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

Y

your personality

Transcendental
★★★★★
Joined
Jun 26, 2020
Posts
29,592
Online
153d 19h 34m
Black Soul said:
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.
I wouldn't say that happened tbh
More likely other manosphere groups just self censored and went underground more after being kicked off of mainstream sites, limiting their reach and effectiveness.

Calling someone and labeling someone as an incel only makes some people identify more with blackpilled incels. For the rest of people, it causes them to want to separate themselves even more from anything considered incel culture or speak.
Black Soul said:
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.
Their goal wasn't to cause those groups to blame incels. Their goal was to use incels to deplatform other manosphere groups. What happened after that wasn't much their concern. Once that objective was achieved they'd just continually label any new antifeminist group as incel and get those groups banned too. The goal with such bannings was to silence such manosphere groups and the easiest way they did that is by falsely grouping them with violent blackpilled incels and arguing for those groups to be banned because of that.

After that it is more likely that other manosphere groups would still want to stay away from the blackpill particularly if they thought that it was that association with the blackpill that got them banned.
Black Soul said:
You are really fond of imagining the worst possible scenarios.
It's pretty realistic to expect people to put down any uprisings of disgruntled men or making them fight against each other. Society has no problem doing that.

What is optimistic is thinking that men in western countries will just be able to revolt and society and government being powerless to stop it.
Black Soul said:
Because it is of no use.
I didn't say otherwise. But tbh this point was originally about how incels aren't a rights group in response to you saying how incels need to fight for their rights. Incels are a group of unattractive males with varying views just like anyone else. And because blackpilled incels would see trying to prove society's narrative about them wrong as being of no use, it's more likely that compared to other people, they would be more apathetic to what happens to them other than lashing out randomly when they get angry. There would be no sustained organized effort for long enough to demand anything of society.
 
Last edited:
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
love how quickly these derail Y @your personality
 
AbsolutelyBrutal

AbsolutelyBrutal

I'll come back before 2021 ends
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Posts
3,539
Online
19d 16h 19m
By IQ increased by 1 point after reading this post.
 
The_Scapegoat

The_Scapegoat

Greycel
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
38
Online
4d 8h 51m
ordinaryotaku said:
Based and high IQ. Mods need to pin this.
Yes, this.
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. 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.
Question, though: what if a private company or a group of companies who have a monopoly on a segment of the economy, such as the internet (ex: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple), banking, commerce, etc, decide to ban someone from using their services at the encouragement, behest, implied will, explicit request of an official or agency of the federal government for non-criminal behavior, such as expressing political beliefs they don't agree with?

I cannot help but notice that almost everyone who runs a company in Big Tech, banking, etc, are connected by blood, marriage, interests, and beliefs with certain government officials of a fascistic bent in the suppression of dissent and contrary views, silencing critics, inhibiting alternatives to their platforms from gaining traction (Parler, for example), or even using rogue actors (activists, hackers) to go after people, groups, and businesses they don't like politically (Incels.is). It is almost as if it were a real-world "conspiracy to deny rights" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241).
 
Last edited:
Arthas93

Arthas93

Always remember that we all will die.
★★★★
Joined
Apr 16, 2018
Posts
3,855
Online
28d 21h 14m
Highest IQ thing I read, better knowledge of the US Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge.
 
GreaseCel

GreaseCel

The Bee’s Knees
★★★★★
Joined
May 19, 2019
Posts
5,851
Online
44d 14h 10m
PPEcel

PPEcel

truecel, studentcel, 21
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Posts
22,866
Online
164d 8h 14m
The_Scapegoat said:
Question, though: what if a private company or a group of companies who have a monopoly on a segment of the economy, such as the internet (ex: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple), banking, commerce, etc, decide to ban someone from using their services at the encouragement, behest, implied will, explicit request of an official or agency of the federal government for non-criminal behavior, such as expressing political beliefs they don't agree with?
First Amendment would only apply if they were state actors, acting on behalf of a state actor, or exercising powers traditionally granted to state actors. That they acted on the "encouragement" or "implied will" of a state actor would not cut it.

Private companies can indeed ban people for expressing political beliefs they don't agree with.

The_Scapegoat said:
I cannot help but notice that almost everyone who runs a company in Big Tech, banking, etc, are connected by blood, marriage, interests, and beliefs with certain government officials of a fascistic bent in the suppression of dissent and contrary views, silencing critics, inhibiting alternatives to their platforms from gaining traction (Parler, for example), or even using rogue actors (activists, hackers) to go after people, groups, and businesses they don't like politically (Incels.is). It is almost as if it were a real-world "conspiracy to deny rights" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/241).
Conspiracy against rights wouldn't apply.

Arthas93 said:
Highest IQ thing I read, better knowledge of the US Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge.
no, SCOTUS justices mog
 
shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top