“Let us call the entire dating world, which we see as the sum of sexual relationship experiences that occurs within space-time continuum a muddle. The entire incelospheric/manospheric/looksmaxx discourse revolves around this muddle.” - Anonymous
I would wager that the best model is a summation of where all these planes intersect at once, to find the thing in itself from related phenomena, if we deduce these "assumptions" to one core "object" we can deduce where inceldom really lies.
Some points
1. must be male
2. must be a virgin
3. can be any race (inconsequential)
4. can be any economic class, aside from the very rich
5. must not be attractive
So I deduce what separates truecels from fakecels is they must inherently be male virgins who are not conventionally attractive (going by Western standards, so there is a .001% margin of error here) that are middle class and below. However since Western standards of beauty are almost global at this point, such as the reason why northern, light skinned pajeets are more attractive then their southern brethren, but then there's the whole thing about facial structure which gets hazy. “Just Be White” theory must only apply in the east, in the west, (United States in particular) white isn't really a guarantee. So I explore that it must be more closely related to weak chins, goofy noses, and unibrows, often short height and middle class or lower income male virgins are truecels. The skin color thing is only an issue for non Western countries as traditional depictions of white beauty are prevalent there, but not in the west anymore, so they cancel each other out on a technicality. Such as in the case of autism, its always never zero, because in order for science to have a sense of "correctness" it must allow a margin of error, which is what makes science "science". it is supposed to be falsifiable, otherwise its a dogmatic assumption which has adverse effects on cultural, social and economic fields of expertise (see the entire "believe the science" vaccine crowd). As someone with autism himself, I can see various different behaviors that overlap but never are 100% descriptive of the condition, not every autistic person is religious, not every autistic person is atheist, not every autistic person is subjected to gender transistion, but some are, etc etc. in essence the best way to deduce the actual condition of autism, one must find one or two (two preferable) traits that overlap in all "autistic" individuals, which is the goal of objective science. But that’s getting off the topic at hand…
the largest groups found to exhibit incel-like characteristic are whites (in the West) and jeets and east asians (in the East), though I'm sure hispanic and black incels exist, they are only a small portion of them likely. One of the reasons for this is the absence of thug elements in traditional white, jeet and east asian cultures due to the fact their cultures uphold the attitude that its better to be congenial towards others and not "rough and tumble" which is absent in black and to a lesser degree, hispanic cultures. there is also an extra element of peer pressure in the latter groups that prevent any sort of group divergence from their personal cultural norms than in white (bee yourself, enjoy freedom) or jeet/east asian (you must follow the rules of the state) instead of the obvious communistic, anarchistic nature of hispanic and black culture which is hostile to outside influence and at the same time disobeys orders, a very weird middle ground area which is ripe for intragroup bullying and yet, acts in their own self, collective interest to the derision of other cultures. This is something very much stated in the conflict theories of Georg Simmel, a founder of German sociology in the late 19th century, where he posited that conflict is one of the main drives of society that keeps a society intact, which is why these communities lack a great deal of sexually unsatisfied men. An example is how the existence of an external rival of the United States, along with the rooting out of communistic elements of the latter, the Soviet Union, kept the former intact and when the Soviet Union fell, it was not long after invasive elements began popping up in the United States via external (terrorism and illegal aliens) and internal (domestic militias) elements, through a process of history that was thought to be unchallenged via the written works of Francis Fukuyama in the early 90s. A similar element can be found in the communities of whites through the so-called “enlightenment” and the throwing the old yoke of religion off which has made caucasian society fragmented. in the east, the intense pressure of state force has turned both India and much of east Asia into a backwater of societal tension. The best society is one that is least governed (unlike Indian and East Asian society) and most self-critical, which is why inceldom is rarely seen in black or hispanic communities. its more insular and roots out undesirables (unlike white culture’s emphasis on individualism) often to ensure maximum stability and is hostile to outside influence, and per the former statement, even insider sectarianism.
I would wager that the best model is a summation of where all these planes intersect at once, to find the thing in itself from related phenomena, if we deduce these "assumptions" to one core "object" we can deduce where inceldom really lies.
Some points
1. must be male
2. must be a virgin
3. can be any race (inconsequential)
4. can be any economic class, aside from the very rich
5. must not be attractive
So I deduce what separates truecels from fakecels is they must inherently be male virgins who are not conventionally attractive (going by Western standards, so there is a .001% margin of error here) that are middle class and below. However since Western standards of beauty are almost global at this point, such as the reason why northern, light skinned pajeets are more attractive then their southern brethren, but then there's the whole thing about facial structure which gets hazy. “Just Be White” theory must only apply in the east, in the west, (United States in particular) white isn't really a guarantee. So I explore that it must be more closely related to weak chins, goofy noses, and unibrows, often short height and middle class or lower income male virgins are truecels. The skin color thing is only an issue for non Western countries as traditional depictions of white beauty are prevalent there, but not in the west anymore, so they cancel each other out on a technicality. Such as in the case of autism, its always never zero, because in order for science to have a sense of "correctness" it must allow a margin of error, which is what makes science "science". it is supposed to be falsifiable, otherwise its a dogmatic assumption which has adverse effects on cultural, social and economic fields of expertise (see the entire "believe the science" vaccine crowd). As someone with autism himself, I can see various different behaviors that overlap but never are 100% descriptive of the condition, not every autistic person is religious, not every autistic person is atheist, not every autistic person is subjected to gender transistion, but some are, etc etc. in essence the best way to deduce the actual condition of autism, one must find one or two (two preferable) traits that overlap in all "autistic" individuals, which is the goal of objective science. But that’s getting off the topic at hand…
the largest groups found to exhibit incel-like characteristic are whites (in the West) and jeets and east asians (in the East), though I'm sure hispanic and black incels exist, they are only a small portion of them likely. One of the reasons for this is the absence of thug elements in traditional white, jeet and east asian cultures due to the fact their cultures uphold the attitude that its better to be congenial towards others and not "rough and tumble" which is absent in black and to a lesser degree, hispanic cultures. there is also an extra element of peer pressure in the latter groups that prevent any sort of group divergence from their personal cultural norms than in white (bee yourself, enjoy freedom) or jeet/east asian (you must follow the rules of the state) instead of the obvious communistic, anarchistic nature of hispanic and black culture which is hostile to outside influence and at the same time disobeys orders, a very weird middle ground area which is ripe for intragroup bullying and yet, acts in their own self, collective interest to the derision of other cultures. This is something very much stated in the conflict theories of Georg Simmel, a founder of German sociology in the late 19th century, where he posited that conflict is one of the main drives of society that keeps a society intact, which is why these communities lack a great deal of sexually unsatisfied men. An example is how the existence of an external rival of the United States, along with the rooting out of communistic elements of the latter, the Soviet Union, kept the former intact and when the Soviet Union fell, it was not long after invasive elements began popping up in the United States via external (terrorism and illegal aliens) and internal (domestic militias) elements, through a process of history that was thought to be unchallenged via the written works of Francis Fukuyama in the early 90s. A similar element can be found in the communities of whites through the so-called “enlightenment” and the throwing the old yoke of religion off which has made caucasian society fragmented. in the east, the intense pressure of state force has turned both India and much of east Asia into a backwater of societal tension. The best society is one that is least governed (unlike Indian and East Asian society) and most self-critical, which is why inceldom is rarely seen in black or hispanic communities. its more insular and roots out undesirables (unlike white culture’s emphasis on individualism) often to ensure maximum stability and is hostile to outside influence, and per the former statement, even insider sectarianism.
