D
I absolutely don't understand what the first part of the sentence means, but I agree.
Experiment Would you allow virgin users who have kissed foids/dated/have foids interested in them?
Qui ascendit incel nunquam fuit means "he who ascends was never an incel in the first place"
If all you can base your evaluation of inceldom is self-reporting individuals, then potentially everyone here is larping. Assuming everyone who enters is faithful about their self-reporting, why should I not allow someone who has held a female's hand but is still a KHV? Same question for the other letters of the acronym, V included: is someone who was raped by a foid an incel or a sexhaver? Is a betabuxxer who gets pussy sometimes but whose wife secretly cheats on him and doesn't feel anything while having sex an incel or not? What is the difference between an escort and this scenario, for instance? Both foids don't wanna be with you, they're just in it for money (in the case of the wife it can be citizenship or sth else). Incels are nominally involuntary celibates. Thus for me, as a baseline, as long as there wasn't volition (ie refusing opportunities) and as long as you're celibate, you are an incel. But can wedded beta buxxers be considered incels or not? While they didn't refuse the opportunity to marry, they aren't in an actual loving relationship. But do I think they are in the same category as incels? Logically I think so, if the only discriminant seems to be a loving relationship. Both incels and buxxers, by this logic, potentially can have (mostly unwanted) children, for instance. Loveless relationships can be somewhat harsher than not having relationships at all, imo, especially when you realize she never loved you, it's the same as betrayal in a way. I don't definitively know my stance, one can be a KHHV in Western countries but move to Vietnam or Thailand and get married, and one can't realistically judge from the inside whether or not she's actually in love or is only in it for the money. I don't know pretty much anything for certain about this. Inb4 overthinking yeah so what? I don't just passively accept things imposed by someone or something above me, but I reflect on them. Inb4 fakecel, lol I am KHHV and you have realistically no way to tell if I am or not, much like anyone else in this forum, it's all a faith/belief game and I don't know if defining a whole subcategory of people based on it is something I can do.
"If you ascend, you never were an incel" is the same kind of logic as "if therapy didn't help you, you were never willing to be cured". A tautology, circular logic. Like any religion or cult, for that matter
I voted no because you finally made it clear when it comes to being KHHV. Last time, you were fucking around too much, saying that all users who had foid friends in the past should be banned, even though certain scenarios which are work-related or school-related cannot be avoided. If you ever been in a university and have had group assignments, you know this situation cannot be avoided. And yet, these foids in your group despite you. Or as a 5 years old, when you made friends with a lot of foids around your age. You're a kid during that time, how could you be aware? I distanced myself from these foids I once called "friends" when I was 10, because they were toxic and unfriendly, due to my looks. Similar to telling someone in this forum to kill themselves just because they interacted to a foid who works as a cashier in the grocery store
These kinds of polls don't really aim at deepening an understanding or analyzing nuance they just hit the more emotional parts. Not that it isn't fine, but don't expect clarity, it's intentionally vague.
D
Good summary.
Most incels don't actually want sex as much as they want a loving relationship. By the same logic why we allowed escortcels, we should allow incels who have betabuxxed, been monkeybranched, or been raped or pity fucked.
If we gatekeep by the idea of 'failed normies are not incels', then we are pretty much becoming as picky as the foids we claim to hate. Though, we should still penalize humblebagging and boasting, since it could just be undercover ITfags who discreetly try to antagonize truecels. What do you think of this opinion?
I think (humble)bragging should be a bannable offense yes. It's probably a decent idea but nearly impossible to implement in a forum because 1) it would drive everyone here away, 2) how many subcases can you map out and include before the definition of incel gets too diluted? And how many subcases can you think of? I think pragmatically, the rules we have now might be the best there can be.
D
Do you agree that burncels and manletcels are always incels, and that fatcels and skinnycels are volcels?
Idk, if they are like younger than 25 obviously not but if someone is 35 or 40+ and has no experience besides 1 kiss ages ago it might be fair to make an exception
D
Fair
It'd be easier to say that everyone is an incel until they aren't anymore, tbh.
Breaking KHHV status is too harsh
D
Good idea
R
kissed? eeeeeh probably as long as they don't brag about it.
dating i dont see what the problem is. i've never been on a date before but if she isn't giving you pussy, it doesn't count as far as i care
dating i dont see what the problem is. i've never been on a date before but if she isn't giving you pussy, it doesn't count as far as i care
Raphael Tisserand mogg me
If a person eventually forms romantic or sexual relations through ordinary social processes, then the condition was not permanent involuntary exclusion, but delayed success.
If a kingdom recovers from a crisis, historians may conclude it was never truly doomed.
The final result changes our understanding of the condition.
BrutalRaphael Tisserand mogg me
The domain of history is closed: the past, with all the data and output already written. The domain of inceldom is open: the present and future. By your own terms, no one can be considered an incel until they die, and their life is later evaluated.
Furthermore, in the present moment, hic et nunc, if I look at a kingdom in crisis, the crisis is very real and to be addressed. If I have cancer, I have cancer, independently of me surviving or not. If I am an incel now, I am an incel now, irrespective of me ascending in the future or not.
An eventual, future, a priori unprovable ascension does not invalidate one's current status of incel.
An excellent objection. Yet you confuse condition with essence
The man without relations today undeniably experiences involuntary celibacy as a condition. I do not dispute the lived reality.
But Qui ascendit incel nunquam fuit concerns not temporary condition, but essential nature,
A starving traveler and a permanently starving man both experience hunger. Yet one suffers accidental hunger, the other essential deprivation.
The first lacks food temporarily.
The second lacks access fundamentally. So be careful condition≠essence, someone can be KHHV in their youth and ascend later in life and still they are not an incel
Inceldom is by definition an aristotelian accident, a characteristic of the essence "man" (intended as male human); that is because "Incel" is a sociological construct that regroups individuals of the male sex into a group, and the sole condition of that categorization is a negative attribute (as in, absence of an attribute), that of never having had a relationship. It is a strictly descriptive, phenomenal status defined by the current, involuntary absence of relations.
False Analogy. Both are suffering a temporal deprivation, but if the second obtains access to food and eats, hunger goes away completely. Hunger is also an accident. But by your own framework, if a starving person ate, then that person never was starving in the first place. Again, the supposed essential condition can only be determined ex-post, never ex-ante.
that is true, but you have defined as an essence what is in reality an accident.
Conditions that are prolonged in time do not become essence, they're just accidents, but prolonged in time.
Hell no
fuck no
@LastGerman raped a girl apparently (speculation) but he's still incel because he has a micropenis (allegedly) and I was honestly cool with it until I found out he was having sex (speculation) with @deleted dude. This should really be looked into and there's a thread coming (idk by who yet) to expose this all. The truth is what we need for a situation like this.
Boy, I wouldn't have registered if I had known that I would be chosen to expose a big time gay masochist, but since I was chosen, I can't step down now (I come from a very strong honor culture). Saidit.net will be missed but this is no time to fret.
Boy, I wouldn't have registered if I had known that I would be chosen to expose a big time gay masochist, but since I was chosen, I can't step down now (I come from a very strong honor culture). Saidit.net will be missed but this is no time to fret.
Probably not with very limited exceptions
By that definition every single man would be an incel.
Like passing trough inceldom and ascension but we all know it is not like that.
Being is and cannot not be, an idea isn't half another idea
A chad can be single and yet he is not an incel.
The truth is that once you have sex or break the KHHV status you were not a true incel, you had just delayed success
The analogy is an oversimplification i admit. But because the matter is hard to explain but the point is the same
If you are dying and save yourself you were not meant to die with that ilness
That doesn't mean the ilness is invalid, it just means that you were not meant to die.
This comes back to the platonic ideas an idea is fully an idea not half that or half another thing. If we pretend inceldom is an idea then an incel is stuck with that, while a single normie is not stuck in the "idea".
The definition is a bit cumbersome but i hope you understand
It's only cumbersome insofar as you equivocate the concept of an accident with an essence. Accidents can be removed from an essence and the essence would be untouched. For instance, returning to your example, hunger. Hunger is an accident of man because once hunger goes away, "man" is unchanged in its essence. a man who is not hungry is still a man. Man is defined as a rational animal, so those two are essential qualities of man, or if you will, the particular genetic configuration that distinguished man from other beings. The analogy you propose is not an oversimplification but an ontological category error.
I think you are making the same mistake as saying "black horses are essentially black horses". It is not true that black horses are ontologically different from horses. Mantle color is a genetic property of horses, yes, but it is an accident because a black horse is still a horse, but not all horses are black.
All incels are men, but not all men are incels. In order to state that inceldom is an ontological category distinct from man, you would have to at least provide an explanation of why you think that is the case.
On Plato's ideas, since you brought them up you'd have to know that ideas are not perfectly manifested in this realm, but are imperfect, for they just mimic the ideas that reside in the world of ideas. Even if an idea of inceldom existed, its manifestation would inevitably be imperfect, with ontologically defined "incels" to fluctuate in their qualities (basically, not all of them would be KHHVs).
Holy shakespeare, but i have to do some corrections first ontological literally means about philosophy. I do not believe the hunger analogy has anything to do with it. For the healthy man and the hungry man being man it is true but that was not the point
Now i understand, you misinterpreted what i said let's start with your black horse analogy
Qui ascendit incel nunquam fuit≠ case
The quote is very easy if you ascend you were never an incel in the first place, if you ascend later in life it means you were not an incel, it means you delayed success.
And most importantly you said that "every incel is a man and not every man is an incel" and you are right, but remember, my quote, the one you criticized, does not say something like "Fantasy books are fantasy books" it says that if you ascend then you were not an incel in the first place.
And for the plato idea, you made a good point, the idea of inceldom so of KHHV status will be imperfect, but do most incel ever break the KHHV status? They do not.
It is not about perfection but standards
Ontological does not mean "about philosophy", it means "of ontology (subfield of metaphysics)". Ontology is a branch of philosophy that studies "being". Your original statement is ontological. Your analogy is also ontological, postulating a difference in essence between two parties. But it is wrong, for the difference is in fact null, as they are both suffering the same accident (hunger), just for different periods of time. You yourself have postulated an ontological difference (in essence) while there is none. Furthermore, you put that in analogy with the ontological categories of man and incel, essentially different due to their relationship status, but the same way as the hungry men analogy, this too is null, for relationship status is accidental to being a man.
There is no need to repeat your original statement, you must address the ontological criticism that arises from such a postulation. Your comment is not a reply to it. Your quote is not a tautology, not a sentence of the form "X is X", but an incorrect attribution of the category "essence" to an "accident".
You cannot know, do you realize that? You made such a general statement to prove that inceldom is a platonic idea, which is only supported by your interpretation of inceldom as a platonic idea. This is a petitio principii, and a tautology, making this logically void.
Furthermore, no metric internal to our realm can measure the number of incels who break either of the letters (lying, over-exaggeration, lack of accounting for nuance are only the most evident blind spots of such measurements).
At last, if you state that it is not about perfection, but standards, then you are disavowing your initial statement about the essential ontological difference between man and incel, and merely operating a pragmatic distinction. There is nothing inherently wrong with employing pragmatism alone, especially for the constituency of a forum, but what are you then basing your distinction on, since you rendered your only discriminant logically void?
Not here, but there should be a separate forum that allowed nearcels or other not fully incel men who suffer under the matriarchy in serious ways just like us. If antifeminist sentiments grew and more men became based, it would be a good thing.
In my opinion they belong to MRA community.
As long as it was pre/early puberty, before the chads looks divide really widened.
There isn't any good ones currently. That's why I think, it should be more connected to blackpill and celibacy. Most MRAs are soys and agecucks who use feminist rhetoric that is simply gender-swaped kind of like how Trumpers do the "democrats are the real racists!"
bit.If there was a site that had a similar atmosphere to this one that allowed the people from here who got banned for holding a foid's hand 7 years ago, then it would do good in multiple ways. It would for one, keep them away from coming here and secondly it would provide a environment where more based people would emerge from, possibly influencing culture at a larger scale. There are also old people who are at a celibacy streak for decades kind of like Saint Sodini was. All I'm saying is that there definitely is a market out there for something like that.
If there is no community for non-KHHDV misogynistic, then those who could be there will gravitate towards soft reddit bullshit or redpill crap instead.
This site however should always remain incel-only.
The MRAs you mentioned aren't real MRAs, the one I mention have very good points about society discriminating men and criminalizing male behavior, they also oppose to divorce laws and child support that gives foids much more power to ruin men lives.There isn't any good ones currently. That's why I think, it should be more connected to blackpill and celibacy. Most MRAs are soys and agecucks who use feminist rhetoric that is simply gender-swaped kind of like how Trumpers do the "democrats are the real racists!"
If there was a site that had a similar atmosphere to this one that allowed the people from here who got banned for holding a foid's hand 7 years ago, then it would do good in multiple ways. It would for one, keep them away from coming here and secondly it would provide a environment where more based people would emerge from, possibly influencing culture at a larger scale. There are also old people who are at a celibacy streak for decades kind of like Saint Sodini was. All I'm saying is that there definitely is a market out there for something like that.
If there is no community for non-KHHDV misogynistic, then those who could be there will gravitate towards soft reddit bullshit or redpill crap instead.
This site however should always remain incel-only.
Any examples?
yes allow chads on the forum and bring hypergamous beckies too
I can give you examples in Spanish but not in English.
Mavka Loreth
This Channel is dedicated to talking about the societal issues that many people face, especially for guys and is a place for venting all things out in a respectful matter. I will do my best to continue talking about these everyday issues in today's world. ð
youtube.com
In Spanish I recommend Che Morpheus who is a pro incel MGTOW.
@TheGrayWolf I think this channel could be very useful for you and other people in a terrible situation because of their looks, he is really really blackpilled.Actually I can give you the example of this man who is pro incel and pro men rights as a nearcel himself and from a blackpill perspective.Mavka Loreth
This Channel is dedicated to talking about the societal issues that many people face, especially for guys and is a place for venting all things out in a respectful matter. I will do my best to continue talking about these everyday issues in today's world. ð
Thanks
You misunderstand my use of “essence.” I did not mean essence in the strict Aristotelian or Thomistic ontological sense, as though “incel” were a metaphysical species distinct from “man.” That would indeed be absurd.
A man remains a man independently of relationship status. I never denied this.
My statement operates on a different level: not ontology properly speaking, but existential structure and teleological outcome.
Your criticism is correct if my claim were:
“Incelhood is an ontologically distinct essence inhering in a subject.”
But that is not what I mean.
When I say Qui ascendit incel nunquam fuit, I am speaking retrospectively and phenomenologically. The phrase distinguishes between:
temporary involuntary celibacy,
and lifelong structural exclusion.
The distinction is therefore not metaphysical essence, but existential trajectory.
You accuse me of confusing accident and essence, but my point is precisely that what appears accidental in the present may reveal itself to have been merely transitional when viewed from the completed whole of a life.
The starving traveler and the permanently starving man are indeed both hungry in the same ontological sense. I grant this fully. But existentially and teleologically, their situations are radically different.
One inhabits deprivation temporarily.
The other inhabits deprivation as the dominant structure of existence.
That difference is not ontological in the scholastic sense, but neither is it trivial.
Likewise:
a man celibate at 18,
and a man celibate at death,
share the same present accident but not necessarily the same existential condition.
You are correct that no internal metric can infallibly identify the “true incel” beforehand. In fact, this uncertainty is central to the entire aphorism.
The statement is intentionally retrospective.
It does not function as:
“I can know now who is essentially incel.”
Rather:
“Only the completed trajectory of a life reveals whether the condition was temporary or structural.”
Thus the aphorism is not a scientific classification nor an ontological theorem. It is an existential observation about permanence versus transience.
You accuse me of petitio principii because I interpret inceldom as a Platonic idea. But again, you over-literalize the metaphor. “Platonic” here does not mean participation in a transcendent metaphysical Form existing independently in the heavens.
It means an idealized abstraction:
the archetype of permanent exclusion,
never perfectly instantiated,
but approached to varying degrees by real individuals.
Much like “the miser,” “the tragic hero,” or “the outsider” in literature.
Therefore my distinction survives your criticism because it does not rely on ontology strictly speaking. It relies on:
existential permanence,
retrospective totality,
and phenomenological structure.
You are attacking a stronger metaphysical claim than the one I actually made.
And had I truly intended “incel” as a literal ontological category distinct from man, your criticism would have destroyed my position completely.
So to test you:how would you reply shortly to my Antithesis? I want to see if you can directly go to the point
I must advise you that by retreating from ontology to a purely "retrospective existential trajectory," you have saved your aphorism from metaphysical absurdity only to render it pragmatically useless and epistemologically void in the present.
If "inceldom" can only be verified post-mortem through an analysis of the completed totality of a life, then by your own definition, no living person can be categorized as an incel today.
Therefore, your "archetype of permanent exclusion" is a ghost. You cannot use a retrospective label to dictate present identity, nor can you use an uninstantiated Platonic literary trope to judge real, dynamic subjects.
Your antithesis collapses into a simple post-hoc rationalization: if an individual ascends at 40, you retroactively claim they were "never a true incel," and if they die single, you claim they "always were." Not only is this a textbook tautology, but:
1) This forum should not exist anymore for nobody in here can be categorized as an incel, even assuming that self-reports of never having had a relationship are real, because the categorization moment is posterior to death;
2) The word "Incel" loses any practical utility;
3) People's very real current suffering becomes invalidated;
4) "Inceldom" essentially becomes a cult of the dead, instead of a specific present condition to describe one's self.
The criticism survives: you are still trying to brand a transient, present accident with the rigid seal of a permanent essence, even if you now poetically rename it a "teleological outcome."
if women kiss you voluntarily youre atleast above a 5/10, not a incel
The tism must be high nowadays but at least he knows
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
