Serious Poll: Should we bar incels from the forum from participating in documentaries or other media?

[Master]

Hey all,

I've been thinking about whether forum members should be allowed to participate in documentaries or other media. It's an interesting topic, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Should we have rules that prevent forum members from taking part in such activities?

Pros of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• By preventing forum members from participating in media, we can help protect their privacy better. There are some members might not want their online persona to be associated with their real-life identity, and participating in documentaries or other media might compromise that.
• Documentaries and media often involve editing and selective portrayal, which will most often lead to misrepresentation of forum members words. Barring participation could prevent this risk of misinterpretation.
• By not allowing forum members to participate in media, potential conflicts or disagreements arising from their appearances can be avoided. This could help keep the forum's focus on its primary purpose. This rule would also apply to staff members.

Cons of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• Banning forum members from participating in media might be seen as a form of censorship, limiting their freedom of expression and choice.
• Participating in documentaries or media could offer forum members opportunities to share their expertise and insights with a larger audience. This exposure might benefit both the individual and the forum's reputation.

What are your thoughts? Should we prevent forum members from participating in documentaries or other media? Or should we allow them the freedom to represent themselves and the forum in external platforms? Share your opinions in the poll.

 

[PersonalityChad]

View: https://youtu.be/P3ALwKeSEYs

 

[Med Amine]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc

 

[Luzifer]

Okay Nigger, you should make this place trannyfree and furryfree!

 

[decembrist_kirillov]

idc

 

[Animecel2D]

Yes. Fuck the media

who here actually wants to participate in some stupid documentary that will paint us in a negative light anyway

 

[Fallenleaves]

Who the fuck voted no

 

[dungeondragon]

Many are naïve and assume publications will not twist their words or force a certain narrative, as they often do.
This forum's reputation - beyond saving. Outsiders will never look favourably upon a dwelling of lonely males somewhat associated with killers.
Documentaries fade into the background - little an individual incel can do to reshape public opinion. The purveying idea of the dangerous incel will remain.

Bar it, I guess. Protect the trusting fools from inadvertently harming themselves.

 

[ilieknothing]

I wouldn’t do it but I don’t think a user should be banned for doing it, especially if they negotiate sex with the foid journalist in exchange

 

[Intellau_Celistic]

Yes. Fuck the media

who here actually wants to participate in some stupid documentary that will paint us in a negative light anyway

 

[Epedaphic]

How would you prevent it?

 

[Stupid Clown]

"By not allowing forum members to participate in media, potential conflicts or disagreements arising from their appearances can be avoided." Protecting fakecels. Kek.

 

[chudcel]

If you are low-inhib enough to go on tv then you are a fakecel and deserve ER in Just Cause 5.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Since most media will portray us in the worst light they can get away with, it makes sense to do so in general. I think there should be a *clause where it remains possible for someone, be it an individual or a group of people or a public vote, to greenlight specific instances of public exposure. We want people either unbiased or biased in our favor to be able to produce content that improves our public image. We especially want to showcase the life long misery many of us experienced.

If we can only have one or the other, I would keep allowing interviews and documentaries. We can't fall much lower in the public eye, so another hostile portrayal will be doing only limited damage to us while a single successful sympathetic portrayal could have a huge payout.

 

[LeFrenchCel]

Allowing this completely would let media enter our space, and "infiltrating" it with all the consequences it will have.

But completely forbid it would lead to media portraying incels even more badly than now.

No idea what to think on this.

 

[Transcended Trucel]

Yes. Fuck the media

who here actually wants to participate in some stupid documentary that will paint us in a negative light anyway

 

[RollD20]

If people want to out themselves to the public, I think they should be free too. Won’t change anything incels as a term will always have a negative connotation

 

[CountBleck]

participating in an interview as an incel is like showing up to a kkk meeting as a black person. the fuck would it accomplish ? just makes it easier for normie media companies to laugh at us

 

[Ahnfeltia]

Disallowing members from participating in documentaries or other media seems needlessly drastic to me. A comprise might be to have users explicitly state they're not chosen representatives of this forum. Not sure if that'll amount to much in practice, but, as many fellowcels have already pointed out, enforcing the disallowance also seems pretty impracticable.

 

[MillionBashStream97]

We are living in the most misandrist era in history, apathy for subhuman, lonely men is at an all time high, and Chads rule over all the pussy and love you need as a human being.

Why the fuck would you willingly participate in a "documentary" about Incels? You will be misrepresented, and nobody making the docu, actually cares about the topic.

 

[Carpanesi]

Pros of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• By preventing forum members from participating in media, we can help protect their privacy better. There are some members might not want their online persona to be associated with their real-life identity, and participating in documentaries or other media might compromise that.

It's up to people to define what constitutes harm to their privacy in the first place. I don't think the forum "own" any members, nor any rights to their personal privacies. As long as they don't participate "oficially" representing the forum, there is no harm to anyone.

• Documentaries and media often involve editing and selective portrayal, which will most often lead to misrepresentation of forum members words. Barring participation could prevent this risk of misinterpretation.

If this were a problem in the first place, they would put non-incels posing as forum members to distort the truth either way. So it also makes no sense to ban members from participating on whatever media, again, as long as they dont pose as moderators/ admins

• By not allowing forum members to participate in media, potential conflicts or disagreements arising from their appearances can be avoided. This could help keep the forum's focus on its primary purpose. This rule would also apply to staff members.

Again, it makes no sense to consider potential conflicts to the forum because the rules can be adjusted to cover for that. If anyone keeps bringing disagreements about whatevers appearance on other media, that can be taken as off-topic/derailment and a ban can be issued normally

Extra: Enacting this ban will do nothing against members participating on stuff and may even put the forum in a bad light, as in, people may think the forum is controlling of it's members. It will also make people who just like being contrary to everyone else more likely to participate in other media just to piss off everybody

 

[ordinaryotaku]

Don't think that should be a bannable offense tbh.

There could also be unbiased documentaries that come around the corner like the "TFW no gf" one that came out a couple years prior.

 

[Carpanesi]

No, Master

We need to give the media a piece of our minds

Why? i for one don't care whatever shit they say about me or others
If i cared I'd still not give them time of my life or any consideration
they literally want to gain attention to sell adverts. stop making dumb people rich

 

[Carpanesi]

There's no point in making a documentary on incels btw everything anyone should know is already on the wiki, they can also read about on the top forums

A documentary would be always aimed at a financial return so why anyone would participate without earning a single penny is beyond my grasp

 

[Immolator]

participating in an interview as an incel is like showing up to a kkk meeting as a black person. the fuck would it accomplish ? just makes it easier for normie media companies to laugh at us

 

[JudeoBiden]

After you've let them record you saying something, you have no control over the final product. They can edit the words into a different sentence entirely, and they regularly do this. Normies are too addled by their head meds to notice 7 jump cuts in the span of a single sentence.

 

[Man]

No because who cares

 

[BornToLose]

Only if they are likely to come across as a cuck.

 

[Logic55]

Even if the media potrays incels in a bad light, we will at least make our presence known to the general public. Additionally, we may change the publics view on incels, and some of them might join our movement

 

[Mentally lost cel]

we should find and kill the scum who was in that last documentary

 

[Indari]

Since most media will portray us in the worst light they can get away with, it makes sense to do so in general. I think there should be a *clause where it remains possible for someone, be it an individual or a group of people or a public vote, to greenlight specific instances of public exposure. We want people either unbiased or biased in our favor to be able to produce content that improves our public image. We especially want to showcase the life long misery many of us experienced.

If we can only have one or the other, I would keep allowing interviews and documentaries. We can't fall much lower in the public eye, so another hostile portrayal will be doing only limited damage to us while a single successful sympathetic portrayal could have a huge payout.

Agree

 

[Carpanesi]

participating in an interview as an incel is like showing up to a kkk meeting as a black person. the fuck would it accomplish ? just makes it easier for normie media companies to laugh at us

Still no reason to ban users from doing whatever they want to do outside the forum

It can't be enforced anyway. This idea should be dropped

 

[Carpanesi]

I think the admins can recommend against "participating" in documentaries, listing all the reasons for, many which were displayed here already, but not ban anyone from anything

 

[depressedblackcel]

Yes

 

[depressedblackcel]

I believe they should not be banned.

Because if a genuine incel were to be interviewed, people would understand that not all incels are violent and misogynistic.

But television networks mask this they want to portray all incels in a negative light.

I wish but they can easily twist your words and make you have a stance that deviates from your views.

 

[Fat Link]

Many are naïve and assume publications will not twist their words or force a certain narrative, as they often do.
This forum's reputation - beyond saving. Outsiders will never look favourably upon a dwelling of lonely males somewhat associated with killers.
Documentaries fade into the background - little an individual incel can do to reshape public opinion. The purveying idea of the dangerous incel will remain.

Bar it, I guess. Protect the trusting fools from inadvertently harming themselves.

Hear, hear!

Very well said sir.

Very well said indeed!

 

[PersonalityChad]

join our movement

Not a movement

 

[Mango]

Yes. Fuck the media

who here actually wants to participate in some stupid documentary that will paint us in a negative light anyway

 

[CountBleck]

Still no reason to ban users from doing whatever they want to do outside the forum

yes, it is a reason. if incels here are participating in interviews with gay media companies, normies will hate us even more. i mean we're already public enemy #1.

 

[slavictruecel]

Hey all,

I've been thinking about whether forum members should be allowed to participate in documentaries or other media. It's an interesting topic, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Should we have rules that prevent forum members from taking part in such activities?

Pros of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• By preventing forum members from participating in media, we can help protect their privacy better. There are some members might not want their online persona to be associated with their real-life identity, and participating in documentaries or other media might compromise that.
• Documentaries and media often involve editing and selective portrayal, which will most often lead to misrepresentation of forum members words. Barring participation could prevent this risk of misinterpretation.
• By not allowing forum members to participate in media, potential conflicts or disagreements arising from their appearances can be avoided. This could help keep the forum's focus on its primary purpose. This rule would also apply to staff members.

Cons of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• Banning forum members from participating in media might be seen as a form of censorship, limiting their freedom of expression and choice.
• Participating in documentaries or media could offer forum members opportunities to share their expertise and insights with a larger audience. This exposure might benefit both the individual and the forum's reputation.

What are your thoughts? Should we prevent forum members from participating in documentaries or other media? Or should we allow them the freedom to represent themselves and the forum in external platforms? Share your opinions in the poll.

The cons out way the pro. you should definitely not allow them. that’s how lives get ruined because these media outlets could try finding irl identities and shit..

 

[PersonalityChad]

public enemy #1.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYMbunQgwnk

 

[Emba]

They should be allowed to, but only if they wear a rubber clown mask with a curly rainbow-fro wig.

And they must also loudly cuss in the standard turrets way, with lots of "fuck you" and grunts...

And for a fidget toy they must bring a novelty pocket knife that looks crusty.

They must also get paid 10,000 an hour and not be edited in any way. And post their full interview here.

Then, ban them for a week for being a snitchcel.

 

[Tajincel]

"By not allowing forum members to participate in media, potential conflicts or disagreements arising from their appearances can be avoided." Protecting fakecels. Kek.

This + they are grown up, let them do what they want

 

[Carpanesi]

yes, it is a reason. if incels here are participating in interviews with gay media companies, normies will hate us even more. i mean we're already public enemy #1.

This makes no sense because they have money and can hire actors portraying incels to get what they want

At least allowing actual incels to be interviewed lets someone see about real problems

 

[darkdungeon]

No, freedom over internet retardation

 

[cvh1991]

Hey all,

I've been thinking about whether forum members should be allowed to participate in documentaries or other media. It's an interesting topic, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts. Should we have rules that prevent forum members from taking part in such activities?

Pros of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• By preventing forum members from participating in media, we can help protect their privacy better. There are some members might not want their online persona to be associated with their real-life identity, and participating in documentaries or other media might compromise that.
• Documentaries and media often involve editing and selective portrayal, which will most often lead to misrepresentation of forum members words. Barring participation could prevent this risk of misinterpretation.
• By not allowing forum members to participate in media, potential conflicts or disagreements arising from their appearances can be avoided. This could help keep the forum's focus on its primary purpose. This rule would also apply to staff members.

Cons of Barring Forum Members from Participating:

• Banning forum members from participating in media might be seen as a form of censorship, limiting their freedom of expression and choice.
• Participating in documentaries or media could offer forum members opportunities to share their expertise and insights with a larger audience. This exposure might benefit both the individual and the forum's reputation.

What are your thoughts? Should we prevent forum members from participating in documentaries or other media? Or should we allow them the freedom to represent themselves and the forum in external platforms? Share your opinions in the poll.

Probably — the reason I say that is because third party or other groups representing us will almost certainty strawman the tar out of us and represent us as badly as possible on purpose because they have an incentive to as our “radical” ideas challenge the mainstream norms and are a threat to women’s dominant advantage (so obviously all women will oppose us).

I’m all for incels and low status men unifying and trying to spread the blackpill and I’m all for protests or potentially our own commentaries or content for example, but we need to represent ourselves or get someone who is genuinely sympathetic to do it.

Remember when the antiwork train mod went on Fox News and damaged their image? Same kind of thing. Most of us probably aren’t good speakers and likely have little experience with “gotcha” traps that are set in those kind of environments. Eventually we probably will need a “Jordan Peterson” type leader who’s a skilled debater who can crush in those arenas but as far as I know the incel / blackpill community hasn’t seen a leader like that rise yet.

 

[Incedel]

Yes. Fuck the media

who here actually wants to participate in some stupid documentary that will paint us in a negative light anyway

 

[Kaichee]

Personally I think we are misunderstood and demonized - publicity might help with that. But it might also make things worse. Im going to go with the no banning vote.

 

[CruxGammata]

Who the fuck voted no

fakies

 

[EngelCallDell19]

Who the fuck voted no

Cucks and fakecels