jfl you're like that nf song now, 'my layers have got layers'
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tCJtfCV8Y&pp=ygUJbGF0ZXJzIG5m
RageFuel LEXXMARIA ( Infamous Foid " Tiktok Poster of our Site ) IS INFILTRATING US ALREADY . SHIT !!!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4tCJtfCV8Y&pp=ygUJbGF0ZXJzIG5m
That’s bonkers. What was the account called and how many posts did she have
Uggo Mongo, let me post Tyrone threads again so this foid doesn't find me worthy of being doxxed
Lmfao. Never even heard that one before. I have heard Let You Down, Time, and Lie though and they are good
I believe it was @Rapist who told me about it because I was a GrAY when I heard about this story
Based. Never trust GrAYs
Shes looking for Big @Liu KANG Cock.I just looked at some of her New Shit , ( Curiousity Perhaps ) Not Suprised that she is Still Occupied with Us , Since Woman are Vain and Cant Mind their Own Business Either . BUT SHE HAS AN ACCOUNT HERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . ( Proof as a Picture Down below )
This is of course not Quite Acceptable . Obviously filtERing hER out might be Kinda Hard if she already has a decent Postcount , but nontheless try to Look out for her !
Anyways " Miss Death Stare Eyes " . Get the fuck outta hERe !
View attachment 1283202
@Friezacel @Mecoja @The Abyss @VersoffenerAssi @Swagpilled @Rotter @OutcompetedByRoomba @Lebensmüder @Der tote Engel ohne @Gott _mit _uns94 @Hoppipolla @erenyeager @Stupid Clown @Emba @GeckoBus @Neucher.Belgrade @XDFLAMEBOY @kay' @Schizoidcel @Samurai @VideoGameCoper @Balding Subhuman Subhuman @BurntIvoryKingcel @Liu KANG @Therapywasawaste @ReplaceMyJuice @FuckTheFBI @lennox @wereq @anotherwastedlife @GENSHIT CHIMPACT @edgelordcel @Fat Link @PPEcel @Dregster @Master @proudweeb
Her "secret account" probably has only 2 posts. At least this retarded foid didn't use her real name like the others have before.
This is why inactive GrAYs should be banned
I would like them to explain how they know that words on the internet = reflect real life behavior. That's a tall number. You basically have to assume that men are violent and so on, before interpreting what is said here as extremist, toxic etc.I just looked at some of her New Shit , ( Curiousity Perhaps ) Not Suprised that she is Still Occupied with Us , Since Woman are Vain and Cant Mind their Own Business Either . BUT SHE HAS AN ACCOUNT HERE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! . ( Proof as a Picture Down below )
This is of course not Quite Acceptable . Obviously filtERing hER out might be Kinda Hard if she already has a decent Postcount , but nontheless try to Look out for her !
Anyways " Miss Death Stare Eyes " . Get the fuck outta hERe !
View attachment 1283202
@Friezacel @Mecoja @The Abyss @VersoffenerAssi @Swagpilled @Rotter @OutcompetedByRoomba @Lebensmüder @Der tote Engel ohne @Gott _mit _uns94 @Hoppipolla @erenyeager @Stupid Clown @Emba @GeckoBus @Neucher.Belgrade @XDFLAMEBOY @kay' @Schizoidcel @Samurai @VideoGameCoper @Balding Subhuman Subhuman @BurntIvoryKingcel @Liu KANG @Therapywasawaste @ReplaceMyJuice @FuckTheFBI @lennox @wereq @anotherwastedlife @GENSHIT CHIMPACT @edgelordcel @Fat Link @PPEcel @Dregster @Master @proudweeb
The idea that peoples thought, expressions and words automatically reflect their actual values and actions is absurd and also constantly rejected by women. For example, confronted with how many women read and consume violent sexual fantasy media (romance novels, BDSM porn), women often respond that things like rape fantasies are just that, fantasies. They say these fantasies have connection to real life, and women do not actually desire to be raped IRL.
Ok, so what about incel posts? Do "extremist" posts on the internet reflect IRL behavior to cause harm? Or are they just fantasies too.
And also would love to know why this type of stuff is published, while incel posts are censored:
On a societal level, we can apply the same critique. Almost every movie contains grotesque levels of violence, when compared to real life. In nearly every movie, someone gets violently assaulted, shot, suffers injuries that would result in severe brain hemorrhage in reality etc.
Millions of people watch this content and yet - are they all violent extremists? Millions watched Game of Thrones for the satisfaction of seeing people get their hands chopped of, their eyes gouged out, blood spurting from their mouth. They watched underage main characters get raped.
If people are willing to watch this and even praise it, seek it out and enjoy it, does that mean they are violent extremists with potential for IRL aggression and should be monitored by the government? Should there be interventionist policies for every person that watched game of thrones and enjoyed it?
They can not answer these and many other questions. The bottom line is, they have no basis for calling anyone extremist, since they fundamentally are moral relativists simply judging others on their own, arbitrary definitions of morality. What is considered extreme now was normal just two generation ago. What is considered moderate now may be extremist in 20 years. Just 20 years ago, rape jokes were common in pop culture. At video game conventions, the audience would loudly exclaim RAPE RAPE when a player was getting his ass beat.
We can cut this cake from so many angles. For example, they point to incel-related murder incidents and then claim the incel community as a whole is a terrorist group. Ok, so lets apply the same group to all arabs or muslims. Or black people. Or to femminsts. Or leftists. Leftist terrorist groups were common from the 60s to 80s, so I guess the political left is all terrorists.
To judge a group of people by the actions of a minority is a basic fallacy. Further, why are these murders especially bad? Millions of people die in car crashes over the last decades, yet nobody is afraid of cars. If the outcome for the victims is always the same, aka, they are dead, whether they get hit by a car or shot by an incel, they why give special priority to incels?
You are just responding to another cause of accident related mortality in society. From their view, someone killing people or people dying in accidents is basically identical. However, nobody classifies cars as a "public health hazard" even though they kill way more people than incels ever have.
I charge any non-incel reading this to provide a logically sound reason why murder is worse than accidental death, or regular death from old age. Any appeals to criteria like intentional vs accidental killing or "innocence" of the victims is futile, since it is just begging the question of why these criteria make the case of killing in question morally reprehensible or not, especially given the outcome is the same each time: People die.
Every year car manufacturers provide millions of humans with what is essentially a death trap that could kill dozens with a tilt of the steering wheel, yet nobody cares about cars or blames car manufacturers for providing millions with potentially lethal machinery.
I mention "potential" here, since "potential" as in "potential for violence" is another arbitrary criteria they use to single out incels and classify them as especially dangerous. The US military and police force has extordinary potential for violence and makes ample use of it daily, yet is not held accountable. Further, as I said before, invoking arbitrary criteria like "potential for violence" or "potential threat" to claim that something is morally special, or even moal at all is fallacious and begging the question of why potential for violence makes something worthy of censorship, control and government intervention.
We can also always cite countless examples where these criterias suddenly do not apply to the same behavior, or even become praiseworthy. Someone killing hundreds in the military is seen as heroic, movies are made about them, like the movie "american sniper." However, killing without societal approval is seen as morally wrong. So "killing" can not be the deciding criteria for why the act is morally bad. In one case killing is good, in another bad. It is just that in one instance society approves of the kill, in the other, it does not. At this point in the discussion people invoke other arbitrary criteria like "innocence" of victims etc. However they do not apply these in the case of soldiers getting killed.
If a soldier kills, he is justified because he is not killing the innocent, he is killing the already judged guilty. If however the soldier gets killed, he dies innocent, which is hilarious, since he is seen as non-innocent by the opposing soldier who killed him. Double standards galore. Nobody treats fallen soldiers as if they are guilty of moral wrongs, yet they judge the enemy as such. Thus, the criteria of "innocence" is also eliminated easily, besides being the usual non-sequitur, is/ought fallacy and completely arbitrary. Not that innocence can even be determined scientifically, but I digress.
Further, all the aformentioned criteria also contain implicit is/ought fallacies, meaning, they are basic non-sequiturs. You can list as many criteria or reports of killings as you wish, none of them lead to the conclusion that these are wrong or need to be prevented in some fashion.
It is also ironic that these same people that critique us in this fashion are the same that constantly rant against "social darwinism" and "eugenics" and what not. Yet they apply these very same things to whatever they arbitrarily deem a moral evil. They attempt to measure threat levels comming from communities, they invent arbitrary indexes and empirical tools to somehow measure and quantify peoples behavior based on text gathered from online communities and so forth.
One concrete example that emerged this year was a report forwarded to me by @Stupid Clown , in wihch they tried to measure "male supremacy" in numeric value.
The New Goobermint PsyOp PDF Attacking "The Manosphere"
@Stupid Clown has asked me to repost my reply from his thread here: https://incels.is/threads/department-of-homeland-security-publishes-a-report-revealing-theyve-been-running-a-psyop-to-stop-the-manosphere-from-spreading.603575/ TLDR - The government just made another pile of shit document...
incels.is
If they were consistent with their own beliefs, which they never are, they would assess incels just as they assess the black community when confronted with claims about black crime rate and the like. In these cases, they suddenly appeal to systemic racism, white supremacy, historical trends, economic circumstances yada yada.
Instead they generalize all incels into a big pile, claim incels are racially and ideologically homogenous, which is not true, even studies show that. The latest study from february this year shows that 42% of incels.is users identify as people of color and the majority of users self-identify as politically center-left.
I mean we can go on. It really is endles and these people are cretins of the highest order. Going back to their "analysis" of our online postings, I have this to say: Someone with a different interpretative framework could easily interpret this forum as a massive case of sour grapes. After all, the core part of incel thinking is litrally that they want female validation, and validation only.
Sex is not the key criteria, since incels have no issue with escortcels. Incels want validation through sex and attention from women. This hardly sounds like a negative attitude towards women. In fact, it rather sounds like incels want this moreso than the average man, to the point where they are willing to come out publicly and vent their frustrations for the world to see.
It could be reasoned that this reflects a very strong pro-female bias, since a lot of virgin men simply do not join incel groups at all. Incels, so could be argued, are extra-ordinary in their desire for female validation. A simp and an incel are just two sides of the same coin. I wonder for example, how incel reseachers would explain the "NSFW" section on this forum, which consistently is filled by users with porn fantasies depicting women
1. spitting on men, or even in their mouth
2. women stepping on men
3. men licking and "worshiping" womens feet
4. women presenting stinking armpits and other things
This hardly looks like a desire to dominate women to me. Or are these just "femdom fantasies" that do not reflect incels beliefs, just like female rape fantasies do not reflect actual desire to be raped? If incel reseachers wish to be taken serious, they should come to a consensus on these things, or they will just be continually laughed at by the likes of me and others on this forum.
It is simply logically inconsistent to label incels as a dangerous terrorist group. The very labels of dangerous, terrorist and group are ripe with arbitrary presuppositions about the nature of terrorism, belief, potential for violence, what violence even is etc. Further, the fact that there are countless other things in society that are equally and often more dangerous to the average person as incels, begs the question by what criteria and for what reason incels were singled out as worthy of special attention?
As I always say in this case, the proof is in the pudding. I have already shown a screenshot above, depicting the countless professionally published books about teaching women how to manipulate men. One might just imagine the backlash such a book would receive, if the genders were inversed - "how to train your wife, in 20 easy steps." "Women are Whores - Here is how you Train them."
There are also plenty of other organizations that spread heinous sexism, it is just that these are targeting men, and are thus ignored.
One example are "are we dating the same guy?" groups on social media. In these groups, 1000s of women come together to share information, picutures and private data on men in their lives with other women. Not only is this a massive infringement of privacy, but also stalking and harrassment. Yet, nobody cares to label these groups as dangerous, creepy or worthy of investigation.
Some of them have over 100 thousand members, like one in New York, which sports 136000 members according to wikipedia. One group in New Zealand gained 19000 members in 24 hours. Note that at the time of this text, incels.is only has accrued 27,286 members since its inception in 2017.
Are We Dating The Same Guy? - Wikipedia
These groups recently ended up in the news when one unfortunate man found that he had been stalked, harassed, slandered and worse, for years on one of these groups.
Again, one should imagine the cultural backlash if men did anything of this magnitude. Imagine between ten and one-hundred thousand men came together and started collectively stalking and harrasing women on social media. It would be mayhem. Social double standards such as this are myriad and easily confirmed. Thus, the proof is indeed, in the pudding, meaning, incels are singled out precisely for the reasons that incels point out - they are ugly, male and society has a pro-female and anti-male bias.
Incels also make no value judgments when challenged on the blackpill (at least the more apt ones). The blackpill is value neutral and purely descriptive. Unlike what the opposition and investigators of the incel phenomena are doing, the blackpill and the incels defending it, are actually scientifically valid. Science can never provide evidence for moral laws or ethical conclusions.
It is simply impossible, since questions of ethics and questions of scientific inquiry operate in completely different categories. If the scientists studying us were aware of even rudimentary historical facts affecting their field, such as the problem of induction, the is/ought distinction and a handful of other basic philosophical problems, they could not possible make such sweeping claims as "incels are a dangerous group of frustrated lonely males with potential for violence."
But these are the times we live in, where people can work themselves all the way up to a PhD and somehow not know basic fallacies.
As I said multiple times already, this topic is endless. Before I leave it though, I want to bring up another pet peeve of fallacious reasoning often made by the moral bean counters critiquing us - echo chambers. Academics addressing incels have never in my entire experience, actually addressed any incel talking points. Instead they just strawman our position and dodge the academic literature we provide, some of which literally was written by women.
It is funny to imagine some incel researcher hand wavingly dismiss data which was probably assembled by his colleague down the hallway LUL.
One such method of dismissing the legitmacy of incel claims is by simply stating that incels operate in "echo chambers" which simply "create the illusion of beliefs being true." Of course this claim assumes echo chambers are a real thing, which they are not. Ironically, there is also academic research on that:
Echo Chambers Are a Myth – RDI
While the idea that we live in echo chambers has caught the imagination of a polarized nation looking for answers, we’re probably thinking about them all wrong.
rdi.org
When someone invokes "echo chambers" they are simply abusing a thinly vailed rethoric device, which in the final analysis almost amounts to a basic ad-hominem insult. They are basically calling the opposition ignorant and retarded. Imagine for example, they applied the same logic to a black person by telling them racism is not real, it's just that you are surrounded by black people, which created an echo chamber wherein you are only receiving feedback confirming your opinion that racism is real.
The claim that someones beliefs are invalid because they are in a confirmation bias feedback loop is fallacious on multiple levels.
Number one, it assumes that the persons beliefs are not true without providing any evidence for that. Someone could easily be right on something, but still be in an echo chamber (if they existed, which they don't).
So this is a non-sequitur fallacy in addition to a genetic fallacy - the conclusion does not follow from the premises and also, the souce of the information (i.e. an echo chamber) is irrelvant, information can be true or false regardless of the source (genetic fallacy).
Number two, since echo chambers are such a poorly defined, arbitrary concept, we can just widen the scope a little bit and highlight the absurdity of the idea. For instance, by their own metric, society is just a larger echo chamber, compared to a little one like our forum here. So why is their echo chamber preferale and superior to ours?
Anyway, so much for some basic critiques of these peoples claims and beliefs, most of which are so inherently fallacious that we do not even need to engage with their actual research to know it is flawed in the first place. The fact alone that they label incels as a threat based on empirical science is a massive logical blunder.
If the most the most basic assumptions, the starting points of your research are this flawed, it is reasonable to assume that the rest of your work has been poisoned by these root presuppositions as well and can be dismissed. At least until the starting presupposistions are fixed - which they will never do, because thats where their ideological biases are, which they will never abandon, while calling us extremists driven by ideology at the same time. Truly, it does seem to be a law of the universe that you can not lie or attack anything without projecting.
Have a good one.
Last edited:
Either way I think its weird that people who aren't incels want to be on this forum. I also remember Doogycel the Groomer saying that he had 3 accounts on this forum. Excuse me? 3 fucking accounts?
Why incels live rent free inside of their heads is a fucking mystery. How about you stay away from incel spaces since you want nothing but harm to us mentally ill ugly men anyway. Stay the fuck away from us. Most incels have enough problems anyway in their real lives having to deal with constant rejection and bullying and poor mental health.
Why incels live rent free inside of their heads is a fucking mystery. How about you stay away from incel spaces since you want nothing but harm to us mentally ill ugly men anyway. Stay the fuck away from us. Most incels have enough problems anyway in their real lives having to deal with constant rejection and bullying and poor mental health.
Yeah.
Sexo Lexo!
DnrI would like them to explain how they know that words on the internet = reflect real life behavior. That's a tall number. You basically have to assume that men are violent and so on, before interpreting what is said here as extremist, toxic etc.
The idea that peoples thought, expressions and words automatically reflect their actual values and actions is absurd and also constantly rejected by women. For example, confronted with how many women read and consume violent sexual fantasy media (romance novels, BDSM porn), women often respond that things like rape fantasies are just that, fantasies. They say these fantasies have connection to real life, and women do not actually desire to be raped IRL.
Ok, so what about incel posts? Do "extremist" posts on the internet reflect IRL behavior to cause harm? Or are they just fantasies too.
And also would love to know why this type of stuff is published, while incel posts are censored:
On a societal level, we can apply the same critique. Almost every movie contains grotesque levels of violence, when compared to real life. In nearly every movie, someone gets violently assaulted, shot, suffers injuries that would result in severe brain hemorrhage in reality etc.
Millions of people watch this content and yet - are they all violent extremists? Millions watched Game of Thrones for the satisfaction of seeing people get their hands chopped of, their eyes gouged out, blood spurting from their mouth. They watched underage main characters get raped.
If people are willing to watch this and even praise it, seek it out and enjoy it, does that mean they are violent extremists with potential for IRL aggression and should be monitored by the government? Should there be interventionist policies for every person that watched game of thrones and enjoyed it?
They can not answer these and many other questions. The bottom line is, they have no basis for calling anyone extremist, since they fundamentally are moral relativists simply judging others on their own, arbitrary definitions of morality. What is considered extreme now was normal just two generation ago. What is considered moderate now may be extremist in 20 years. Just 20 years ago, rape jokes were common in pop culture. At video game conventions, the audience would loudly exclaim RAPE RAPE when a player was getting his ass beat.
We can cut this cake from so many angles. For example, they point to incel-related murder incidents and then claim the incel community as a whole is a terrorist group. Ok, so lets apply the same group to all arabs or muslims. Or black people. Or to femminsts. Or leftists. Leftist terrorist groups were common from the 60s to 80s, so I guess the political left is all terrorists.
To judge a group of people by the actions of a minority is a basic fallacy. Further, why are these murders especially bad? Millions of people die in car crashes over the last decades, yet nobody is afraid of cars. If the outcome for the victims is always the same, aka, they are dead, whether they get hit by a car or shot by an incel, they why give special priority to incels?
You are just responding to another cause of accident related mortality in society. From their view, someone killing people or people dying in accidents is basically identical. However, nobody classifies cars as a "public health hazard" even though they kill way more people than incels ever have.
I charge any non-incel reading this to provide a logically sound reason why murder is worse than accidental death, or regular death from old age. Any appeals to criteria like intentional vs accidental killing or "innocence" of the victims is futile, since it is just begging the question of why these criteria make the case of killing in question morally reprehensible or not, especially given the outcome is the same each time: People die.
Every year car manufacturers provide millions of humans with what is essentially a death trap that could kill dozens with a tilt of the steering wheel, yet nobody cares about cars or blames car manufacturers for providing millions with potentially lethal machinery.
I mention "potential" here, since "potential" as in "potential for violence" is another arbitrary criteria they use to single out incels and classify them as especially dangerous. The US military and police force has extordinary potential for violence and makes ample use of it daily, yet is not held accountable. Further, as I said before, invoking arbitrary criteria like "potential for violence" or "potential threat" to claim that something is morally special, or even moal at all is fallacious and begging the question of why potential for violence makes something worthy of censorship, control and government intervention.
We can also always cite countless examples where these criterias suddenly do not apply to the same behavior, or even become praiseworthy. Someone killing hundreds in the military is seen as heroic, movies are made about them, like the movie "american sniper." However, killing without societal approval is seen as morally wrong. So "killing" can not be the deciding criteria for why the act is morally bad. In one case killing is good, in another bad. It is just that in one instance society approves of the kill, in the other, it does not. At this point in the discussion people invoke other arbitrary criteria like "innocence" of victims etc. However they do not apply these in the case of soldiers getting killed.
If a soldier kills, he is justified because he is not killing the innocent, he is killing the already judged guilty. If however the soldier gets killed, he dies innocent, which is hilarious, since he is seen as non-innocent by the opposing soldier who killed him. Double standards galore. Nobody treats fallen soldiers as if they are guilty of moral wrongs, yet they judge the enemy as such. Thus, the criteria of "innocence" is also eliminated easily, besides being the usual non-sequitur, is/ought fallacy and completely arbitrary. Not that innocence can even be determined scientifically, but I digress.
Further, all the aformentioned criteria also contain implicit is/ought fallacies, meaning, they are basic non-sequiturs. You can list as many criteria or reports of killings as you wish, none of them lead to the conclusion that these are wrong or need to be prevented in some fashion.
It is also ironic that these same people that critique us in this fashion are the same that constantly rant against "social darwinism" and "eugenics" and what not. Yet they apply these very same things to whatever they arbitrarily deem a moral evil. They attempt to measure threat levels comming from communities, they invent arbitrary indexes and empirical tools to somehow measure and quantify peoples behavior based on text gathered from online communities and so forth.
One concrete example that emerged this year was a report forwarded to me by @Stupid Clown , in wihch they tried to measure "male supremacy" in numeric value.
The New Goobermint PsyOp PDF Attacking "The Manosphere"
@Stupid Clown has asked me to repost my reply from his thread here: https://incels.is/threads/department-of-homeland-security-publishes-a-report-revealing-theyve-been-running-a-psyop-to-stop-the-manosphere-from-spreading.603575/ TLDR - The government just made another pile of shit document...
If they were consistent with their own beliefs, which they never are, they would assess incels just as they assess the black community when confronted with claims about black crime rate and the like. In these cases, they suddenly appeal to systemic racism, white supremacy, historical trends, economic circumstances yada yada.
Instead they generalize all incels into a big pile, claim incels are racially and ideologically homogenous, which is not true, even studies show that. The latest study from february this year shows that 42% of incels.is users identify as people of color and the majority of users self-identify as politically center-left.
I mean we can go on. It really is endles and these people are cretins of the highest order. Going back to their "analysis" of our online postings, I have this to say: Someone with a different interpretative framework could easily interpret this forum as a massive case of sour grapes. After all, the core part of incel thinking is litrally that they want female validation, and validation only.
Sex is not the key criteria, since incels have no issue with escortcels. Incels want validation through sex and attention from women. This hardly sounds like a negative attitude towards women. In fact, it rather sounds like incels want this moreso than the average man, to the point where they are willing to come out publicly and vent their frustrations for the world to see.
It could be reasoned that this reflects a very strong pro-female bias, since a lot of virgin men simply do not join incel groups at all. Incels, so could be argued, are extra-ordinary in their desire for female validation. A simp and an incel are just two sides of the same coin. I wonder for example, how incel reseachers would explain the "NSFW" section on this forum, which consistently is filled by users with porn fantasies depicting women
1. spitting on men, or even in their mouth
2. women stepping on men
3. men licking and "worshiping" womens feet
4. women presenting stinking armpits and other things
View attachment 1283362
View attachment 1283363
This hardly looks like a desire to dominate women to me. Or are these just "femdom fantasies" that do not reflect incels beliefs, just like female rape fantasies do not reflect actual desire to be raped? If incel reseachers wish to be taken serious, they should come to a consensus on these things, or they will just be continually laughed at by the likes of me and others on this forum.
It is simply logically inconsistent to label incels as a dangerous terrorist group. The very labels of dangerous, terrorist and group are ripe with arbitrary presuppositions about the nature of terrorism, belief, potential for violence, what violence even is etc. Further, the fact that there are countless other things in society that are equally and often more dangerous to the average person as incels, begs the question by what criteria and for what reason incels were singled out as worthy of special attention?
As I always say in this case, the proof is in the pudding. I have already shown a screenshot above, depicting the countless professionally published books about teaching women how to manipulate men. One might just imagine the backlash such a book would receive, if the genders were inversed - "how to train your wife, in 20 easy steps." "Women are Whores - Here is how you Train them."
There are also plenty of other organizations that spread heinous sexism, it is just that these are targeting men, and are thus ignored.
One example are "are we dating the same guy?" groups on social media. In these groups, 1000s of women come together to share information, picutures and private data on men in their lives with other women. Not only is this a massive infringement of privacy, but also stalking and harrassment. Yet, nobody cares to label these groups as dangerous, creepy or worthy of investigation.
Some of them have over 100 thousand members, like one in New York, which sports 136000 members according to wikipedia. One group in New Zealand gained 19000 members in 24 hours. Note that at the time of this text, incels.is only has accrued 27,286 members since its inception in 2017.
Are We Dating The Same Guy? - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
These groups recently ended up in the news when one unfortunate man found that he had been stalked, harassed, slandered and worse, for years on one of these groups.
Again, one should imagine the cultural backlash if men did anything of this magnitude. Imagine between ten and one-hundred thousand men came together and started collectively stalking and harrasing women on social media. It would be mayhem. Social double standards such as this are myriad and easily confirmed. Thus, the proof is indeed, in the pudding, meaning, incels are singled out precisely for the reasons that incels point out - they are ugly, male and society has a pro-female and anti-male bias.
Incels also make no value judgments when challenged on the blackpill (at least the more apt ones). The blackpill is value neutral and purely descriptive. Unlike what the opposition and investigators of the incel phenomena are doing, the blackpill and the incels defending it, are actually scientifically valid. Science can never provide evidence for moral laws or ethical conclusions.
It is simply impossible, since questions of ethics and questions of scientific inquiry operate in completely different categories. If the scientists studying us were aware of even rudimentary historical facts affecting their field, such as the problem of induction, the is/ought distinction and a handful of other basic philosophical problems, they could not possible make such sweeping claims as "incels are a dangerous group of frustrated lonely males with potential for violence."
But these are the times we live in, where people can work themselves all the way up to a PhD and somehow not know basic fallacies.
As I said multiple times already, this topic is endless. Before I leave it though, I want to bring up another pet peeve of fallacious reasoning often made by the moral bean counters critiquing us - echo chambers. Academics addressing incels have never in my entire experience, actually addressed any incel talking points. Instead they just strawman our position and dodge the academic literature we provide, some of which literally was written by women.
It is funny to imagine some incel researcher hand wavingly dismiss data which was probably assembled by his colleague down the hallway LUL.
One such method of dismissing the legitmacy of incel claims is by simply stating that incels operate in "echo chambers" which simply "create the illusion of beliefs being true." Of course this claim assumes echo chambers are a real thing, which they are not. Ironically, there is also academic research on that:
Echo Chambers Are a Myth – RDI
While the idea that we live in echo chambers has caught the imagination of a polarized nation looking for answers, we’re probably thinking about them all wrong.rdi.org
When someone invokes "echo chambers" they are simply abusing a thinly vailed rethoric device, which in the final analysis almost amounts to a basic ad-hominem insult. They are basically calling the opposition ignorant and retarded. Imagine for example, they applied the same logic to a black person by telling them racism is not real, it's just that you are surrounded by black people, which created an echo chamber wherein you are only receiving feedback confirming your opinion that racism is real.
The claim that someones beliefs are invalid because they are in a confirmation bias feedback loop is fallacious on multiple levels.
Number one, it assumes that the persons beliefs are not true without providing any evidence for that. Someone could easily be right on something, but still be in an echo chamber (if they existed, which they don't).
So this is a non-sequitur fallacy in addition to a genetic fallacy - the conclusion does not follow from the premises and also, the souce of the information (i.e. an echo chamber) is irrelvant, information can be true or false regardless of the source (genetic fallacy).
Number two, since echo chambers are such a poorly defined, arbitrary concept, we can just widen the scope a little bit and highlight the absurdity of the idea. For instance, by their own metric, society is just a larger echo chamber, compared to a little one like our forum here. So why is their echo chamber preferale and superior to ours?
Anyway, so much for some basic critiques of these peoples claims and beliefs, most of which are so inherently fallacious that we do not even need to engage with their actual research to know it is flawed in the first place. The fact alone that they label incels as a threat based on empirical science is a massive logical blunder.
If the most the most basic assumptions, the starting points of your research are this flawed, it is reasonable to assume that the rest of your work has been poisoned by these root presuppositions as well and can be dismissed. At least until the starting presupposistions are fixed - which they will never do, because thats where their ideological biases are, which they will never abandon, while calling us extremists driven by ideology at the same time. Truly, it does seem to be a law of the universe that you can not lie or attack anything without projecting.
Have a good one.
Lexxmaria send tits or GTFO
Fr. she’s Liu kang only
Definitely a gray account with almost no posts
Btw Lexxxmaria if you're reading this, you deserve the Jeet pit punishment
Btw Lexxxmaria if you're reading this, you deserve the Jeet pit punishment
Normies love to kick people when they're down.
Lexx Maria send me money bitch
Giga high iq
Holy shit shiver me timbers lad!
just give tiktok foids more attention theory
I suspect this user perhaps?
Username seems like an obvious attempt to try & fit in.
Username seems like an obvious attempt to try & fit in.
Happy to still be part of the mass tagging despite being inactive for like a year
@Swagpilled
Hi lexx maria show me your tits whore
Users who are viewing this thread
