It's Over What is an 'incel,' really?

[The Death Devil]

I really wish there was a broader discussion on what constitutes an 'incel' beyond just being a virgin that wants to get laid but cannot... even though that's the literal definition of it. I don't often mention that, though, because I'm occasionally worried that people might take that as me saying that we should establish ourselves as something distinct from 'virgin males' at large, in the same way that Plebbitors try to make a distinction between them for the sake of insulting us without collateral to other 'struggling males.'

That's not at all what I want, but unfortunately, I'm not articulate enough to make it clear what I mean. It's an idea I've had for a while now, and it's related to my belief that there are inherent 'loser' qualities betrothed to ALL incels (including non-blackpilled ones)—and it came from one of SlayerSlayer's threads. If I tried my best, I would define and explain it as something like this—

---

All incels are unconditionally, inherently 'losers'—all of our pursuits end in failure, passionate we may be, and we are ultimately left with nothing to show as those around us surpass us in every facet conceivable. Everything we do is in vain. WE are the people who have to lose so that others can win.

Incels have always existed amongst Man, because life and nature are inherently competitive. In more primal times, there was the weaker, more feeble man who could not stop the stronger and more physically capable man from stealing his resources he worked incredibly hard to gather. He was the loser that was taken advantage of so that someone else could win and thrive. And what was he to do in spite of that?

Even as Man came to organize into groups for a collective benefit, the weaker and incapable man still existed, and he was taken advantage of in way of contributing his entire strength and ability to the group, for little to no benefit. He gets fewer scraps of food, worse shelter, worse clothing, and nobody in his group respects him enough to give him the light of day—and it persisted until his death. He had lost at life the moment he was born.

Even if the government declared tomorrow that women shall be stripped of all their rights and gave us all state-sponsored spouses, 'incels' would still exist in the sense of losers who can't make anything of life. It doesn't matter how you choose to spin it—even if we had wives who had no choice but to submit to us, they would still despise us in secret and fantasize about other men in private. And should the government give us the ability to beat them for it, they would be afraid perhaps, but that wouldn't ever change the fact that they still find us disgusting and that we will never be the men they would sincerely desire.

---

I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way... that 'inceldom' is something greater than most people care to discuss. There is nothing you could give me to 'fix' me as a person—for that, I would have to not be 'me.'

 

[The Death Devil]

Spoiler: Mentions

@Moth Knight
@TheSecondComing
@SociallyAwkward
@gluttony

 

[The Death Devil]

By the way, you're always free to tell me to stop mentioning you if that's what you would like... I won't take any offense to it desu.

 

[mirrors]

desu.

you should kill yourself NOW

 

[The Death Devil]

you should kill yourself NOW

Shut the FUCK UP NIGGER

 

[mirrors]

Shut the FUCK UP NIGGER

That's rich coming from an animefag

 

[The Death Devil]

To me,

That's rich coming from an animefag

Sorry you feel that way, I guess.

 

[FromOuterVenus]

Good definition and opinion but by that logic most incels here are halfly fakecel just because they're succesful. The other half comes from the fact that they're celibates

 

[mirrors]

Sorry you feel that way, I guess.

I misinput the first two words. If your whole identity is "I'm not a tourist look at me I'm le heckin awesome weeb" then blow your shite smooth off

 

[mirrors]

most incels here are halfly fakecel just because they're succesful.

Eh, I'd say it depends. Success isn't shit anymore to these bitches. Bezos got cheated on. Tom Brady got cheated on. Tom fucking Brady. IRL Superman

 

[The Death Devil]

Good definition and opinion but by that logic most incels here are halfly fakecel just because they're succesful. The other half comes from the fact that they're celibates

It's an abstract concept, and thus, it's rather difficult to actually draw an objective line on what 'success' really is. Still, the general concept is understandable enough, and I can sincerely say that I have never seen a 'successful incel.' Incels generally work in some of the most menial jobs, and even if they get anywhere else, they always get stuck at dead-ends and become miserable while all of their effort and work goes unnoticed.

 

[hunter x atomics]

I really wish there was a broader discussion on what constitutes an 'incel' beyond just being a virgin that wants to get laid but cannot... even though that's the literal definition of it. I don't often mention that, though, because I'm occasionally worried that people might take that as me saying that we should establish ourselves as something distinct from 'virgin males' at large, in the same way that Plebbitors try to make a distinction between them for the sake of insulting us without collateral to other 'struggling males.'

That's not at all what I want, but unfortunately, I'm not articulate enough to make it clear what I mean. It's an idea I've had for a while now, and it's related to my belief that there are inherent 'loser' qualities betrothed to ALL incels (including non-blackpilled ones)—and it came from one of SlayerSlayer's threads. If I tried my best, I would define and explain it as something like this—

---

All incels are unconditionally, inherently 'losers'—all of our pursuits end in failure, passionate we may be, and we are ultimately left with nothing to show as those around us surpass us in every facet conceivable. Everything we do is in vain. WE are the people who have to lose so that others can win.

Incels have always existed amongst Man, because life and nature are inherently competitive. In more primal times, there was the weaker, more feeble man who could not stop the stronger and more physically capable man from stealing his resources he worked incredibly hard to gather. He was the loser that was taken advantage of so that someone else could win and thrive. And what was he to do in spite of that?

Even as Man came to organize into groups for a collective benefit, the weaker and incapable man still existed, and he was taken advantage of in way of contributing his entire strength and ability to the group, for little to no benefit. He gets fewer scraps of food, worse shelter, worse clothing, and nobody in his group respects him enough to give him the light of day—and it persisted until his death. He had lost at life the moment he was born.

Even if the government declared tomorrow that women shall be stripped of all their rights and gave us all state-sponsored spouses, 'incels' would still exist in the sense of losers who can't make anything of life. It doesn't matter how you choose to spin it—even if we had wives who had no choice but to submit to us, they would still despise us in secret and fantasize about other men in private. And should the government give us the ability to beat them for it, they would be afraid perhaps, but that wouldn't ever change the fact that they still find us disgusting and that we will never be the men they would sincerely desire.

---

I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way... that 'inceldom' is something greater than most people care to discuss. There is nothing you could give me to 'fix' me as a person—for that, I would have to not be 'me.'

good read

 

[FromOuterVenus]

It's an abstract concept, and thus, it's rather difficult to actually draw an objective line on what 'success' really is. Still, the general concept is understandable enough, and I can sincerely say that I have never seen a 'successful incel.' Incels generally work in some of the most menial jobs, and even if they get anywhere else, they always get stuck at dead-ends and become miserable while all of their effort and work goes unnoticed.

Okay i am too low iq to reply to this

 

[The Death Devil]

I misinput the first two words. If your whole identity is "I'm not a tourist look at me I'm le heckin awesome weeb" then blow your shite smooth off

What are you even referring to...? I'm sincerely sorry your autism is this severe desu

 

[The Death Devil]

Okay i am too low iq to reply to this

It's okay, I'm low-IQ too, and so it's probably my fault if you can't understand it, LMAO. I'm not the greatest at writing this kind of stuff.

 

[mirrors]

desu

 

[The Death Devil]

ded srs?

 

[mirrors]

ded srs?

lol no. I just hate normalfags that larp being weebs because the covid nerdshit boom made anime cool to these fags

 

[SlayerSlayer]

AN INCEL IS A STRAIGHT MAN WHO WANTS TO FUCK A WOMAN BUT CANT BECAUSE HE JUST FUCKING SUCKS-- HE IS IMPLY THE infERior CHOice

ITS THAT SIMPLE

 

[cathuluelitist]

Even if the government declared tomorrow that women shall be stripped of all their rights and gave us all state-sponsored spouses, 'incels' would still exist in the sense of losers who can't make anything of life. It doesn't matter how you choose to spin it—even if we had wives who had no choice but to submit to us, they would still despise us in secret and fantasize about other men in private. And should the government give us the ability to beat them for it, they would be afraid perhaps, but that wouldn't ever change the fact that they still find us disgusting and that we will never be the men they would sincerely desire.

Neat thread but I disagree with this. I think if we disenfranchised women all we would have to do is put them in pre-cana and religious school. If you look at population groups that disenfranchise women, the main factor is that the girls during puberty are attending a school that teaches old type religion, in which God commands marriage as acme for women, and lead the girl to expect that the strange feelings she is now getting, the itch she would rather like scratched, should be addressed by whoever claims her. I read Dutton, and early puberty, around age eleven to thirteen or so, is the utmost formative period. Earlier and later religious education seems to have little effect, and religious education of the boys seems to have little effect. They need to start as young as 9. Their sex drive is a blank slate for the most part. The post-reprisal women would just have to be put in hatcherys until they're complacent. Sort of like how the Angle peasants didn't revolt despite being from a warrior culture because of the high priest.

 

[The Death Devil]

Neat thread but I disagree with this. I think if we disenfranchised women all we would have to do is put them in pre-cana and religious school. If you look at population groups that disenfranchise women, the main factor is that the girls during puberty are attending a school that teaches old type religion, in which God commands marriage as acme for women, and lead the girl to expect that the strange feelings she is now getting, the itch she would rather like scratched, should be addressed by whoever claims her. I read Dutton, and early puberty, around age eleven to thirteen or so, is the utmost formative period. Earlier and later religious education seems to have little effect, and religious education of the boys seems to have little effect. They need to start as young as 9. Their sex drive is a blank slate for the most part. The post-reprisal women would just have to be put in hatcherys until they're complacent. Sort of like how the Angle peasants didn't revolt despite being from a warrior culture because of the high priest.

Uteroids can only have their hypergamy and whoreness suppressed, you can't ever get rid of it since it's an inherent part of their nature. You can put them through all the training you want, but they're still going to naturally get wet for Chad instead of their incel husbands—and that's going to affect the guy's marriage life significantly.

 

[The Death Devil]

AN INCEL IS A STRAIGHT MAN WHO WANTS TO FUCK A WOMAN BUT CANT BECAUSE HE JUST FUCKING SUCKS-- HE IS IMPLY THE infERior CHOice

ITS THAT SIMPLE

That's the surface-level definition that is used for 99.5% of situations, but the point I'm trying to make is that an 'incel' is a 'loser' in a much larger scale—no matter what he is actually afforded in life. He's not only despised by human beings, but also by the world itself. EVERYTHING he does is utterly useless, and the world will have him killed off in a humiliating and solemn manner once he has despaired with life enough.

A fundamental 'loser,' through and through.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Uteroids can only have their hypergamy and whoreness suppressed, you can't ever get rid of it since it's an inherent part of their nature. You can put them through all the training you want, but they're still going to naturally get wet for Chad instead of their incel husbands—and that's going to affect the guy's marriage life significantly.

Sexual nature can be changed IMO. Look at the Woodstock Revival.

 

[The Death Devil]

Sexual nature can be changed IMO. Look at the Woodstock Revival.

I understand what you mean, but that's just an example of the alteration of 'flavors' of sexual nature. Fundamentally, sexual attraction is static—at least, with regards to uteroids—and you can't shake that foundation no matter what you do. You can whip a harlot until she bleeds every single day, but she will never inherently find a balding, 5'3 Indian janitor attractive, and a 6'2 Chad, repulsive.

Uteroids have had their preferences and strategies for sexual reproduction ingrained into them for hundreds of thousands of years through evolution, their attraction to certain men is as much as a part of them as their skin. You cannot change that desu.

 

[TheSecondComing]

By the way, you're always free to tell me to stop mentioning you if that's what you would like... I won't take any offense to it desu.

keep doing it but you kind of do be answering your own question in the first sentence

 

[DarthBurritoBastard]

Me

 

[The Death Devil]

keep doing it but you kind of do be answering your own question in the first sentence

Ugh... I know... it only occurred to me much later... I tried to look at it from a different view, and it just didn't really work out. How utterly redundant.

I'll refrain from making such things in the future...

 

[FuckYou]

AN INCEL IS A STRAIGHT MAN WHO WANTS TO FUCK A WOMAN BUT CANT BECAUSE HE JUST FUCKING SUCKS-- HE IS IMPLY THE infERior CHOice

ITS THAT SIMPLE

 

[Breathe Gas]

Incelibacy doesn’t equate to total failure.

Many man cannot be and will never be successful in conquests of the flesh. These men are not without value. It’s a harmful lie to believe that if a man can’t have a woman he can’t have anything, because it simply isn’t true. There are countless men who have lived life with dignity and purpose who are incelibate.

Incel doesn’t equal loser. That is gynocentric, female worshipping logic.

 

[realUboadiah]

I agree with this, i can't seem to do able to stop myself from failing miserably at almost any pursuit i take

 

[Needle]

I dont really see it like that that you have to actually be a loser in life or whatever, that sounds a little too much.
Though that reminded me of some of the twittercels that have thousands of followers, i could never do that in that sense they kind of just have it and i dont.Their fakecel aura has to be related

 

[realUboadiah]

Neat thread but I disagree with this. I think if we disenfranchised women all we would have to do is put them in pre-cana and religious school. If you look at population groups that disenfranchise women, the main factor is that the girls during puberty are attending a school that teaches old type religion, in which God commands marriage as acme for women, and lead the girl to expect that the strange feelings she is now getting, the itch she would rather like scratched, should be addressed by whoever claims her. I read Dutton, and early puberty, around age eleven to thirteen or so, is the utmost formative period. Earlier and later religious education seems to have little effect, and religious education of the boys seems to have little effect. They need to start as young as 9. Their sex drive is a blank slate for the most part. The post-reprisal women would just have to be put in hatcherys until they're complacent. Sort of like how the Angle peasants didn't revolt despite being from a warrior culture because of the high priest.

love this topic, it fascinates me and i agree that sexual attraction *and romantic* is changeable and learned although somewhat innate

 

[Caichan]

Not us right

 

[tired as fuck]

By the way, you're always free to tell me to stop mentioning you if that's what you would like... I won't take any offense to it desu.

you should start mentioning me on the contrary (pretty please)

All incels are unconditionally, inherently 'losers'—all of our pursuits end in failure, passionate we may be, and we are ultimately left with nothing to show as those around us surpass us in every facet conceivable. Everything we do is in vain. WE are the people who have to lose so that others can win.

There are examples in history of successful incels like physicists or mathematicians.

Incels have always existed amongst Man, because life and nature are inherently competitive. In more primal times, there was the weaker, more feeble man who could not stop the stronger and more physically capable man from stealing his resources he worked incredibly hard to gather. He was the loser that was taken advantage of so that someone else could win and thrive.

i don't know if this argument works to be honest, we've created societies in order to escape such living conditions (under the Hobbesian assumptions of the state of nature), and we generally take care of the weak ones (the disabled, the old, the sick...). It wouldn't be a stretch to state that incels have always existed imo, but to state then that incels fail at everything because they have "failure traits" and the presence of those traits can be inferred from relationship status... well, certainly one can't prove it, but it also sounds illogical, like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Certainly the horn effect is real, but that doesn't necessarily preclude people from making it in any area, just makes it harder. Besides, what is "success"? How is it defined?

Even if the government declared tomorrow that women shall be stripped of all their rights and gave us all state-sponsored spouses, 'incels' would still exist in the sense of losers who can't make anything of life. It doesn't matter how you choose to spin it—even if we had wives who had no choice but to submit to us, they would still despise us in secret and fantasize about other men in private.

Instead of incels.is this forum would be named deadbedrooms.is kek, it's actually something that's been bugging me a lot, the question "are men stuck in dead bedrooms and betabuxxers incels?". On one hand, the strict definition of incel would preclude them because they're not celibate; on the other hand, I think many people miss and long for love, more than just a spouse. If we were to rethink inceldom as a lack of a romantic partner who loves us due to inherent characteristics of ours, then wouldn't it follow that men stuck in dead bedrooms and betabuxxers are also, in a way, incels, since they are only kept on a leash to be exploited by their spouses? Just a thought I've been having these past months. I think the experiences of the two groups are not the same at all, but we may be more similar than we think we are. Furthermore, if women were to not know love, but only sociopathic manipulation and exploitation, then no one is really loved and everyone is an incel at heart, even Chad. Which wouldn't really be desirable because if everyone is an incel, then no one is. @GeckoBus I require the Gecko's opinion on this matter

we will never be the men they would sincerely desire.

brutal and suifuel

Thanks for the post! Although I don't really agree with most of what you've said, it's great that you were able to voice it.

 

[SubhumanOldcel]

Yeah, it’s over.

 

[Kan>Foids]

Incel literally just means involuntary celibate, or virgin male who wants to get laid but can't. It's genuinely that simple.

One thing I will concede is that normies have completely bastardized it. Now it means "you don't worship foids and agree with everything she says". It's fucking ridiculous that dumb fuck normies will call married, successful, rich men with hot wives and fucking kids "incels".

 

[SlayerSlayer]

Incelibacy doesn’t equate to total failure.

Many man cannot be and will never be successful in conquests of the flesh. These men are not without value. It’s a harmful lie to believe that if a man can’t have a woman he can’t have anything, because it simply isn’t true. There are countless men who have lived life with dignity and purpose who are incelibate.

Incel doesn’t equal loser. That is gynocentric, female worshipping logic.

that's called a volcel

 

[GeckoBus]

Furthermore, if women were to not know love, but only sociopathic manipulation and exploitation, then no one is really loved and everyone is an incel at heart, even Chad. Which wouldn't really be desirable because if everyone is an incel, then no one is. @

@GeckoBus I require the Gecko's opinion on this matter

Well personally, I dont think there is an out from this. Unless you find some giga philosopher foid that understand this, pretty much all relationships are just transactional emotional exchanges. Good luck getting a woman to adopt some duty-based moral framework where she will stick to a guy even if she looses feelings for him, no chance. She would have to believe in some sorta religious, buddhist concept of desire being the enemy or virtue and vice, and that her emotions are not hers but like a disease, or a corruption. There is no way you can get a woman to think on that level lmfao, it is like thinking the average woman is capable of becoming some sort of christ like figure.

Now, if we take a step back, the question you are raising stops being about incels. The issue is much broader. Instead of "is true love possible?" or "is there anyone who is not incel in some sense?" it becomes "is absolute satisfaction even possible at all?" - can we achieve something like that? It becomes a religious question at this point. In buddhism they say yeah, you self-delete into nirvana, you are drop of wata and you return to da ocean of reality, blub.

And in other religions like christianity they have this platonic view that you can never achieve total fulfillment cuz the gap between god and man is infinite, so you just either have infinite blissful longing, infinite ascend towards god without ever joining him or being destroyed yourself by being absorbed (thats heaven) or you experience the same thing but negative version (hell), infinite never ending agony as you can never escape gods presence, which is like a fire to the impure.

Again, if you magically found a woman to understand this, that we might never achieve satisfaction in life or even after death and that disatisfaction may be normal, yeah sure, maybe you could life together and make it work somehow idk. But finding such a woman is impossible. And if she exists she is probably in some monastery or some shit idk. Most women operate on the polar opposite - "dont settle for less than your worth" "always trust your instincts" etc. For example I am being shown this disgusting period pad commerical over and over on YT where it shows a bunch of women doing female fitness shit and then they suddenly yell together "IS IT BAD TO WANT WHATS BEST FOR ME?" NOOO!"

Its like the old grub hub commerical but for period pads fucking kill me.

Point is, only men compromise. Men will stay with women they dislike. Men will stick to shit out of sense of duty and ignore their own feelings. Wheher that is something men are born with or something that arises from circumstance (most men are punished for acting opposite way except high status men, who end up acting like women tbh), I dont care. Women will not do it. There is also the youth factor. Making an old man friend in your 70s can be cool and nice. But old women are useless as fuck. We need women in their prime, teens to mid 20s. And at that age they are even less likely to understand these "philosophical musings" that might in some sense help the man to have a successful relaitonship with them.

Yeah, good luck finding that 18yo fertile girl that is somehow into "rejecting vice" and "denying herself unto death" so she can "crucify the old man" and have her whole being dedicated to some cause. Laughble. It wouldnt even be believable if it was a fictional story. So going back to the original point, I dont think being chad changes anything. Incel is just a mode of "dissatisfaction." If you are sexually satisfied, other things will eventually become your primary mode of disatisfaction, such as aging, disease, accidents, financial worries etc. Nobody escapes, not even chad.

 

[tired as fuck]

Well personally, I dont think there is an out from this. Unless you find some giga philosopher foid that understand this, pretty much all relationships are just transactional emotional exchanges. Good luck getting a woman to adopt some duty-based moral framework where she will stick to a guy even if she looses feelings for him, no chance. She would have to believe in some sorta religious, buddhist concept of desire being the enemy or virtue and vice, and that her emotions are not hers but like a disease, or a corruption. There is no way you can get a woman to think on that level lmfao, it is like thinking the average woman is capable of becoming some sort of christ like figure.

Now, if we take a step back, the question you are raising stops being about incels. The issue is much broader. Instead of "is true love possible?" or "is there anyone who is not incel in some sense?" it becomes "is absolute satisfaction even possible at all?" - can we achieve something like that? It becomes a religious question at this point. In buddhism they say yeah, you self-delete into nirvana, you are drop of wata and you return to da ocean of reality, blub.

And in other religions like christianity they have this platonic view that you can never achieve total fulfillment cuz the gap between god and man is infinite, so you just either have infinite blissful longing, infinite ascend towards god without ever joining him or being destroyed yourself by being absorbed (thats heaven) or you experience the same thing but negative version (hell), infinite never ending agony as you can never escape gods presence, which is like a fire to the impure.

Again, if you magically found a woman to understand this, that we might never achieve satisfaction in life or even after death and that disatisfaction may be normal, yeah sure, maybe you could life together and make it work somehow idk. But finding such a woman is impossible. And if she exists she is probably in some monastery or some shit idk. Most women operate on the polar opposite - "dont settle for less than your worth" "always trust your instincts" etc. For example I am being shown this disgusting period pad commerical over and over on YT where it shows a bunch of women doing female fitness shit and then they suddenly yell together "IS IT BAD TO WANT WHATS BEST FOR ME?" NOOO!"

Its like the old grub hub commerical but for period pads fucking kill me.

Point is, only men compromise. Men will stay with women they dislike. Men will stick to shit out of sense of duty and ignore their own feelings. Wheher that is something men are born with or something that arises from circumstance (most men are punished for acting opposite way except high status men, who end up acting like women tbh), I dont care. Women will not do it. There is also the youth factor. Making an old man friend in your 70s can be cool and nice. But old women are useless as fuck. We need women in their prime, teens to mid 20s. And at that age they are even less likely to understand these "philosophical musings" that might in some sense help the man to have a successful relaitonship with them.

Yeah, good luck finding that 18yo fertile girl that is somehow into "rejecting vice" and "denying herself unto death" so she can "crucify the old man" and have her whole being dedicated to some cause. Laughble. It wouldnt even be believable if it was a fictional story. So going back to the original point, I dont think being chad changes anything. Incel is just a mode of "dissatisfaction." If you are sexually satisfied, other things will eventually become your primary mode of disatisfaction, such as aging, disease, accidents, financial worries etc. Nobody escapes, not even chad.

I hate how every relationship is transactional. I wish there could exist a relationship that goes beyond that but I never could get it nor observe it in others. When you read between the lines and keep in mind that others always have an ulterior motive, suddenly everything regarding why others act the way they act makes total sense.

I don't think my question transcended the boundaries of the immanent though tbh, my question was more like "the way incels seem to be commonly defined might imply that not only us, but even those in dead bedroom marriages and betabuxxers are incels, even though they might not be celibate" which is killing me right now because I cannot seem to find a logically coherent sentence.

Regarding girls, there is nothing I can say that you haven't said. It really is that way and even those girls "studying" philosophy in reality are only performing. Whenever I look at a female, and observe their actions and their behaviours, I am always reminded of a small child. Not because of neoteny, but because of naiveté and stupidity. They just lack any sense of rigor, duty, seriousness, soberness and individuality. We are supposedly immersed in a hyper-individualistic matrix, yet the West is not that far off from the East when it comes to social normalization and masking. Japanese notions of Tatemae/Honne split and Giri are not unknown to us, and have been observed since at least the 19th Century, what with the whole "Masks" concept. As a result of that, we live in a cult of mediocrity and is it that weird that women are then put on a pedestal by men? Women thrive in mediocrity: this is clear from an IQ distribution standpoint, but it is also true looking at social dynamics. Women dictate male behavior because they signal which behaviors are accepted by them and which aren't; they turn males into peacocks, in-fighting for female validation; they wham the males who do not normalize themselves, through ostracization, bullying, humiliation etc. They are essentially the guards of this prison we call "society".

Yet, males cannot help but be attracted by them, even the most aware and intelligent males are seemingly unable to shave off their attraction towards females, and as you said will compromise. I would say most aware males are repulsed by female behavior, but will compromise due to either attempting to delude oneself, or convenience (living alone as an old man is very difficult). Personally I don't think reason and logic are able to convince feelings and stop them from occurring, so it is literally impossible to not feel attraction towards females, unless you're gay or are not attracted to anyone for weird neuro-chemistry reasons. Point is, this is who we are and we cannot deny it, and ascetic practices won't help.

Whenever technology will progress so far that we'll be able to have our own anime waifus exist and we are able to impregnate them, it will be truly over for females. Females truly are wicked creatures and I cannot act as if they aren't anymore. I have met a couple of decent females throughout my lifetime (mostly uni professors who are genuinely intelligent, so that could correct their behavior to some degree I guess) but 99.99999% of females I have ever met, both minors and adults, both students and workers, were no more than trash.

Thank you humoring me and and your answer as always Gecko, you have a good way of putting things into perspective, you're a good lad

 

[whiteboyhair]

All incels are unconditionally, inherently 'losers'—all of our pursuits end in failure, passionate we may be, and we are ultimately left with nothing to show as those around us surpass us in every facet conceivable. Everything we do is in vain. WE are the people who have to lose so that others can win.

That's the surface-level definition that is used for 99.5% of situations, but the point I'm trying to make is that an 'incel' is a 'loser' in a much larger scale—no matter what he is actually afforded in life. He's not only despised by human beings, but also by the world itself. EVERYTHING he does is utterly useless, and the world will have him killed off in a humiliating and solemn manner once he has despaired with life enough.

A fundamental 'loser,' through and through.

One of the most underrated blackpills is that you can have a great social life but still be an incel.

There are men with a friend group and an active workplace environment who still get no pussy. You can go to parties, travel, have female friends, but still be pussyless because you’re starved of good genetics. Inceldom is ENTIRELY about looks.

 

[The Death Devil]

you should start mentioning me on the contrary (pretty please)

Of course, but I will tell you that I don't post threads very often—this thread being a concrete example as to why... I'm just not suit for it.

There are examples in history of successful incels like physicists or mathematicians.

I don't entirely disagree, but those cases are exceptionally rare methinks—when is the last time you saw a generational talent like that?

i don't know if this argument works to be honest, we've created societies in order to escape such living conditions (under the Hobbesian assumptions of the state of nature), and we generally take care of the weak ones (the disabled, the old, the sick...).

Society was established because it was beneficial for Man to operate as a part of a collective, as they could achieve far more as a group rather than individuals striving for the same goal. Even with society, however, Man's nature persisted and there were still inferiors who could establish themselves beyond the lowest levels of said society—and who's efforts, menial they may be, were exploited by others for little to no gain to the inferior himself.

Before modern society, and when there were fewer resources, the old and disabled received practically zero aid beyond their immediate family members, who love them. The sick specifically paid for care, or had some other kind of abstract value to a superior so that they could pay for their care—the vast amount of people who fell ill and couldn't naturally fight it off just ended up succumbing to their illness and dying.

Even with all of this, you could make the argument that the only reason we have these kind of institutions in society to begin with is precisely because everything you named are things that could happen to superiors, and out of fear of that, it was also beneficial to Man to establish such precedents.

It wouldn't be a stretch to state that incels have always existed imo, but to state then that incels fail at everything because they have "failure traits" and the presence of those traits can be inferred from relationship status... well, certainly one can't prove it, but it also sounds illogical, like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Well... I can't say I disagree at this point...

When I had written this thread, I was hoping to open up a broader discussion on what makes an incel an 'incel' in a deeper, more philisophical sense. I have personally struggled all my life with not being good enough at anything, and being outclassed by everyone around me no matter how hard I tried—and I was hoping that at least a few people here would have experienced something similar. But this hasn't resonnated with anyone, and it has been nothing short of utterly mortifying for the past three or so days now...

I shouldn't have been so quick as to try and attribute my own nature as a loser to inceldom as a whole. This post was multiple paragraphs of me saying nothing of value and it might have been the worst post I have ever made on this site—which is quite a high bar, so it's somewhat impressive.

Either way, I apologize that you had to read this—and I'm sincerely grateful that you gave me any kind words at all, I really don't deserve it.

 

[tired as fuck]

'm just not suit for it.

Nothing I'll say can convince you otherwise I'm afraid. Still, there's no such thing as being able or unable to post effort threads. Same thing as "there's no stupid questions", there's no stupid effort threads.

when is the last time you saw a generational talent like that?

Idk, maybe the true last one was Nikola Tesla?

Before modern society, and when there were fewer resources, the old and disabled received practically zero aid beyond their immediate family members, who love them. The sick specifically paid for care, or had some other kind of abstract value to a superior so that they could pay for their care—the vast amount of people who fell ill and couldn't naturally fight it off just ended up succumbing to their illness and dying.

That's true, but at least in Europe you had the Church doing good things (somehow) like tending to the sick in free hospitals.

When I had written this thread, I was hoping to open up a broader discussion on what makes an incel an 'incel' in a deeper, more philisophical sense. I have personally struggled all my life with not being good enough at anything, and being outclassed by everyone around me no matter how hard I tried—and I was hoping that at least a few people here would have experienced something similar. But this hasn't resonnated with anyone, and it has been nothing short of utterly mortifying for the past three or so days now...

People create/embrace theories based on their lived experience. I've done it too in my worst sleepless nights, create a whole theoretical framework of existence to justify my crippling loneliness. Even if it might be completely untrue in the end, there is nothing wrong with trying to generalize onto humanity, and logically if a thesis is empirically wrong then just discard it. But I'm sure you have developed some sort of emotional attachment to it and it hurts to see it invalidated by those people that you felt are like you in that regard. That's fine tho. Feel that pain and see where it brings you.

I shouldn't have been so quick as to try and attribute my own nature as a loser to inceldom as a whole. This post was multiple paragraphs of me saying nothing of value and it might have been the worst post I have ever made on this site—which is quite a high bar, so it's somewhat impressive.

You give yourself wayyyyy too much shit, no one is going to judge you for voicing out your ideas and theories regarding inceldom (possibly...). Dialogue is a series of mistakes being corrected anyways, if anything you could take some things away from this happening. I'm sure though that, like me, you stay too much in your own head and overthink everything and feel quite anxious.

Either way, I apologize that you had to read this—and I'm sincerely grateful that you gave me any kind words at all, I really don't deserve it.

Don't apologize man I literally asked you to tag me when you post these kinds of threads again. How old are you?

 

[The Death Devil]

People create/embrace theories based on their lived experience. I've done it too in my worst sleepless nights, create a whole theoretical framework of existence to justify my crippling loneliness. Even if it might be completely untrue in the end, there is nothing wrong with trying to generalize onto humanity, and logically if a thesis is empirically wrong then just discard it.

You're right, I just wish that I could articulate my thoughts more clearly.

You give yourself wayyyyy too much shit, no one is going to judge you for voicing out your ideas and theories regarding inceldom (possibly...). Dialogue is a series of mistakes being corrected anyways, if anything you could take some things away from this happening.

I already have—after my post fell entirely flat I spent the following evening and morning trying to organize my thoughts in my journal as I had evidently gotten something incredibly wrong.

I'm sure though that, like me, you stay too much in your own head and overthink everything and feel quite anxious.

I wouldn't quite say so. Frankly, anywhere else but .is, I could care less about what anyone else thinks. This is the only place, though, where I want to actively contribute—and, by extension—try my utmost hardest to develop theory about the black-pill and how it applies to society as a whole. I want my posts to be of use to others in that regard, so it's rather embarrassing when I write something that does the opposite of that desu.

How old are you?

I turned nineteen a few months ago.

 

[tired as fuck]

You're right, I just wish that I could articulate my thoughts more clearly.

Write more then, post more threads, read more.

I want my posts to be of use to others in that regard, so it's rather embarrassing when I write something that does the opposite of that desu.

It's fine man, just try again.

I turned nineteen a few months ago.

Planning to go to uni or something?

 

[The Death Devil]

Planning to go to uni or something?

LMAO, my IQ isn't high enough for that, I could barely get through high school.

 

[tired as fuck]

LMAO, my IQ isn't high enough for that, I could barely get through high school.

Brutal truecel pill

 

[WhitePilledRage]

It's an abstract concept, and thus, it's rather difficult to actually draw an objective line on what 'success' really is. Still, the general concept is understandable enough, and I can sincerely say that I have never seen a 'successful incel.' Incels generally work in some of the most menial jobs, and even if they get anywhere else, they always get stuck at dead-ends and become miserable while all of their effort and work goes unnoticed.

Success if having a life with the least amount of stress and misery.

 

[INVERTER]

An incel is a guy with a really really bad personality that EVERYONE can see instantaneously through photos on the internet.