, and figuratively because they create incels by deciding not to have sex with ugly men. They can end inceldom overnight by simply choosing to fuck ugly men.

Women are all chasing the same Chads who have a lot of options, so of course they don't care about the women at all, and they are abusive and toxic. Meanwhile, ugly nice men get nothing and their entire lives are ruined. Women could be in peaceful, stable relationship with men who would do their best to care of them, but all they care about is looks, so they only chase Chads who are bad for them.

I honestly can't imagine a worse type of degeneracy than a society where ugly nice men are starved of pussy, while undeserving toxic abusive Chad men are drowning in pussy.

Total troon death

 

[fullofchagrin]

What is degeneracy? We can define it as deviation from the norm. But what is the norm? Is it simply the current state of things? Or is it how things should be?

Either way, things are not good. Society is not doing well, men are not doing well, and we incels and our suffering are the direct result of that.

Some of the more conservative incels would say degeneracy all started with the sexual revolution and the sex-positivity movement, which led to the hook-up culture with the dating apps, which combined with extreme feminism is slowly leading to the destruction of the most stable and ideal family unit: the nuclear family.

The more conservative incels might say that promiscuity is the source of a lot of issues in modern society, and modern women having a very high body count with just a few top men who don't actually care for the women due to how many options they have available, causing women not to be able to pair bond anymore with less attractive men who would actually be a better choice for them long term.

In short, instead of women having a lot of sex with multiple men, women should only be having sex with one man, or very few men.

But there is also another system of beliefs about degeneracy that I subscribe to...

How did we actually get here? How did our lives get irreversibly fucked, and how did it turn out so bad for us?

It is because we essentially didn't have the chance to develop mentally because we couldn't go through the normal stages a normal man does: first time holding hands with a girl, the first kiss, teenage romance, losing virginity, having multiple long-term relationships, and eventually marriage and a family.

Each of these steps would further build upon the previous step, increasing your experience, social skills, getting mental validation, boosting your confidence, improving mental health.

We are literally degenerated because we couldn't go through the milestones mentioned above.

I strongly believe men need to get sex and affection from women in order to have a normal, healthly life. To me, degeneracy is women rejecting non-Chad men and causing inceldom.

Women themselves are the source of inceldom. Both literally because they give birth to subhuman boys, and figuratively because they create incels by deciding not to have sex with ugly men. They can end inceldom overnight by simply choosing to fuck ugly men.

Women are all chasing the same Chads who have a lot of options, so of course they don't care about the women at all, and they are abusive and toxic. Meanwhile, ugly nice men get nothing and their entire lives are ruined. Women could be in peaceful, stable relationship with men who would do their best to care of them, but all they care about is looks, so they only chase Chads who are bad for them.

I honestly can't imagine a worse type of degeneracy than a society where ugly nice men are starved of pussy, while undeserving toxic abusive Chad men are drowning in pussy.

title sounds interesting unfortunately i have an extremely short attention span and soybrain so i will save this to read it later

 

[based_meme]

If you accept metaphorical use of the term, why cannot "nature is cruel" be metaphorical?

It can be, of course. The way people generally use the phrase though seems like they attribute agency to nature. Given the context here (philosophy forum), that's relevant.

Good point. "Cruel" in the sense of "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain" is generally only applied to systems and their consequences. Cases in point, human action -- e.g., making a splintery table -- is a consequence of the human system and may thus be called cruel, and it doesn't sound that strange to call capitalism, a system, cruel either. You think I'm onto something here?

Maybe you are. Maybe the concept of attributing qualities of personhood to systems makes more sense in some framework, but you would have to answer the question (and explain how), "can inanimate objects and systems have agentic properties?" If the answer is yes, then you can attribute things like cruelty and kindness to them, since agency is an aspect of personhood.

 

[Ahnfeltia]

It can be, of course. The way people generally use the phrase though seems like they attribute agency to nature. Given the context here (philosophy forum), that's relevant.

there's something poetic about invoking Mother Nature, Lady Luck or Urd. It can be convenient as well. Way I see it though, there's functionally no difference between attributing agency to nature or/and fate and only doing so metaphorically in the sense that it doesn't change the resulting experiential reality, which is ultimately all that matters.

Maybe you are. Maybe the concept of attributing qualities of personhood to systems makes more sense in some framework, but you would have to answer the question (and explain how), "can inanimate objects and systems have agentic properties?" If the answer is yes, then you can attribute things like cruelty and kindness to them, since agency is an aspect of personhood.

I was still talking colloquial usage rather than the philosophical implications thereof.

can inanimate objects and systems have agentic properties?

this requires answering the question "what's animacy?" which ultimately fall back on the quandary of the soul. food for thought I suppose.

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

title sounds interesting unfortunately i have an extremely short attention span and soybrain so i will save this to read it later

It's over for attentionspancels

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

Sexual degeneracy in women is GOOD because men NEED sex. Men are biologically compelled to creampie women's holes.

I FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE SEX 5 TIMES A DAY WITH WOMEN AND THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO

WOMEN NEED TO GIVE PITY SEX TO MEN

IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY, MEN NEED SEX FOR A HEALTHY NORMAL MENTAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR CONFIDENCE, FOR PHYSICAL HEALTH AS WELL

 

[NEB.feelsdevil]

Sexual degeneracy in women is GOOD because men NEED sex. Men are biologically compelled to creampie women's holes.

I FEEL THE NEED TO HAVE SEX 5 TIMES A DAY WITH WOMEN AND THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO

WOMEN NEED TO GIVE PITY SEX TO MEN

IT IS FOR THE GOOD OF SOCIETY, MEN NEED SEX FOR A HEALTHY NORMAL MENTAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR CONFIDENCE, FOR PHYSICAL HEALTH AS WELL

WOMEN SHOULD BE FREAKY WITH UGLY SUBHUMAN MEN