It has become mainstream and socially acceptable for normies to hate on incels. Even if they don't explicitly use the term "incel", there is a lot of disparaging remarks about loser low status men who are not successful with girls who may even be bluepilled. Which is weird because they are so careful about not offending people like minorities, women, homosexuals, trannies, etc. In this post, I am going to try and explain why normies, who usually try to virtue signal and make a show of helping the disenfranchised, would tolerate and even encourage hatred towards disenfranchised young men.
It is easy to understand the reaction of involuntary celibacy when you look at it in the historical context of people in power trying to maintain their grip on it and protect a system that favors them. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of this is the workers movements and marxists. When wageslaves who were tired of working in factories in shit conditions for shit pay wanted a more fair equal system, the capitalists resisted change. It didn't matter that the cards were stacked against them, they would claim. If they just work on themselves and hustle, adopt the sigma male grindset, anyone could become rich just like them. And people bought it, because they didn't understand that in reality they had no access to capital to start a business endeavor. To back their claim, the capitalists would cherry pick instances of "rags to riches" stories, calling people who wanted unions, socialism, and communism "lazy". Furthermore, instances of when workers groups turned to violence to advance their cause were used to discourage workers from joining them.
Then I think of civil rights in America. After slavery ended, black people in america basically had no protections from racism, so they didn't have the same opportunities as white people to get jobs and move up the hierarchy. They basically had to keep working on plantations because of sharecropping. When they demanded equality and an end to discrimination, the response from white people was that, if they wanted a better life, they could just make it themselves. After all, they supposedly had "separate but equal" institutions. Furthermore, the circumstances black people were in was used against them to justify discrimination. They were supposedly unintelligent, violent, and of an inferior race. And people bought that up, not knowing that they were learned behaviors due to the circumstances white people put them in, like poverty and bad education. Furthermore, activists like Booker T Washington sidestepped the real issue by calling for black people to basically pull themselves up by the bootstraps in spite of discrimination, instead of calling for an end to discriminatory policies.
Are you guys seeing the parallels here? It is all the same rhetoric. Normies never actually cared about whether what we say is true. Their beliefs are coming purely from a perspective of wanting to maintain the status quo which favors them. Disenfranchised groups have always been a danger to the status quo, because they are the ones who want to bring about the change that would destroy their power. If the system is benefitting you, you have no reason to want change.
It is easy to understand the reaction of involuntary celibacy when you look at it in the historical context of people in power trying to maintain their grip on it and protect a system that favors them. The first thing that comes to mind when I think of this is the workers movements and marxists. When wageslaves who were tired of working in factories in shit conditions for shit pay wanted a more fair equal system, the capitalists resisted change. It didn't matter that the cards were stacked against them, they would claim. If they just work on themselves and hustle, adopt the sigma male grindset, anyone could become rich just like them. And people bought it, because they didn't understand that in reality they had no access to capital to start a business endeavor. To back their claim, the capitalists would cherry pick instances of "rags to riches" stories, calling people who wanted unions, socialism, and communism "lazy". Furthermore, instances of when workers groups turned to violence to advance their cause were used to discourage workers from joining them.
Then I think of civil rights in America. After slavery ended, black people in america basically had no protections from racism, so they didn't have the same opportunities as white people to get jobs and move up the hierarchy. They basically had to keep working on plantations because of sharecropping. When they demanded equality and an end to discrimination, the response from white people was that, if they wanted a better life, they could just make it themselves. After all, they supposedly had "separate but equal" institutions. Furthermore, the circumstances black people were in was used against them to justify discrimination. They were supposedly unintelligent, violent, and of an inferior race. And people bought that up, not knowing that they were learned behaviors due to the circumstances white people put them in, like poverty and bad education. Furthermore, activists like Booker T Washington sidestepped the real issue by calling for black people to basically pull themselves up by the bootstraps in spite of discrimination, instead of calling for an end to discriminatory policies.
Are you guys seeing the parallels here? It is all the same rhetoric. Normies never actually cared about whether what we say is true. Their beliefs are coming purely from a perspective of wanting to maintain the status quo which favors them. Disenfranchised groups have always been a danger to the status quo, because they are the ones who want to bring about the change that would destroy their power. If the system is benefitting you, you have no reason to want change.
of course, we are incels because women standards
