Economist Robin Hanson weighs in on the Incel Question.

[advancedatheist]

Hanson's posts on his blog:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/a-pullable-thread-of-the-social-fabric.html

And some emotionally unhinged reactions to it:

https://slate.com/business/2018/04/economist-robin-hanson-might-be-americas-creepiest-professor.html

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/meet-robin-hanson-opponent-of-sex-inequality

https://wonkette.com/633206/the-wee...izers-make-case-for-redistribution-of-vaginas

Notice that Hanson himself is a regular married guy with children, as shown in this profile in The New York Times Sunday Magazine a few years ago:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/magazine/11cryonics-t.html

But as you can probably tell from reading this profile, he is such a nerd that he probably barely escaped inceldom himself; so maybe that's why he's sympathetic with our plight.

 

[incel scum]

incel bolshevism NOW!!!

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

Hanson's posts on his blog:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/a-pullable-thread-of-the-social-fabric.html

Holy shit those were amazing. What a brilliant man. Thanks.

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

Reading his comments to all the irrational nonsense people posted on his thread here:

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2018/04/two-types-of-envy.html

Is inspiring. This guy is FUCKING SMART. And I don't say that often, since I'm top 1-2% intelligence myself. This guy IQmogs me by a wide margin.

Those two posts are probably some of the most important arguments in how the Incel problem should be approached that have ever been written.

He has basically given us the correct tactics to use.

Directly comparing sexual redistribution policy and income redistribution policy is the correct approach to argue from. It can't be countered.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Directly comparing sexual redistribution policy and income redistribution policy is the correct approach to argue from. It can't be countered.

Houellebecq was making inroads here in the 90s.

That said, I'm going to read these articles with pleasure. Thanks @advancedatheist.

 

[chadmarco]

This guy is a killer in the comments!

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

This guy is a killer in the comments!

I know right? He's fucking brilliant! He's so efficiently ruthless at deconstructing people's nonsense.

I also absolutely love the way he frames possible sexual redistribution policies as being quite plausible and not remotely slavery or rape oriented. "Slavery and rape" is a strawman people like to throw at us any time we complain about sex inequality. For example, in a comment responding to people claiming there is no effective way to redistribute sex, he states:

"Many ancient societies supported monogamy, which had large effects on sex inequality. Its not an untried area."

Honestly, every incel should fucking read and study these two articles and his comments to learn how to properly argue this subject.

Even his terminology is perfect. For example, calling it "sex inequality" is brilliant and perfectly correct.

Just using that terminology makes it far harder to argue against our position, since most socialist SJWs claim to be against "all inequality", yet close their eyes when it comes to this subject. Framing it this way highlights the blatant hypocrisy of the left and traditional redistributionalist politics, which are clearly quite arbitrarily selective.

 

[chadmarco]

This shit amazing.

"cf the point others have made that incels are not actually unable to find sexual partners, they’re just unable to have sex with the “hot” women of their choice"

ALL INCELS DEMAND 10/10 BOMB SHELLS

"The problem people who call themselves "incel" have is that they are misogynists unclear on the concept. They don't understand that misogyny, usually blended with racism and naive libertarian social darwinism, isn't attractive, to women least of all."

As if woman don't like assholes who treat them like shit. Proven by many tinder experiments among other things.

"here's guys out there who've been heavily facially disfigured, who can still obtain female companionship. Guys who are broke-ass mofos (some of whom aren't even musicians!) who can still obtain female companionship."

I KNOW A GUY SO ALL GUYS...!

They all make the same bullshit arguments that have no basis in reality. They just can't except that the sex market isn't fair and is heavily skewed in favor of woman. You don't even have to hate woman to realize this, its just so plain to see.

 

[chadmarco]

Even his terminology is perfect. For example, calling it "sex inequality" is brilliant and perfectly correct.

Bingo!

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

There are too many points of brilliance to highlight. But another comes in the comments where someone rambles about how sex is so "sacred" it could never be redistributed or affected by policy. His reply:

"Most complaints about the comparison have said sex is obviously much less important than income. Here you complain that sex is obviously much more important."

Haha just fucking LOL.

It's true. Which is it? Is sex so unimportant that incels should "get over it"? Or is it so sacred and important no policy should attempt to affect it? It can't be both.

This guy's like the Terminator of debating.

 

[Newbite]

Dont worry. Let these liberal numale/feminist rags keep saying what they want. No one takes them seriously anymore. Its just like when the msm tried to go after Trump. It will backfire and we will only grow stronger. People are waking up. Numales and feminazis will have their day

 

[RageAgainstTDL]

Bingo!

This guy just literally gave us a tutorial on how to effectively argue that what we suffer is unjust in a way that society does not consider acceptable in any other domain.

This is something the incel community has been struggling to effectively do for years.

He also gave a blueprint for how we can argue that social/political policies that promote monogamy could be worked towards as a possible solution.

This is again something the incel community has been struggling effectively to do for years.

In two simple posts I'd argue he's written more effectively on the problems of "incels" than anyone else in the community has been able to in the past 10 years. He writes in a way that's simple, effective, and makes the problem sound quite mundane and solvable, rather than impossible as normies would prefer it to seem.

 

[Robtical]

"Most complaints about the comparison have said sex is obviously much less important than income. Here you complain that sex is obviously much more important."

Haha just fucking LOL.

It's true. Which is it? Is sex so unimportant that incels should "get over it"? Or is it so sacred and important no policy should attempt to affect it? It can't be both.

This guy's like the Terminator of debating.

He is an uncucked debater. We need more guys like him.

 

[chadmarco]

This guy just literally gave us a tutorial on how to effectively argue that what we suffer is unjust in a way that society does not consider acceptable in any other domain.

This is something the incel community has been struggling to effectively do for years.

He also gave a blueprint for how we can argue that social/political policies that promote monogamy could be worked towards as a possible solution.

This is again something the incel community has been struggling effectively to do for years.

In two simple posts I'd argue he's written more effectively on the problems of "incels" than anyone else in the community has been able to in the past 10 years. He writes in a way that's simple, effective, and makes the problem sound quite mundane and solvable, rather than impossible as normies would prefer it to seem.

Agreed. But I think all these various groups like mgtow, redpill, and incel are providing the evidence necessary to build a case, now we just need smart people to sit down and look at things objectively. Mgtow showed us that sex inequality doesn't end just by getting a gf because of all the men being divorced raped by their wives, red pill provides a in depth unfiltered look into female nature from guys who have firsthand experience with dating them, and incels are the proof of where bad genetics can land you, not to mention all the data and statistics they have gathered proving their case.

 

[Kent]

NICE!!!

 

[gstvtrp]

I know right? He's fucking brilliant! He's so efficiently ruthless at deconstructing people's nonsense.

I also absolutely love the way he frames possible sexual redistribution policies as being quite plausible and not remotely slavery or rape oriented. "Slavery and rape" is a strawman people like to throw at us any time we complain about sex inequality. For example, in a comment responding to people claiming there is no effective way to redistribute sex, he states:

"Many ancient societies supported monogamy, which had large effects on sex inequality. Its not an untried area."

Honestly, every incel should fucking read and study these two articles and his comments to learn how to properly argue this subject.

Even his terminology is perfect. For example, calling it "sex inequality" is brilliant and perfectly correct.

Just using that terminology makes it far harder to argue against our position, since most socialist SJWs claim to be against "all inequality", yet close their eyes when it comes to this subject. Framing it this way highlights the blatant hypocrisy of the left and traditional redistributionalist politics, which are clearly quite arbitrarily selective.

We have used the term "sexual inequality" before. Not a new idea.

 

[Deleted member 2798]

Just read through the posts. Hanson is very lucid in making clear the basic foundations of a constructive solution to the question of hypergamy, polygyny, indeed, 'sex inequality' as a whole.

The issue we come up against is the unshakeable normative tendency to view social liberalization as progress (and in an exclusively temporal sense, I guess it's right). Every force in society, and hell, almost every individual constituent, is arrayed against us. If we can spearhead an intellectual revolution, there would be a chance of spontaneous acceptance of sexual market regulation (with proper dissemination of opinion, the psychic defenses of normies collapse like dominos; see the months long journey from faghating to gay marriage virtue signaling a few years ago). But our chances of supplanting entrenched ideology with a few Tinder experiments and diatribes is next to nothing. It's probably going to take a plague of drop-out NEETcels and a handful of ERs before anyone sees this as an issue worth addressing, if then even.

 

[NormieKiller]

A normie in the comment section said: Why don't incels use Tinder as a way to get laid...

 

[The End]

"Finally, many people seem to be reacting primarily to some impression they’ve gained that self-identified “incels” are mostly stupid rude obnoxious arrogant clueless smelly people."

Did someone meet me and I didn't know it?

 

[The End]

A normie in the comment section said: Why don't incels use Tinder as a way to get laid...

HA HA HA
...
I want to kill.

 

[Robtical]

That guy got that ho.

 

[Gone Coping]

Just read through the posts. Hanson is very lucid in making clear the basic foundations of a constructive solution to the question of hypergamy, polygyny, indeed, 'sex inequality' as a whole.

The issue we come up against is the unshakeable normative tendency to view social liberalization as progress (and in an exclusively temporal sense, I guess it's right). Every force in society, and hell, almost every individual constituent, is arrayed against us. If we can spearhead an intellectual revolution, there would be a chance of spontaneous acceptance of sexual market regulation (with proper dissemination of opinion, the psychic defenses of normies collapse like dominos; see the months long journey from faghating to gay marriage virtue signaling a few years ago). But our chances of supplanting entrenched ideology with a few Tinder experiments and diatribes is next to nothing. It's probably going to take a plague of drop-out NEETcels and a handful of ERs before anyone sees this as an issue worth addressing, if then even.

the intellectual class is extremely bluepilled, they would never even allow the issue to be raised in the spaces they control.

 

[Grotesque]

Every intelligently stated point said by Mr. Hanson is lost in the glare of his Norwood400.

 

[Fontaine]

Directly comparing sexual redistribution policy and income redistribution policy is the correct approach to argue from. It can't be countered.

It can be countered easily: by irrational arguments.

No one cares about the rationality of an argument except nerds. What matters in the real world is merely that the argument is uttered with conviction and plays along with the personal interests and biases of the majority.