Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious First Amendment law: addressing incelophobic Redditors' ten most common free speech clichés

PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
For Americans, who account for almost half of all incels.is members, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is virtually unmatched by any other liberal democracy in a time where rabid online mobs seek to censor or even physically harm incels.

Non-burgercels have a stake as well: while the First Amendment doesn't protect speech in their home countries, the United States' vast influence over the internet still significantly impacts the quality of the content they view online. Indeed, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, noted in his most recent report that powerful free speech protections in the United States are difficult for authorities who seek to disrupt "extremist" content (see Conway, 2020).

After three years in the incel community, it's apparent that many of our most vituperative critics are clueless as to what does, and doesn't, constitute protected speech.

Let's get started.

1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."


This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.

2. "The First Amendment doesn't protect ISIS, so it shouldn't protect Neo-Nazis or incels either."


Whilst an ISIS member who knowingly provided material support or resources (personnel including oneself) to a designated foreign terrorist organization would likely be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the operative words are designated foreign terrorist organization. Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is one of few laws which have survived a First Amendment challenge on the basis of strict scrutiny, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010).

Notwithstanding, the federal judiciary would almost immediately strike down any law to create a register of domestic terrorist organizations akin to that the current list of foreign terrorist organizations, on the basis of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It wouldn't even be close...not that incels are a legal entity.

3. "Fighting words aren't free speech."


Nothing that an incel could say online could possibly constitute fighting words under the First Amendment.

The fighting words doctrine was established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) to address face-to-face insults that were likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Even so, over the past 79 years, the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts have narrowed Chaplinsky to such an extent some legal scholars question whether such an exception to the First Amendment still exists. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court noted that laws proscribing fighting words do not pass constitutional muster if said laws engage in viewpoint discrimination.

4. "Advocating or inciting violence and threats aren't free speech."


Before we proceed, it is important to distinguish between the colloquial understanding of the term incitement and the constitutionally proscribable incitement to imminent lawless action, as is understood by the legal community. The mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. Saying "Every Stacy deserves to be raped and decapitated," is distasteful, but protected. Incitement is only proscribable if it is likely to culminate in illegal action imminently, not at some indefinite future time.

I have previously written in far greater detail regarding the legal history of the advocacy of violence as well as the "true threats" exception to the First Amendment. The vast majority of incel speech simply does not fall under either of these narrowly defined exceptions.

5. "The clear and present danger test allows the government to censor incel speech, by balancing free speech and X."


The Clear and Present Danger test, first articulated in Schenck v. United States (1919), has been overturned for over well over half a century by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Schenck was a case in which the U.S. government sought to charge with sedition a man who distributed anti-war leaflets and is now widely regarded as a bad decision. Yet normies continue to misquote Oliver Wendell Holmes; something about "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre..."

A similar line of thought popular among Redditors suggests that free speech is a balancing act and can be proscribed for the purposes of other governmental interests, such as social justice.

Here, the Courts strongly disagree: First Amendment jurisprudence holds that speech is unprotected only if it falls into one of narrow, predefined exceptions; it is not the domain of the judiciary to "balance" freedom of speech with X, Y, or Z. In an 8-1 ruling holding that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in United States v. Stevens (2010):
The First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits. The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs.

6. "Hate speech is not free speech."
cap130.PNG

Hate speech is free speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Period. Viewpoint discrimination, as opposed to content-neutral regulation, is presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court most recently considered this question in its unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam (2017):
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate."

7. "Free speech doesn't protect the glorification of rape or pedophilia."
cap128.PNG

The mere expression of sexual interest in children and young teenagers in general, while extremely distasteful, is not criminal.

On an indirectly related note, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that simulated child pornography was not necessarily unprotected by the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for a 6-3 majority:
[the government] may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech. Protected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter

In addition, multiple federal appeals courts have ruled that paedophilia by itself does not constitute probable cause to search for child pornography (though I digress from the topic because this is a Fourth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment one). In United States v. Falso (2008), the Second Circuit noted that:
It is an inferential fallacy of ancient standing to conclude that, because members of group A (those who collect child pornography) are likely to be members of group B (those attracted to children), then group B is entirely or even largely composed of, members of group A.

8. "Muh stochastic terrorists!"


"Stochastic terrorism" is a pretty trendy term lately amongst pundits. In essence, "stochastic terrorism" describes speech that invites hatred against certain individuals or groups, causing listeners to engage in violence, even though said speech does not explicitly incite terrorism. "Stochastic" refers to the element of randomness in the indirectly causal relationship between the speaker and a violent listener.

The concept of "stochastic terrorism" has no legal construction, not in the United States, in fact not anywhere.

Like hate speech, what Redditors describe as "stochastic terrorism" is free speech.

9. "Free speech was intended to only allow speech criticizing the government."


Ah, right. Well, now that we're adopting some bastardized version of originalism that would make even Scalia look like a liberal by comparison, the right to vote was meant only for white, land-owning men, it was never meant for femoids.

10. "Speech can be intolerant. Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance permits us to deny free speech to the intolerant."


Whilst not specific to the First Amendment, it is not uncommon to notice left-wing authoritarians justify violence under the guise of Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. The following is oft taken out of context from his book, the Open Society and its Enemies:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Less quoted is Karl Popper's next sentence, which does not give the warrant to suppress "intolerance" as the SJWs think it does:
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.

John Rawls questions in his 1971 magnum opus, A Theory of Justice, whether intolerating intolerance would make society itself intolerant, and therefore unjust. My question is more straightforward: who gets to decide what constitutes intolerance?
 
Last edited:
iamsubhuman

iamsubhuman

5'4 incel at Fakecels.is
★★★★
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
876
Online
16d 20h 43m
Wellington

Wellington

I crossed the point of no return
★★★★
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Posts
1,846
Online
18d 17h 51m
Based and high-IQ :blackpill:

Mods should pin this thread
 
curryfool

curryfool

All life is a game of luck
★★★
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Posts
4,224
Online
75d 10h 21m
Imagine going to IT and then making a rebuttal post to seek their validation. Cringe. :feelsugh:
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
curryfool said:
Imagine going to IT and then making a rebuttal post to seek their validation. Cringe. :feelsugh:
The point isn't to seek their validation, it's for everyone else here to understand the law.

Brutal that I can write a shitpost about cumming in a drink and get three times as many responses here with an OP that takes 1/10th the effort :fuk:
 
0Energy0Happyness

0Energy0Happyness

Deathnic leader of I.N.C.E.L SINISTER death cult
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 1, 2021
Posts
3,946
Online
34d 13h 15m
Nobody on this site has ever killed another person, we are not terrorists and it's over
 
Therapywasaaste

Therapywasaaste

Tfw no PCP
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 6, 2020
Posts
4,467
Online
59d 3h 25m
Sounds like you're lawmaxxing :feelsautistic:
Wellington said:
Mods should pin this thread
:yes:
 
Dotrinfobe

Dotrinfobe

ja era
★★★
Joined
Dec 15, 2019
Posts
2,211
Online
41d 20h 49m
PPEcel said:
This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.
its not about being intellectually honesty.

its all about IQ, logical skill and analytical skills, which normies lack

to normies, there's no contradiction between beliving in free speech then restricting other speech they dont like :feelsclown: coz they're dumb, simple as that

and when this get pointed out, normies either would not "get it", or if they do, they'd point out to some random studies that "support" their views, or just use bad logics to justify it.

normie brains are fundamentally different than high IQ brains.
 
squirrelsonfire2

squirrelsonfire2

dotpilled
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 25, 2018
Posts
8,273
Online
83d 10h 32m
they want freedom to agree with them and that’s it
 
IncelCatechumen

IncelCatechumen

Officer
★★★
Joined
Jul 2, 2021
Posts
770
Online
13d 22h 6m
Nice analysis of anglo law.
 
ordinaryotaku

ordinaryotaku

Rotting collegecel. Women hate me for existing.
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Posts
12,695
Online
71d 22h 34m
Based and high IQ. Mods need to pin this.
 
faded

faded

5’4 Kikecel currently leechmaxxing
★★★
Joined
Aug 7, 2021
Posts
265
Online
4d 5h 54m
PPEcel said:
The point isn't to seek their validation, it's for everyone else here to understand the law.

Brutal that I can write a shitpost about cumming in a drink and get three times as many responses here with an OP that takes 1/10th the effort :fuk:
JFL they get triggered so easily
 
ilieknothing

ilieknothing

Admiral
★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
2,750
Online
52d 6h 58m
It’s nice to have a lawyercel in our ranks
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
ordinaryotaku said:
Based and high IQ. Mods need to pin this.
shameless plug Master @Master Fat Link @Fat Link
 
Kamikaze

Kamikaze

Keep grindin & keep huslin
-
Joined
Dec 4, 2020
Posts
6,405
Online
89d 21h 55m
Very high effort and high IQ.
 
kampman

kampman

Wizard
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 17, 2017
Posts
5,513
Online
150d 21h 35m
PPEcel said:
1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
View attachment 482287

This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.

It's no coincidence that you mentioned Idi Amin as an example for argument #1.
This "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." argument is basically a covert threat from people with dictatorial attitude and behavior: Don't you dare oppose the only view I'm willing to accept or I will use violence (even physical) against you.
 
SchrodingersDick

SchrodingersDick

Skeleton Volume = Life Quality
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 7, 2018
Posts
8,054
Online
51d 6h 36m
Great post dude.
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
PPEcel said:
For Americans, who account for almost half of all incels.is members, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is virtually unmatched by any other liberal democracy in a time where rabid online mobs seek to censor or even physically harm incels.

Non-burgercels have a stake as well: while the First Amendment doesn't protect speech in their home countries, the United States' vast influence over the internet still significantly impacts the quality of the content they view online. Indeed, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, noted in his most recent report that powerful free speech protections in the United States are difficult for authorities who seek to disrupt "extremist" content (see Conway, 2020).

After three years in the incel community, it's apparent that many of our most vituperative critics are clueless as to what does, and doesn't, constitute protected speech.

Let's get started.

1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
View attachment 482287

This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.

2. "The First Amendment doesn't protect ISIS, so it shouldn't protect Neo-Nazis or incels either."
View attachment 482288

Whilst an ISIS member who knowingly provided material support or resources (personnel including oneself) to a designated foreign terrorist organization would likely be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the operative words are designated foreign terrorist organization. Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is one of few laws which have survived a First Amendment challenge on the basis of strict scrutiny, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010).

Notwithstanding, the federal judiciary would almost immediately strike down any law to create a register of domestic terrorist organizations akin to that the current list of foreign terrorist organizations, on the basis of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It wouldn't even be close...not that incels are a legal entity.

3. "Fighting words aren't free speech."
View attachment 482290

Nothing that an incel could say online could possibly constitute fighting words under the First Amendment.

The fighting words doctrine was established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) to address face-to-face insults that were likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Even so, over the past 79 years, the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts have narrowed Chaplinsky to such an extent some legal scholars question whether such an exception to the First Amendment still exists. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court noted that laws proscribing fighting words do not pass constitutional muster if said laws engage in viewpoint discrimination.

4. "Advocating or inciting violence and threats aren't free speech."
View attachment 482324

Before we proceed, it is important to distinguish between the colloquial understanding of the term incitement and the constitutionally proscribable incitement to imminent lawless action, as is understood by the legal community. The mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. Saying "Every Stacy deserves to be raped and decapitated," is distasteful, but protected. Incitement is only proscribable if it is likely to culminate in illegal action imminently, not at some indefinite future time.

I have previously written in far greater detail regarding the legal history of the advocacy of violence as well as the "true threats" exception to the First Amendment. The vast majority of incel speech simply does not fall under either of these narrowly defined exceptions.

5. "The clear and present danger test allows the government to censor incel speech, by balancing free speech and X."
View attachment 482308

The Clear and Present Danger test, first articulated in Schenck v. United States (1919), has been overturned for over well over half a century by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Schenck was a case in which the U.S. government sought to charge with sedition a man who distributed anti-war leaflets and is now widely regarded as a bad decision. Yet normies continue to misquote Oliver Wendell Holmes; something about "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre..."

A similar line of thought popular among Redditors suggests that free speech is a balancing act and can be proscribed for the purposes of other governmental interests, such as social justice.

Here, the Courts strongly disagree: First Amendment jurisprudence holds that speech is unprotected only if it falls into one of narrow, predefined exceptions; it is not the domain of the judiciary to "balance" freedom of speech with X, Y, or Z. In an 8-1 ruling holding that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in United States v. Stevens (2010):


6. "Hate speech is not free speech."
View attachment 482304

Hate speech is free speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Period. Viewpoint discrimination, as opposed to content-neutral regulation, is presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court most recently considered this question in its unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam (2017):


7. "Free speech doesn't protect the glorification of rape or pedophilia."
View attachment 482292

The mere expression of sexual interest in children and young teenagers in general, while extremely distasteful, is not criminal.

On an indirectly related note, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that simulated child pornography was not necessarily unprotected by the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for a 6-3 majority:


In addition, multiple federal appeals courts have ruled that paedophilia by itself does not constitute probable cause to search for child pornography (though I digress from the topic because this is a Fourth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment one). In United States v. Falso (2008), the Second Circuit noted that:


8. "Muh stochastic terrorists!"
View attachment 482310

"Stochastic terrorism" is a pretty trendy term lately amongst pundits. In essence, "stochastic terrorism" describes speech that invites hatred against certain individuals or groups, causing listeners to engage in violence, even though said speech does not explicitly incite terrorism. "Stochastic" refers to the element of randomness in the indirectly causal relationship between the speaker and a violent listener.

The concept of "stochastic terrorism" has no legal construction, not in the United States, in fact not anywhere.

Like hate speech, what Redditors describe as "stochastic terrorism" is free speech.

9. "Free speech was intended to only allow speech criticizing the government."
View attachment 482305

Ah, right. Well, now that we're adopting some bastardized version of originalism that would make even Scalia look like a liberal by comparison, the right to vote was meant only for white, land-owning men, it was never meant for femoids.

10. "Speech can be intolerant. Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance permits us to deny free speech to the intolerant."
View attachment 482311

Whilst not specific to the First Amendment, it is not uncommon to notice left-wing authoritarians justify violence under the guise of Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. The following is oft taken out of context from his book, the Open Society and its Enemies:


Less quoted is Karl Popper's next sentence, which does not give the warrant to suppress "intolerance" as the SJWs think it does:


John Rawls questions in his 1971 magnum opus, A Theory of Justice, whether intolerating intolerance would make society itself intolerant, and therefore unjust. My question is more straightforward: who gets to decide what constitutes intolerance?
Interesting post, It raises some questions for me:
1) What is the explanation for the contradiction between this law and practices irl? On the surface, you have the right to free speech, but once you do, you would be subjected to persecution, mudslinging and job insecurity.

2) Can we prosecute companies like Reddit and Google for violating the First Amendment law to make them give reparations or pay a large fine? (Imagine this happening:ahegao:)
 
RecessedChinCel

RecessedChinCel

Captain
★★
Joined
May 19, 2021
Posts
1,642
Online
37d 23h 23m
TLDR: IncelTears are low IQ monkeys and ppecel IQ mogs their entire subreddit.

It’s so funny to me that the majority of users here IQ mog IT to oblivion yet they somehow still think they are the “rational” ones.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
Black Soul said:
Interesting post, It raises some questions for me:
1) What is the explanation for the contradiction between this law and practices irl? On the surface, you have the right to free speech, but once you do, you would be subjected to persecution, mudslinging and job insecurity.

2) Can we prosecute companies like Reddit and Google for violating the First Amendment law to make them give reparations or pay a large fine? (Imagine this happening:ahegao:)

1) The First Amendment, by and large, applies to state actors, those acting on behalf of state actors, and actors who exercise powers traditionally exclusive to the state. Remember, mudslinging is free speech as well.

2) No. Reddit and Google are not violating the First Amendment. Also, "prosecution" implies a criminal proceeding, but the legal remedy for a First Amendment is typically a civil proceeding.
 
Escthectrler

Escthectrler

Officer
★★★
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Posts
766
Online
18d 10h 50m
How is it hate speech if I love doing it?
Every Stacy deserves to be raped and decapitated
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
PPEcel said:
1) The First Amendment, by and large, applies to state actors, those acting on behalf of state actors, and actors who exercise powers traditionally exclusive to the state.
I honestly don't understand what do you mean? This law is supposed to be for civilians, not state actors.
PPEcel said:
Remember, mudslinging is free speech as well.
Incomplete principle. Incels' mudslinging on feminists and by toxic femininity indirectly affects women (damaging their reputation and their supporters' base).
In contrast, Feminists'mudslinging on Incels destroys their social and professional life, this is unfair.

"Free speech is legitimate as long as it does not cause direct damage to the private life of individuals"
This should be the new amendment :feelsUgh:
PPEcel said:
2) No. Reddit and Google are not violating the First Amendment. Also, "prosecution" implies a criminal proceeding, but the legal remedy for a First Amendment is typically a civil proceeding.
Damn, Is the bottom line that It's their own company and they're free to do whatever they want like ban Incels?
 
mericks

mericks

cripplecel
★★★★
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Posts
822
Online
19d 4h 9m
Based and liberty-pilled. IT are fascists.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
Black Soul said:
I honestly don't understand what do you mean? This law is supposed to be for civilians, not state actors.
It means the law proscribes state actors from imposing certain restrictions on speech; not private citizens on private property.

Black Soul said:
Incomplete principle. Incels' mudslinging on feminists and by toxic femininity indirectly affects women (damaging their reputation and their supporters' base).
In contrast, Feminists'mudslinging on Incels destroys their social and professional life, this is unfair.
"Fairness" doesn't and shouldn't factor into whether speech is protected.

Black Soul said:
"Free speech is legitimate as long as it does not cause direct damage to the private life of individuals"
This should be the new amendment :feelsUgh:
It shouldn't. "Damage" implies that it would be the role of the state to impose vague subjective value judgments of the social costs of speech. Such a heavily restrictive free speech regime would create a chilling effect and eventually be weaponized against ideological minorities, such as incels.

Black Soul said:
Damn, Is the bottom line that It's their own company and they're free to do whatever they want like ban Incels?
Yes, for now. However, the First Amendment m
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
16,774
Online
131d 18h 33m
This post needs to stay pinned permanently
 
BPJ

BPJ

Recruit
★★★★★
Joined
Jan 30, 2021
Posts
493
Online
9d 6h 7m
amazing post. so well written and researched..
BlkPillPres said:
This post needs to stay pinned permanently
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
PPEcel said:
It means the law proscribes state actors from imposing certain restrictions on speech; not private citizens on private property.
I got it. Thanks!
PPEcel said:
"Fairness" doesn't and shouldn't factor into whether speech is protected.


It shouldn't. "Damage" implies that it would be the role of the state to impose vague subjective value judgments of the social costs of speech. Such a heavily restrictive free speech regime would create a chilling effect and eventually be weaponized against ideological minorities, such as incels.
1. I claim that what I suggested is a decent law formulation theoretically, but there are applicational challenges. Your objections are because of the unreliable state, untrustworthy government, and unscrupulous regime.
This is a big problem in itself tbh and should be solved first.

2. You have that faith like "Free speech is protected no matter what! There are no exceptions." This is clearly not true, for example, there is no free speech about national security secrets that you know or technical secrets of the company in which you work. why? because these are more important things than your secondary whims, and our lives matter too.

So the principle has existed, but all this complexity wouldn't be necessary if at least the government forced companies and institutions to not take a stand against Incels based on his personal opinions. The nonsense of firing employees because they are misogynistic or anti-Semitic must stop.
PPEcel said:
would create a chilling effect and eventually be weaponized against ideological minorities, such as incels.
"chilling effect" :feelskek:
Exaggerations and cognitive distortions are big restrictions on Incels to go forward in fighting for their rights.
I think the concept that says "Doing the something X will be weaponized against Incels" was established by Y @your personality ngl :feelsjuice:
PPEcel said:
Yes, for now. However, the First Amendment m
If it is true why if Facebook was put on trial for the Cambridge Analytica data scandal :feelsjuice:
They should let them do what they want, or do they have double standards?
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
Black Soul said:
1. I claim that what I suggested is a decent law formulation theoretically, but there are applicational challenges. Your objections are because of the unreliable state, untrustworthy government, and unscrupulous regime.
This is a big problem in itself tbh and should be solved first.
This is a straw man. I didn't necessarily suggest that the state was "unreliable, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous", because in any case even a state that is reliable, trustworthy, and scrupulous should have no power to police speech on such the basis of a condition as absurdly vague and overbroad as "...damaging the private life of another".

Black Soul said:
2. You have that faith like "Free speech is protected no matter what! There are no exceptions."
This is also a straw man. I have never once claimed that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech. What I did say was that all existing content-based exceptions are established by precedent and narrowly defined, and that the government cannot and should not create new categories of unprotected speech on the basis of an ad hoc balancing test (i.e. "fairness").

Black Soul said:
This is clearly not true, for example, there is no free speech about national security secrets that you know
Whilst true, the government's right to suppress the publication of controlled information is not absolute. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the NYTimes' right to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers, against the wishes of the Nixon administration.

Black Soul said:
or technical secrets of the company in which you work.
If you voluntarily signed a non-disclosure agreement, that does not breach your freedom of speech.

Black Soul said:
So the principle has existed, but all this complexity wouldn't be necessary if at least the government forced companies and institutions to not take a stand against Incels based on his personal opinions. The nonsense of firing employees because they are misogynistic or anti-Semitic must stop.
Say person A says "person B is sexist", and person C fires person B as a result of person A's words. Your solution is to proscribe person A from exercising his or her speech rights instead of barring person C's actions?

Complexity is necessary and desirable. Complex legal doctrines reflect a complex society. I have barely scratched the surface of First Amendment jurisprudence.

Black Soul said:
"chilling effect" :feelskek:
I think the concept that says "Doing the something X will be weaponized against Incels" was established by Y @your personality ngl :feelsjuice:
The term "chilling effect" has a long legal history, and refers to vague or overbroad laws that deter legitimate speech.

Black Soul said:
If it is true why if Facebook was put on trial for the Cambridge Analytica data scandal :feelsjuice:
They should let them do what they want, or do they have double standards?
The Cambridge Analytica data scandal was not litigated as a First Amendment issue. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission initiated a civil proceeding against Facebook for misleading investors over the risk of misuse of personal data, and it was resolved with a $100 million out-of-court settlement. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission fined Facebook $5 billion for misleading consumers over the data handling provisions of its own TOS; Facebook declined to dispute and agreed to pay the fine.

Facebook is, as of current law, within its rights to adopt TOS that allows them to ban users at its discretion.
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
PPEcel said:
This is a straw man. I didn't necessarily suggest that the state was "unreliable, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous", because in any case even a state that is reliable, trustworthy, and scrupulous should have no power to police speech on such the basis of a condition as absurdly vague and overbroad as "...damaging the private life of another".


This is also a straw man. I have never once claimed that there are no exceptions to freedom of speech. What I did say was that all existing content-based exceptions are established by precedent and narrowly defined, and that the government cannot and should not create new categories of unprotected speech on the basis of an ad hoc balancing test (i.e. "fairness").
Ok man, I understand you better now. I wasn't trying to invent strawmans and attack you, but it was my genuine reading between your lines.
PPEcel said:
Whilst true, the government's right to suppress the publication of controlled information is not absolute. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected the NYTimes' right to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers, against the wishes of the Nixon administration.
I searched for this case and it was impressive to me the unique political development of the US, but among this idealism, one must note the seriousness of an act like the one done by The New York Times. The consequences of this are the impact on national security, foreign relations, internal stability, the economy, the financial market, and many more. American people and the average citizens bear the costs of these privileges because of their metaphysical belief in freedom of expression and press, look at this quote I found: (The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.")
This means that there must be righteous justifications / common good benefits for allowing free speech that has such heavy consequences, Otherwise, it isn't worth it. (that proves my point)

Observation: The American mentality tends to believe that Person B deserves whatever happens to him if it is an outcome of Person A's free speech(defamation)!
PPEcel said:
Say person A says "person B is sexist", and person C fires person B as a result of person A's words. Your solution is to proscribe person A from exercising his or her speech rights instead of barring person C's actions?
I choose (barring person C's actions), It is proper for all sides, but years have passed and no one faced the mob. In any case, the two options are on the table, and I am not the one who chooses :smonk:
 
Last edited:
TINMAN

TINMAN

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 7, 2018
Posts
6,820
Online
134d 4h 37m
High IQ post
 
slavcel11

slavcel11

kitsunepilled
★★★
Joined
Apr 16, 2020
Posts
4,235
Online
81d 14h 16m
Based and philosophy pilled.
 
spiralshape

spiralshape

Gymcel
Joined
Aug 20, 2021
Posts
10
Online
11h 55m
Based and jurispilled.:yes:
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
Black Soul said:
I searched for this case and it was impressive to me the unique political development of the US, but among this idealism, one must note the seriousness of an act like the one done by The New York Times. The consequences of this are the impact on national security, foreign relations, internal stability, the economy, the financial market, and many more. American people and the average citizens bear the costs of these privileges because of their metaphysical belief in freedom of expression and press, look at this quote I found: (The constitutional safeguard, we have said, "was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.")
This means that there must be righteous justifications / common good benefits for allowing free speech that has such heavy consequences, Otherwise, it isn't worth it. (that proves my point)

The NYTimes is based, but I'd caution against drawing the inference that the burgerland public at large is as committed to freedom of speech as their legal community.
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
PPEcel said:
The NYTimes is based, but I'd caution against drawing the inference that the burgerland public at large is as committed to freedom of speech as their legal community.
Indeed.
 
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,592
Online
153d 19h 34m
Black Soul said:
"chilling effect" :feelskek:
Exaggerations and cognitive distortions are big restrictions on Incels to go forward in fighting for their rights.
I think the concept that says "Doing the something X will be weaponized against Incels" was established by Y @your personality ngl :feelsjuice:
Both concepts "it doesn't matter how much incels engage in optics, they'll still make us look like monsters" and "why give them more to use against us" are imo both correct.

For example, while it doesn't help to try and water down what is discussed in blackpill communities to make it more palpable to normies, when there is an event like a mass shooting it doesn't help for some people here to talk about how the shooter was a saint and how more things like this will happen. There's a reason why in the past many other male groups just didn't talk about these things when it happened. Even saying neutral things like "I don't support this but I understand why it happened" was enough for them to get blamed so cheering on these events and saying more need to happen paints a target on your back and any other antifeminist groups online.


There is no way for incels to fight for their rights and incels aren't a rights group. But to protect an incel community from deplatforming it's helpful not to comment on any of these shootings when they happen as those comments will just be cherrypicked to justify "cracking down" on incels. "No comment" is boring. It doesn't engage the imagination. It isn't considered "based". But it prevents you from giving more rope to others to hang you with.
 
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
your personality said:
Both concepts "it doesn't matter how much incels engage in optics, they'll still make us look like monsters" and "why give them more to use against us" are imo both correct.

For example, while it doesn't help to try and water down what is discussed in blackpill communities to make it more palpable to normies, when there is an event like a mass shooting it doesn't help for some people here to talk about how the shooter was a saint and how more things like this will happen. There's a reason why in the past many other male groups just didn't talk about these things when it happened. Even saying neutral things like "I don't support this but I understand why it happened" was enough for them to get blamed so cheering on these events and saying more need to happen paints a target on your back and any other antifeminist groups online.

There is no way for incels to fight for their rights and incels aren't a rights group. But to protect an incel community from deplatforming it's helpful not to comment on any of these shootings when they happen as those comments will just be cherrypicked to justify "cracking down" on incels. "No comment" is boring. It doesn't engage the imagination. It isn't considered "based". But it prevents you from giving more rope to others to hang you with.
I think, on the balance, mass shootings do draw low-tier normies and bluepilled incels towards the blackpill.
 
cvh1991

cvh1991

Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Posts
1,027
Online
4d 18h 40m
PPEcel said:
For Americans, who account for almost half of all incels.is members, the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression is virtually unmatched by any other liberal democracy in a time where rabid online mobs seek to censor or even physically harm incels.

Non-burgercels have a stake as well: while the First Amendment doesn't protect speech in their home countries, the United States' vast influence over the internet still significantly impacts the quality of the content they view online. Indeed, the UK's Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, noted in his most recent report that powerful free speech protections in the United States are difficult for authorities who seek to disrupt "extremist" content (see Conway, 2020).

After three years in the incel community, it's apparent that many of our most vituperative critics are clueless as to what does, and doesn't, constitute protected speech.

Let's get started.

1. "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences."
View attachment 482287

This is intellectually empty rhetoric. Indeed, a favourite quote of brutal Ugandan despot Idi Amin shares a similar sentiment: "There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech." If Redditors were intellectually honest, they would simply argue, "Well, I just don't believe in freedom of expression as a concept," instead of arguing that imposing arbitrary and ominous consequences on innocent incels who choose to exercise their rights wouldn't violate those same rights.

2. "The First Amendment doesn't protect ISIS, so it shouldn't protect Neo-Nazis or incels either."
View attachment 482288

Whilst an ISIS member who knowingly provided material support or resources (personnel including oneself) to a designated foreign terrorist organization would likely be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2339B, the operative words are designated foreign terrorist organization. Notably, 18 U.S.C. § 2339B is one of few laws which have survived a First Amendment challenge on the basis of strict scrutiny, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010).

Notwithstanding, the federal judiciary would almost immediately strike down any law to create a register of domestic terrorist organizations akin to that the current list of foreign terrorist organizations, on the basis of the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It wouldn't even be close...not that incels are a legal entity.

3. "Fighting words aren't free speech."
View attachment 482290

Nothing that an incel could say online could possibly constitute fighting words under the First Amendment.

The fighting words doctrine was established in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) to address face-to-face insults that were likely to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Even so, over the past 79 years, the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts have narrowed Chaplinsky to such an extent some legal scholars question whether such an exception to the First Amendment still exists. In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), the Court noted that laws proscribing fighting words do not pass constitutional muster if said laws engage in viewpoint discrimination.

4. "Advocating or inciting violence and threats aren't free speech."
View attachment 482324

Before we proceed, it is important to distinguish between the colloquial understanding of the term incitement and the constitutionally proscribable incitement to imminent lawless action, as is understood by the legal community. The mere advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment. Saying "Every Stacy deserves to be raped and decapitated," is distasteful, but protected. Incitement is only proscribable if it is likely to culminate in illegal action imminently, not at some indefinite future time.

I have previously written in far greater detail regarding the legal history of the advocacy of violence as well as the "true threats" exception to the First Amendment. The vast majority of incel speech simply does not fall under either of these narrowly defined exceptions.

5. "The clear and present danger test allows the government to censor incel speech, by balancing free speech and X."
View attachment 482308

The Clear and Present Danger test, first articulated in Schenck v. United States (1919), has been overturned for over well over half a century by Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Schenck was a case in which the U.S. government sought to charge with sedition a man who distributed anti-war leaflets and is now widely regarded as a bad decision. Yet normies continue to misquote Oliver Wendell Holmes; something about "(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theatre..."

A similar line of thought popular among Redditors suggests that free speech is a balancing act and can be proscribed for the purposes of other governmental interests, such as social justice.

Here, the Courts strongly disagree: First Amendment jurisprudence holds that speech is unprotected only if it falls into one of narrow, predefined exceptions; it is not the domain of the judiciary to "balance" freedom of speech with X, Y, or Z. In an 8-1 ruling holding that depictions of animal cruelty are not categorically unprotected by the First Amendment, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in United States v. Stevens (2010):


6. "Hate speech is not free speech."
View attachment 482304

Hate speech is free speech. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Period. Viewpoint discrimination, as opposed to content-neutral regulation, is presumptively unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court most recently considered this question in its unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam (2017):


7. "Free speech doesn't protect the glorification of rape or pedophilia."
View attachment 482292

The mere expression of sexual interest in children and young teenagers in general, while extremely distasteful, is not criminal.

On an indirectly related note, in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), the Supreme Court struck down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, holding that simulated child pornography was not necessarily unprotected by the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for a 6-3 majority:


In addition, multiple federal appeals courts have ruled that paedophilia by itself does not constitute probable cause to search for child pornography (though I digress from the topic because this is a Fourth Amendment issue, not a First Amendment one). In United States v. Falso (2008), the Second Circuit noted that:


8. "Muh stochastic terrorists!"
View attachment 482310

"Stochastic terrorism" is a pretty trendy term lately amongst pundits. In essence, "stochastic terrorism" describes speech that invites hatred against certain individuals or groups, causing listeners to engage in violence, even though said speech does not explicitly incite terrorism. "Stochastic" refers to the element of randomness in the indirectly causal relationship between the speaker and a violent listener.

The concept of "stochastic terrorism" has no legal construction, not in the United States, in fact not anywhere.

Like hate speech, what Redditors describe as "stochastic terrorism" is free speech.

9. "Free speech was intended to only allow speech criticizing the government."
View attachment 482305

Ah, right. Well, now that we're adopting some bastardized version of originalism that would make even Scalia look like a liberal by comparison, the right to vote was meant only for white, land-owning men, it was never meant for femoids.

10. "Speech can be intolerant. Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance permits us to deny free speech to the intolerant."
View attachment 482311

Whilst not specific to the First Amendment, it is not uncommon to notice left-wing authoritarians justify violence under the guise of Karl Popper's paradox of tolerance. The following is oft taken out of context from his book, the Open Society and its Enemies:


Less quoted is Karl Popper's next sentence, which does not give the warrant to suppress "intolerance" as the SJWs think it does:


John Rawls questions in his 1971 magnum opus, A Theory of Justice, whether intolerating intolerance would make society itself intolerant, and therefore unjust. My question is more straightforward: who gets to decide what constitutes intolerance?
Good post, redditard normfags are actually stupid and they’re definitely intellectually dishonest and too arrogant to see their own hypocrisy for what it is. It is hilarious that they flip all their “rules” on their head when it’s their group under fire or a group they hate being targeted, god I hate hypocrites.
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
your personality said:
when there is an event like a mass shooting it doesn't help for some people here to talk about how the shooter was a saint and how more things like this will happen.
After thinking carefully, there is really no point in rant speech. At least wait until the fire has died down and the focus on the forum is less.
(I'm sorry for the late reply, I was suffering from autism:feelsrope:)
your personality said:
There's a reason why in the past many other male groups just didn't talk about these things when it happened. Even saying neutral things like "I don't support this but I understand why it happened" was enough for them to get blamed so cheering on these events and saying more need to happen paints a target on your back and any other antifeminist groups online.
Doesn't this prove the futility of de-escalation? I don't know which groups you refer to, but where are they now after making concessions? I think normies and feminists are still not satisfied with them and ban them.

There is also a fallacy in comparison. There are no groups like Incels until MGTOWS say "Don't hate women" "Leave them alone, bro" and a lot of cuck things.
your personality said:
There is no way for incels to fight for their rights
We are not the first persecuted minority in history, as many similar groups have obtained their rights as we can.
your personality said:
incels aren't a rights group.
why?
 
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,592
Online
153d 19h 34m
Black Soul said:
Doesn't this prove the futility of de-escalation? I don't know which groups you refer to, but where are they now after making concessions? I think normies and feminists are still not satisfied with them and ban them.
There's a middle ground between full compromise and going the other extreme and just being completely "based" and cheering on acts of violence when they occur.

The thing is, those other antifeminist groups (MRAs and mgtows) only got banned after incels came on the scene and there were a number of incel attacks like ER, the yoga shooter and AM. Before that, while such antifeminist groups were associated with threats to society that needed to be done away with, society struggled hard to label them as extremists and terrorists because none of them had explicitly committed or cheered on acts of violence and there was no other group on the scene that used the same terminology and talked about the same concepts at them that better fit this terrorist stereotype that society was trying to categorize them into.

Incel communities did however this stereotype and because of the similar terminology incels used with other antifeminist groups, it made it easy for society to conflate these other groups with incels and get all of them banned.
Black Soul said:
There is also a fallacy in comparison. There are no groups like Incels until MGTOWS say "Don't hate women" "Leave them alone, bro" and a lot of cuck things.
What?
If anything it was the MRAs that said this because they were the side that had to say cuck things to appeal to society. They have to appeal to society, because they are a rights group petitioning society. mgtows consider the situation unfixable and walked away, still trying not to endorse hatred but trying to practice disinterest and indifference.

It was mgtows and other redpillers that even were less judgemental about "red pill rage" than other antifeminist groups like MRAs and traditionalists were (MRAs and traditionalists aren't the same but they both frowned upon "red pill rage" and kept saying that men shouldn't stoop to feminist levels of misandry).
Black Soul said:
We are not the first persecuted minority in history, as many similar groups have obtained their rights as we can.
There's only so much room at the top. No truly low SMV males like ethnic incels are going to be protected by society anytime soon as those that recently made it (like many East Asian guys) don't want to make anymore room.
Black Soul said:
Because incels recognize the blackpill and how society is stacked against low SMV males. Thinking you can go against people's biological inclinations to treat low SMV ugly males as lesser than higher SMV males is bluepilled and goes against the determinism in the blackpill. The blackpill is that it's over, cope or rope. Beside that, incels aren't an ideology but simply males that aren't attractive to females.
 
Last edited:
Linesnap99

Linesnap99

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Posts
5,540
Online
41d 12h 30m
your personality said:
Because incels recognize the blackpill and how society is stacked against low SMV males.
yes
your personality said:
Thinking you can go against people's biological inclinations to treat low SMV ugly males as lesser than higher SMV males is bluepilled and goes against the determinism in the blackpill.
no. That will be cucked to not do anything about it and let the chads have harem. why should only he get to enjoy the youth of the foids. men should be resentful.
your personality said:
The blackpill is that it's over, cope or rope. Beside that, incels aren't an ideology but simply males that aren't attractive to females.
yes. society and laws made it worse for men. foids have all the privileges .foids should not be allowed to have opinions. because they are chad only. you would think by giving them rights they would pick the good and honest guys but they do the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
Black Soul said:
I'm agree with you After thinking carefully, there is really no point in rant speech. At least we and basedcels specially should wait until the fire has died down and the focus on the forum is less.
Just in case my words weren't intelligible.
your personality said:
The thing is, those other antifeminist groups (MRAs and mgtows) only got banned after incels came on the scene and there were a number of incel attacks like ER, the yoga shooter and AM. Before that, while such antifeminist groups were associated with threats to society that needed to be done away with, society struggled hard to label them as extremists and terrorists because none of them had explicitly committed or cheered on acts of violence and there was no other group on the scene that used the same terminology and talked about the same concepts at them that better fit this terrorist stereotype that society was trying to categorize them into.

Incel communities did however this stereotype and because of the similar terminology incels used with other antifeminist groups, it made it easy for society to conflate these other groups with incels and get all of them banned.
I don't agree with your theory tbh. I think these groups have different features, they can't be wrongly confused. Those who run the Propaganda machine don't care about the justifications for their actions. It can be said that all they have done towards men’s movements is the exclusion, confiscation of our freedom of expression, and arbitrarily accusing us.

you said it "while such antifeminist groups were associated with threats to society that needed to be done away with" that is their thought about us. whatever happened was going to happen no matter what we did.
your personality said:
It was mgtows and other redpillers that even were less judgemental about "red pill rage" than other antifeminist groups like MRAs and traditionalists were (MRAs and traditionalists aren't the same but they both frowned upon "red pill rage" and kept saying that men shouldn't stoop to feminist levels of misandry).
"men shouldn't stoop to feminist levels of misandry:soy:"
TBH, I can't count the number of times I have read sentences with the same content, whether in the YouTube comments of the Mgtow and Redpill channels or in Mgtows' subreddits :feelsjuice:
your personality said:
There's only so much room at the top. No truly low SMV males like ethnic incels are going to be protected by society anytime soon as those that recently made it (like many East Asian guys) don't want to make anymore room.
"protected" from what? from themselves! I don't want anyone to protect me, I want our demands to be fulfilled including stopping male shame, Free and state-supported prostitution, and Freedom in researching and developing (also providing financial support) in fields of sexbots, cloning, orthopedic modification, and others.

I think we shouldn't despair, remember that a week is a long time in politics.
your personality said:
Because incels recognize the blackpill and how society is stacked against low SMV males. Thinking you can go against people's biological inclinations to treat low SMV ugly males as lesser than higher SMV males is bluepilled and goes against the determinism in the blackpill.
low SMV males = sub 8 males = 70~80% of males
The problem is that they aren't blackpilled, but that will happen sooner or later, when that happens who will face the large crowds of angry men?
 
gymletethnicel

gymletethnicel

Incel Cinematic Universe Reality 2021
★★★★★
Joined
May 8, 2019
Posts
19,440
Online
361d 2h 13m
0Energy0Happyness said:
Nobody on this site has ever killed another person, we are not terrorists and it's over
You can't know that
 
trying to ascend

trying to ascend

Youngcel KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
6,415
Online
191d 17h 5m
Nice post, too bad there is no law in my country properly protecting free speech like there is in the US
 
Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,592
Online
153d 19h 34m
Black Soul said:
I don't agree with your theory tbh. I think these groups have different features, they can't be wrongly confused. Those who run the Propaganda machine don't care about the justifications for their actions. It can be said that all they have done towards men’s movements is the exclusion, confiscation of our freedom of expression, and arbitrarily accusing us.
Of course they deliberately conflated every manosphere group with incels even though the various manosphere groups had different features than incels did. Still, the reason why they conflated everyone with incels is because it was incels that were the most "radical" and talked about violence. That's what they were looking to associate their enemies in the manosphere with who they had unsuccessfully tried to associate with violence before.
Black Soul said:
you said it "while such antifeminist groups were associated with threats to society that needed to be done away with" that is their thought about us. whatever happened was going to happen no matter what we did.
It happened a lot sooner than it otherwise would have. Had ER been the only notable attack, the mainstream media and tech companies would have run out of formal justifications to get rid of all antifeminist manosphere groups. They would have to invent other things or groups to associate antifeminist manosphere groups with that, pushing the time table for deplatforming 5 to 10 years down the line or perhaps it not occurring at all (it takes a lot of resources to astroturf such groups). Their original plan was to associate the manosophere with the alt-right but that was falling through as the alt-right pretty much died after Charlottesville.


It was violence that was declared as part of an "incel rebelllion" (yoga shooter, AM and various stings on would be blackpilled incel attackers) that was the reason why they were able to move so fast and deplatform other manosphere groups.
Black Soul said:
"men shouldn't stoop to feminist levels of misandry:soy:"
TBH, I can't count the number of times I have read sentences with the same content, whether in the YouTube comments of the Mgtow and Redpill channels or in Mgtows' subreddits :feelsjuice:
They are just trying to prove society's narrative about them wrong so they have to now and then take about having the higher ground. Incels by contrast aren't trying to prove society's narrative about them wrong necessarily but trying to get others to address their problems. And tbh it's not good to get caught up in rage. Redpill groups aren't telling you not to express it like many MRAs and traditionalists do. They are just saying it isn't good to get caught up in it.
Black Soul said:
"protected" from what? from themselves! I don't want anyone to protect me, I want our demands to be fulfilled including stopping male shame, Free and state-supported prostitution, and Freedom in researching and developing (also providing financial support) in fields of sexbots, cloning, orthopedic modification, and others.

I think we shouldn't despair, remember that a week is a long time in politics.
You aren't going to stop the double standards easily. Legislation talking about making virgin shaming a hate crime would be laughed out of the room.

Sexbots and vr are the best bets. You can't rely on or count on the government to step up.
Black Soul said:
low SMV males = sub 8 males = 70~80% of males
Only if betabuxxing goes away completely. Otherwise it's more like 30% to 50% (recent statistics demonstrate this tbh).
Black Soul said:
The problem is that they aren't blackpilled, but that will happen sooner or later, when that happens who will face the large crowds of angry men?
They will violently put down such large crowds of men and/or redirect those men into conflicts with other men through war.

Linesnap99 said:
no. That will be cucked to not do anything about it and let the chads have harem. why should only he get to enjoy the youth of the foids. men should be resentful.
Well whatever incels do it's obvious that talking about incel rebellions and saints and saying there needs to be an uprising isn't helping but instead making things worse.

The better thing to do is to get rich and fund developments for low SMV male copes and so that blackpilled incels have enough funds to be less attractive targets to villainize (money equals power and influence to change laws and challenge misconceptions put out by other wealthy special interest groups).
Linesnap99 said:
yes. society and laws made it worse for men. foids have all the privileges .foids should not be allowed to have opinions. because they are chad only. you would think by giving them rights they would pick the good and honest guys but they do the opposite.
Giving foids rights is a return to nature with a cruel human twist of rationalizing it and doubling down on it. This is imo because males that aren't sexually attractive are always treated worse and preyed upon more by others. Females in many species seem wired to do this (not only casting out sexually unattractive males but trying to make it so they actively suffer and are preyed upon). Many here have said that at least in nature there's balance to female sexual selection through use of force but that is forbidden to males in modern society.
 
Gymcelled

Gymcelled

Genetically shackled to hell
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 15, 2019
Posts
11,278
Online
124d 7h 40m
Dotrinfobe said:
its not about being intellectually honesty.

its all about IQ, logical skill and analytical skills, which normies lack

to normies, there's no contradiction between beliving in free speech then restricting other speech they dont like :feelsclown: coz they're dumb, simple as that

and when this get pointed out, normies either would not "get it", or if they do, they'd point out to some random studies that "support" their views, or just use bad logics to justify it.

normie brains are fundamentally different than high IQ brains.
Kamikaze said:
Very high effort and high IQ.
 
Black Soul

Black Soul

Legend
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Posts
3,923
Online
51d 17h 3m
your personality said:
Of course they deliberately conflated every manosphere group with incels even though the various manosphere groups had different features than incels did. Still, the reason why they conflated everyone with incels is because it was incels that were the most "radical" and talked about violence. That's what they were looking to associate their enemies in the manosphere with who they had unsuccessfully tried to associate with violence before.
But I see a positive side of that, their witch-hunt made other Manosphere groups more understanding and close to Incels. Even Blackpill started to infiltrate into their ideology and little by little replaced Redpill.
Contrary to what simps and foids wanted, their hysterical ban didn't cause these groups to blame Incels as much as it made them more indignant at them.

your personality said:
Incels by contrast aren't trying to prove society's narrative about them wrong necessarily
Because it is of no use.
your personality said:
They will violently put down such large crowds of men and/or redirect those men into conflicts with other men through war.
You are really fond of imagining the worst possible scenarios.
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top