So you don’t believe in your own “free will” ? We can agree to disagree.
"Don't hate Chad for having sex with all the women. If you were Chad you would do the same thing."
- Status
It goes beyond "jealousy" into a direct incursion on your own ability to live and subsist in peace.
That is the problem with framing it as a simple, clear-cut issue between positive and negative autonomy (I don't have the right to strike at anyone, because everyone has the right not to be hurt), because there are always problems extending beyond such an elegantly reductive model.
You are being robbed under the guise of the free accruement of resources. Their actions make the world inhospitable to your own existence and, moreover, they gleefully frame your dispossession as a moral triumph.
Is the callous monopolization of power "just"? Sure, it's "natural", which is why distinctions between "nature" and "civilization" are spoken of.
Last edited:
Enslaving me and having sex with the girl I wanna have sex with aren't comparable just because the slave driver/girl fucker in question acted on his urges. Every action comes from urge, urges aren't the factor here. Slave driving is taking my rights away. And directly. It's saying "You, FrothySolutions, I'm taking your rights away personally." Girl fucking is taking what I wish I had, but don't technically have any claim to. Indirectly. Somebody having the sex I wanna have, that's still their sex that they have the right to have, and on top of that it's not like they were wringing their hands plotting a way to take what I wanted. I mean, odds are they weren't, odds are they have no idea who I am. Because it's just some random Chad who doesn't know me and wishes me personally no ill will.
We live in a society of obligations, yeah. But we also live in a society of freedoms. And currently Chad has the right to have sex with whoever his market value can buy. And though it pains me more than anything, if I keep harping on about how undesirable I am, even at the protest of dewy-eyed Blue Pillers who insist I could TOTALLY have Stacy if I just was more confident, how can I in honest conscience say Stacy should be with me? When I'm the one who told everyone "No no, don't tell me I'm not ugly. I am ugly. Embrace the Black Pill."
I guess it's more comparable to food. I do need food. But the way it stands, I don't have the right to take food from Chad's refrigerator. He has the right to buy as much food as his money will afford him. To take his girlfriend is to take his food. Government assistance, I could see that. But right now I can't rob Chad to pay me. We don't have a "One sexual relationship for life" policy.
I
This is false. If people are punished for committing fornication, society becomes monogamous and every man can get a wife.
Not anymore, due in no small part to the following type of thinking:
Let 'em trample over my broken and tired body. Good for you, stud! Wish it were me tho gotta be honest lmao
No one cares about you or respects your rights, because to them, you have none. If you had rights, you'd have something. You have nothing, so you must not have a right to anything.
plus
@ the tired "top 20%" meem. It's 5-10% and narrowing.
No one cares about you or respects your rights, because to them, you have none. If you had rights, you'd have something. You have nothing, so you must not have a right to anything.
plus
But I do have rights, it's just Chad has more means.
What system guides the use of one's means, though? Our present one and that one only, naturally. Is this system necessary? Is it correct just by virtue of existing? How are variable means exercised under the unique set of rights established by this system?
Things could be and have been different. When strict pairing-off of "one man to one woman" is in place, Chad might have means to get something better, but he does not have the means to get everything.
Last edited:
I
Forget about rights. Would you rather live in Society A where you can get a looksmatched wife and Chads are punished for committing fornication, or would you rather live in a Society B where Chad has the right to have sex with with as many women as he wants, and as a consequence you are incel?
Finally a high IQ thread, i'm tired of those cuckolds sucking chad's cocks as much as femoid would do.
The question is, what rights are self-evident? I think if we have no other rights at all, we have the right to our selves. So to say "You have to be with this person" is a violation of that right. It might make incels happy, but we have to ask where the line between freedom and responsibility is. And usually you're only responsible for not taking what belongs to someone else.
But who decide what you have right to? Why let others decide that?
It doesn't matter what chad think of us. He causes our inceldom.
Just because chad born chad doesn't mean it's moral for him to take everything to himself.
So starving african kid who stole some food from chad fridge who constantly eat a pizza before him is an evil kid?
We should.
In this case: a right to companionship, a spouse, a woman.
Among our detractors, anyone who ends up with one is celebrated as embodiment of shining virtue, of worth, of having "deserved" it. It is not explicitly taken as a "right", but their sexual success is legitimized simply for having happened.
The issue comes when there is no coherent law you can apply to earning your way to love beyond hand-waving liberal notions of consent. Likely you've asked yourself, "what exactly do I have to do to get what I need?", only to receive no response.
Better yet:
"Become a good person and try again when you are one."
"Okay, I think I've done what I need to now but I'm still failing."
"Ummmm well the fact that you think you're entitled to something just for being good proves that you aren't good. Try actually being a good person."
There is nothing to work toward, no goal, no promise. Your only hope is to be desired by a woman, something that has no guarantee of happening. There is no solid ethical undergirding to this assortment at present - only primal biological impulses left to reign unsustainably in the complex apparatus of modern society, sanctioned under the hegemonic idea of "consent".
That such essential questions of human fulfillment have no secure, codified basis is going to prove to be a problem. It is extensible to all areas of life in liberal society, from what are now conceived of as public utilities, to health care, to social programs.
But that's what it's all about. If it's not right, it's just misplaced anger. And anger and jealousy is a fair reaction. I have the right to be jealous and bitter, even though Chad didn't technically "steal" from me. But I can't make any real claim for what he's got. Just be bitter about what I don't have.
Rights are contingent. The whole "right to bee yourself
" framework (it ties in even more broadly to the question of social, economic, and political control by exploitative forces, which is way too tangential to get into here) on which so much of modern "morality" rests is flawed, as stated here:The question is: which rights work?
In order to develop a viable system of rights, some sacrifices of agency have to be made in order to hold up the structure as a whole. "Autonomy" is not morally positive - it is rather the removal of useful constraints on human behavior - and just devolves toward anarchy and conflict where resources are hoarded and battles are fought over them. At present, things seem to be in limbo between broad social liberalism and specific instances of heavy-handed control to keep "undesirable elements" from ruining everyone else's party.
Consider this case, which I'm sure you're familiar with:
Foids can dress as they want to. Superficially, "they have the right to their own bodies". In aggregate, this leads to streets packed with nubile sluts basking their bronzed skin the sun's glow, leads to you being taunted and driven mad every time you want to take a walk, to shop, to go anywhere at all. An inordinate burden is shifted onto your back not only to accept your poverty, but to keep cool about it, to be civil - to behave, in this case, according to exactly the same standards as everyone else regardless of how much they actually have to control. You want to rip your hair out and punch someone in the throat, but none of the blessed have anything of the sort - they have things to broadcast, you have things to contain. The world becomes a playground where the advantage of the advantaged reproduces itself endlessly.
Okay dumbass.
It's happening right now, except your agency is being sacrificed, just by less obvious and coherent means.
A slave to liberalism even when you're under its foot.
If we're talking about human rights, the basic stuff, it's all about the individual. Laws we have that supposedly uphold the structure, they have their basis in protecting the individual. I can't kill Chad not just because a society where anyone can kill anyone is chaos and doesn't work, but because killing even one innocent Chad is wrong, and a violation of his right to life.
Bolded is critical. Why do we have them? Could we have different ones?
"Human rights" are not natural law, they are constructions. It is hard to imagine an alternative society when your view is delimited by extant structures. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (free him) was not a divine revelation.
"The right to life" has, additionally, been sacrificed countless times in the interest of political exigency. "Sovereign is he who decides the exception".
Most people are perfectly content to make these kind of simple decisions about right and wrong under conditions of lax comfort, but don't you think the developed world is getting increasingly uncomfortable for a lot of people? At a certain point, people start thinking about what they need to do rather than what they should do. I personally won't be sad to see things go down.
This is particular issue is, as well, just my estimation of how things are going to unfold in a couple of decades. It is not a justification.
It's probably going to happen whether anyone wants it to or not. The present state of things is not sustainable. It won't be a "revolution" with conscious actors, but a disordered, decentralized collapse from which something might emerge.
I don't have any illusions of an "incel coup", but I do get the feeling that a lot of our ideas are going to be vindicated.
"monogamy is Communism"
That's a new one.
It is, roughly speaking, "sexual socialism" but you shouldn't go equating the cornerstone of the pre-20th century world with Stalinism.
The maintenance of a social and legal structure supportive to monogamy - meaning anti-fornication, anti-sodomy, anti-adultery laws - has been the bedrock of advanced societies and was common and successful until recently.
But don't just take my word for it:
Last edited:
We have them because these human rights, they are natural. Self-evident. No matter how uncomfortable things get for some people, there are still things you can't take from people. Not fairly, anyway.
Things that I can't? Yeah, because I quite literally cannot (
It doesn't matter how ostensibly "self-evident" rights are in the absence of law or the capacity to enforce it rigorously.
Human rights (free him) are violated during warfare almost as a rule. There is nothing natural about them - which itself should be sufficient justification for needing to assert yourself against nature, re: the theme of the thread.
Last edited:
Things that I can't? Yeah, because I quite literally cannot (- when are we getting this emoji?). States with huge war arsenals are another matter.
It doesn't matter how ostensibly "self-evident" rights are in the absence of law or the capacity to enforce it rigorously.
Human rights (free him) are violated during warfare almost as a rule. There is nothing natural about them - which itself should be sufficient justification for needing to assert yourself against nature, re: the theme of the thread.
What do you mean? Like, fighting? Or do you mean war crimes?
You could take it as both tbh
There's a right to life until there isn't.
A right to water until there isn't.
A right to shelter until there isn't.
etc.
"women aren't yours" fakecel statement of the year.
I hate anyone who is opposed to my will.
war crimes aren't even real, people just get bested by the beast.
It doesn't help the women now days are like teens in an adult body. DO THEY NOT REALIZE CHAD MOST LIKELY HAS AN STD!!!
J
Chad is fcking cool to us. Is the normies and the foids the problem.
Normies and betas are always teasing stupid stuff. Foids are hell
Normies and betas are always teasing stupid stuff. Foids are hell
I'm no chad by any means, but at best if i were to be one i'd pump and dump these cum dumpsters there isn't one thing about females thats redeeming as fuck whats unique about them except having a vagina to have your dick feel good,temporary if you study them enough you'll see that they're under a certain category it's hard to explain but once you've met one person who you think is unique you'' find another one and sometimes with old people you can tell what type of person they used to be an what type of category they fall under, it's all about seeing into their face and disarming their personality and face it's all scripted within their genes or something and this doesn't just go for foids there are males out there just like this.
Women are the gatekeepers of human sexuality. Any man with decent testosterone wouldnt refuse sex with a prime attractive woman, chad or not. Women hold bigger responsibility for everything that happens regarding sex because theyre allowed (both by nature - lower t levels - and by society) to be the choosers.
Last edited:
just stupid, but i make a extra thread.
It is, it’s the last hurdle - to realise that no one is actually at fault for the way things are, and that ‘hatred’ though it may be a seductive emotion because it can make you feel stronger and contextualise your pain, is actually as misguided as Chad’s arrogance in taking personal pride in, and taking credit for the godlike life that nature has afforded him.
JJJJFFFFLLLL this chad incel alliance COPE needs to die.
i would not bang every women if i were chad. Im a very humanitarian and righteous person. I believe in the wellbeing of others, and taking other men's viable partners is appalling and shitty
But that's not how it is. Not on paper. War happens, on paper, as part of defending people's freedoms. We have freedoms, we have obligations. And we have punishments and reparations for when obligations aren't met or freedoms are taken. That's why we have war and prison. The fact that we have war doesn't mean we have a double standard for whose freedoms matter.
JFL @ taking these weak justifications as proof of some kind of solid ontological basis for rights. "Freedom", "liberty", "retaliation" are excuses used to expedite the achievement of selfish interests.
The main point is that any "rights" can be and have been flouted when it is in the service of a particular goal by a capable party. It is to say that they are not "natural", because they disappear quickly as part of of an unending count of "exceptions" - the basic state of nature is lawlessness, upon which order - such as rights - is imposed.
But we aren't lawless. We do care, that's why we don't go around committing crimes just because we have the means. People are like "I'm not gonna do that, even if I could, because it's wrong." It's wrong because it's unfair to the person they'd hurt. It goes beyond them just exercising their rights, and stretches into violating the other person's.
We aren't, but what is the particular set of laws to which we are held? They can be and have been different. That is the crucial point. We could easily live in a monogamous society, where people, walled in by a different hegemonic conception of ethics, would instead say, "but I don't have a right to take other men's women all for myself".
We don't have the means to do this free from punishment. There are people who have had the means to commit "crimes" free from punishment, and they've done it when necessary or even when it isn't (most of the time) as a way to get something done.
Most people's idea of "wrong" is tantamount to a child's and is easily mutable depending on the particular consciousness they are given. I don't like making reference to (())psychology(()), but check this out:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html#post
Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.
As to the question of "violating another person's rights":
Last edited:
By "we" I mean society. The society that you and I and we all belong to. Not just us incels. We incels care, normies care, there are probably Chads and Stacies who care. Yes, there are people who've broken the law. That doesn't make us lawless. What about all of the people who have the means to break the law, could get away with it, but don't, because it's wrong?
Seems like we're going in circles.
Ultimately, I think either you are giving other people too much credit or you believe there to be some original universal morality (that for some reason wasn't allowed to blossom until the last half of the 20th century and seems to be conspicuously absent when things aren't perfectly peaceful), neither of which I can get behind.
elab
I mean people in general are civil to each other not just because it's the law, but because in their hearts they know it's wrong and don't wanna be assholes. It's why we don't just steal money out of women's purses. She needs that money. Even if we could get away with it. Even the people who do steal it know that it's wrong, and usually do it out of incredible need. They don't justify their actions. Just admit to themselves that they needed to do it.
This morality has always been with us, we've always known not to do bad to people because hurting the innocent is wrong. We've had freedoms and obligations and punishment and reparations since Hammurabi, maybe. It's not new. Times of crisis doesn't make right and wrong go away. It just makes people desperate.
Rights are contingent. The whole "right to bee yourself
The question is: which rights work?
In order to develop a viable system of rights, some sacrifices of agency have to be made in order to hold up the structure as a whole. "Autonomy" is not morally positive - it is rather the removal of useful constraints on human behavior - and just devolves toward anarchy and conflict where resources are hoarded and battles are fought over them. At present, things seem to be in limbo between broad social liberalism and specific instances of heavy-handed control to keep "undesirable elements" from ruining everyone else's party.
Consider this case, which I'm sure you're familiar with:
Foids can dress as they want to. Superficially, "they have the right to their own bodies". In aggregate, this leads to streets packed with nubile sluts basking their bronzed skin the sun's glow, leads to you being taunted and driven mad every time you want to take a walk, to shop, to go anywhere at all. An inordinate burden is shifted onto your back not only to accept your poverty, but to keep cool about it, to be civil - to behave, in this case, according to exactly the same standards as everyone else regardless of how much they actually have to control. You want to rip your hair out and punch someone in the throat, but none of the blessed have anything of the sort - they have things to broadcast, you have things to contain. The world becomes a playground where the advantage of the advantaged reproduces itself endlessly.
Tesla + Marx lvl IQ
Few will go around consciously making trouble for other people when it is not necessary or even especially beneficial, especially to a degree commensurate to or exceeding the reprisal they would face if caught. They don't feel the need to do it, because it doesn't actually need to be done.
No it hasn't. I'm not a legal scholar, but it doesn't take one to know that laws and ethics are different across time and across cultures. If you simply mean the aversion to punishment, as stated above, then yes, I agree.
That people actually feel as part of their being that "hurting the innocent is wrong" and that genocide, persecution, and conquest have occurred throughout human history with the tacit support of people on the dealing or neutral end seem to be irreconcilable. There is an impulse toward "right and wrong" that emerges when it is able to emerge - under conditions of social stability and the promise that it will benefit oneself in some way, but the form it assumes is not always the same.
Few will go around consciously making trouble for other people when it is not necessary or even especially beneficial, especially to a degree commensurate to or exceeding the reprisal they would face if caught. They don't feel the need to do it, because it doesn't actually need to be done.
No it hasn't. I'm not a legal scholar, but it doesn't take one to know that laws and ethics are different across time and across cultures. If you simply mean the aversion to punishment, as stated above, then yes, I agree.
That people actually feel as part of their being that "hurting the innocent is wrong" and that genocide, persecution, and conquest have occurred throughout human history with the tacit support of people on the dealing or neutral end seem to be irreconcilable. There is an impulse toward "right and wrong" that emerges when it is able to emerge - under conditions of social stability and the promise that it will benefit oneself in some way, but the form it assumes is not always the same.
I don't just mean people don't want to be punished. Laws vary from place to place, but we're talking about basic human rights, and those have more or less stayed the same. Laws vary, but they only vary because some people have different interpretations of what a society's freedoms and obligations are. Because people with the freedom to form governments and vote and put money towards public projects, they went and did those things. But whatever people do, it's because they believe people have rights and people have responsibilities.
And we don't believe in right and wrong just because we aren't living in a war zone and we definitely don't just believe in right and wrong because it benefits us. I could steal that delicious bag of loaded potato skins, leaving it there wouldn't benefit me, but I don't take it anyway. For no other reason than I believe in the rights of that gas station to sell them for the price they choose. It's got nothing to do with what benefits me. And if I found myself in such dire straits that it was "Steal those potato skins or die," and I found myself stealing those potato skins, that would still be wrong. And I would know it was wrong. I wouldn't be like "You, gas station person, owe me these potato skins." Even though I need it, it's still wrong. Because that violates his ownership of the potato skins. That's how I think, and that's how most of society thinks. When we do things, it's because we believe we have the right and it doesn't violate other people's rights. Or that we are violating people's rights, but incredible need compelled us. Didn't make it right, but we were gonna die if we didn't steal those potato skins.
Yes, but what kind of rights?
"Yuman rights"
One right is the right to property. There are certain things we can buy and own. And resell. Like the gas station, they have the right to not have their potato skins stolen, and I have the obligation to not steal those potato skins. It would violate their right to own those potato skins and resell them.
Another right is the right to self. Lonely and repulsive as I am, I can't tell someone to be with me. I want them to be with me, but it's not right. It's a violation of their right to self. They shouldn't have to be with someone that repulses them.
And I don't know which of those two counts I fall in, but I don't need other people to tell me that it's wrong to violate the rights of people. It's a conclusion you should come to on your own. That you shouldn't hurt the innocent.
This particular "self-evident" right is nested firmly within the ethic of liberal capitalism.
Before the 19th century, "ownership" was pretty strictly limited.
plus
Famously:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/
"Property is theft"
Facile and misleading. I've already gone over (and restated + reposted several times) why such a neat model is bullshit.
Tell that to 90% of the site who had shit thrown their way endlessly growing up. No one "comes to this conclusion" but for anxiety that they might be on the bad end of the exercise of power someday, and this only when their own life is comfortable enough to entertain it as a mere possibility.
Last edited:
Great thread. I'm tired of all the low IQ faggots who don't understand that Chad is the main problem. If Chad wasn't fucking every single woman, women would've had to date down.
If Chads ain't poly polygamous, women't won't be either.
If Chads ain't poly polygamous, women't won't be either.
D
Any man who fucks below his looksmatch is responsible for inceldom.
I agree with OP, that's like saying, "Don't hate the nazis, if you were one you'd do the same as they did."
This is war, we have to fight against the chads. The ones who lay down and allow themselves to be taxed by the government and brian washed by the media are accepting being cucked.
This is war, we have to fight against the chads. The ones who lay down and allow themselves to be taxed by the government and brian washed by the media are accepting being cucked.
It's especially the top chad's faults since they make everyone less attractive than them fight for the scraps.
Same tbh. I don't see the point for Chad to steal dozen of under average foids to us, their looksmatch, when he could just settle for a Stacey for life.
We should have government funded hookers and sexbots, since they tax rape us and don't give us anything on return. We should also have male birth control pills and access to any drugs we want. Once the blackpill is common knowledge and incels are taken care of, femoid smv will decrease substantially.
There are hookers who'd be more than happy to take tax dollars to fuck sub6's.
It's not just stacy, at least you should get your looksmatch.
Just because you have shit thrown your way doesn't mean it's not a conclusion people shouldn't come to on their own. Yes, there is crime, yes, there are bad people. That doesn't mean the basics of morality aren't consistent. The fact that there are murderers doesn't make whether or not we should be able to kill at random some up-in-the-air point of debate. The fact that there are thieves doesn't justify the notion that maybe I can steal someone's potato skins. The fact that we here on Incels.me lament injustice at all means that there's such a thing as consistent justice and consistent injustice, it's just we need to make sure that there's justice for all.
The model works for most of the world. Even if I'm poor, it doesn't mean theft is justified, it just means I don't have the means to feed myself. It's not a reductive model, it's just we need to understand that while we have freedoms, we also have obligations. We have the right to do certain things, but not other things. We have standards about what can be owed to you. Not just needed, but owed. These standards aren't just in place because we're at peace right now. When chaos kicks up, that doesn't suddenly mean "Well, I guess I don't really deserve any rights, that was just because things were peaceful enough to support a system of rights and laws."
Duh, I mean sex is needed for men to function properly, why wouldn't I do the thing if I was Chad?
- Status
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
