| Ahh I feel old :( cannot understand what op is talking about.. |
149597871 said: There are plenty of virgins on MAL forums, and it's not just the male users of course. Fortunately, the vast majority of the guys are neither incels nor mgtows. When it comes to whether they are susceptible or not - yes, I think so. @Ryuk9428 no, even for someone who is below the average level of attractiveness it should be fairly easy to get laid. Most of them have just adopted some defeatist attitude in order to make people feel sorry for them. The real reason is that a lot of them have never even tried to even talk to girls because they don't have the courage or got rejected like once and black pilled themselves into believing that. Why does everyone think that? Its like a ridiculous myth that has been spread around by so many people that whenever the issue of incels comes up, somebody inevitably says "incels have just never tried to even talk to girls." I mean c'mon dude, you sound like the people who call adults having sex with teenagers pedophiles right now. I know you're smarter than that and wouldn't just accept what other people have said as the absolute truth. Have you ever actually talked to incels? You don't have to join an incel forum, just go on 4chan's R9k section or at least read what they say even if you don't agree with it or find it shocking. Whenever I talk to people who struggle with girls, the answer is the same across the board. Its "I've tried so many times, every girl I talk to just ends up ghosting me or saying no. I don't feel like there's any point to trying anymore because I've already tried so many times and nothing I do ever works." I can assure you that the vast majority of incels have tried many times. That's the reason why they're so hopeless is because they have tried and nothing worked. But normal people, for some reason, can't seem to comprehend why its so hard for them to get laid and the reason why is because normal people don't understand the sheer dumb luck factor and don't want to acknowledge that the reason behind their sexual success is just pure luck and if the wheels of fortune had been different for them, they could've ended up an incel themselves. They'd rather say that its because incels are awful people and of course nobody wants to fuck an awful person because any other answer to the incel phenomenon questions whether they actually have any right to be successful with girls or whether sexual success is just fucking random. If it is random, then the conclusion we'd have to come to is that some people who are sexually successful, have no logical reason for being so and probably don't deserve the happiness they've been given and other people have been lonely and miserable their entire lives and did not deserve to have that happen to them. It also requires people to accept the fact that some people, who could have turned out to be wonderful people, had their lives destroyed by social rejection. They may be an awful human being now, because of it and it could have been prevented if we had more sympathy for or tried harder to accept lonely, socially awkward people. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| 1. Yes, there is several 2. At times. I think it's more about some fantasy vs reality thing rather than 2D vs 3D... but in actuality it's fantasy vs delusion based on reality. Some people just dont know how to interpret the actions of others very well nor know how to act themselves causing a great deal of interpersonal and internal conflict between expectations and what the percieve to have actually happened. This is a normal trait to some degree in most people but for a few it becomes highly dysfunctional or even dangerous. |
| ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣸⠋⠀⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⡔⠀⢀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⡘⡰⠁⠘⡀⠀⠀⢠⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠁⠀⣀⠀⠀⡇⠀⡜⠈⠁⠀⢸⡈⢇⠀⠀⢣⠑⠢⢄⣇⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⢸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢰⡟⡀⠀⡇⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⡇⠈⢆⢰⠁⠀⠀⠀⠘⣆⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠸⠀⠀⡄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠤⢄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡼⠀⣧⠀⢿⢠⣤⣤⣬⣥⠀⠁⠀⠀⠛⢀⡒⠀⠀⠀⠘⡆⡆⠀⠀⠀⡇⠀⠀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢵⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡰⠀⢠⠃⠱⣼⡀⣀⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠛⠳⠶⠶⠆⡸⢀⡀⣀⢰⠀⠀⢸ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⣀⣀⣀⠄⠀⠉⠁⠀⠀⢠⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⣼⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠴⠢⢄⡔⣕⡍⠣⣱⢸⠀⠀⢷⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡰⠃⢀⠎⠀⠀⡜⡨⢢⡀⠀⠀⠀⠐⣄⠀⠀⣠⠀⠀⠀⠐⢛⠽⠗⠁⠀⠁⠊⠀⡜⠸⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⢀⠔⣁⡴⠃⠀⡠⡪⠊⣠⣾⣟⣷⡦⠤⣀⡈⠁⠉⢀⣀⡠⢔⠊⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⡤⡗⢀⠇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⢑⡨⠊⡀⠤⠚⢉⣴⣾⣿⡿⣾⣿⡇⠀⠹⣻⠛⠉⠉⢀⠠⠺⠀⠀⡀⢄⣴⣾⣧⣞⠀⡜⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠐⠒⣉⠠⠄⡂⠅⠊⠁⠀⠀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣻⣿⣿⡇⠀⠀⢠⣷⣮⡍⡠⠔⢉⡇⡠⠋⠁⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ |
Seiya said: That's funny, because it's usually the conservatives that go on about personal responsibility when people get fucked by circumstance.Railey2 said: they share the women-hating mentality, and lots of MGTOW are incels in denial. Both groups also can't have healthy relationships if their lives depended on it, so that's another shared characteristic. Members of both groups tend to be profoundly unhappy and placing all the blame externally, so that's another commonality and if you look a little further you'll see that it just keeps going. Yeah I think the MAL population is susceptible. There are lots of losers on here, so it's only natural that some of them will fall for an ideology that tells them that not only are they 1) not to blame for being losers, 2) they're also better off being losers. Inceldom and MGTOW both serve that purpose fairly well, inceldom focusing more on the first aspect while MGTOW focuses on the second. That's sounds a lot like something a liberal feminist would say. Calling people "losers" isn't going to help anyone. If you don't want more people taking up these types of mindsets, then maybe you need to realize that perhaps "society" as a whole is to blame for it. But no, I'm not buying it. If you grew up in a poor, crime-riddled black ghetto and you rob someone, you're still a criminal. If circumstance leads you to become an incel, you're still a loser. I have no issue calling it how it is. I agree that blaming incels is not a way to help them, but this thread is not about the best strategies to therapize them so I don't know why you're making it about that. Feeling a bit attacked maybe? Sphinxter said: how about this:@Railey2 @Lolsebca To more directly address your point: I caren't really to assign a man such trifling labels and invent yet more vague groups wherein a man should be placed and then made guilty by association. I care only for definitions which are based upon essential, exhaustive criteria where no debate is possible whether an object can be placed under that group or not. These groups seem utterly vague so I'm not interested in considering whether a man be an "in.cel." or "m.g.t.o.w." or not; I had in my prævious reply used the essential-criterion definition of "an in.cel." that is "any that is celibate not by one's own wish" and "m.g.t.o.w." that is "any male that avoids any social contact with females." — apparently this is about vague and social definitions and associations which I consider the hallmark of the fool. Both inceldom and MGTOW are dysfunctional coping mechanisms for critical failure with the other gender. That's essentially what it boils down to. You're using the literal definition like "incel merely means that they can't have sex even though they want to", but if you take one look at their community you'll quickly see that this isn't what they are about. There are many people who can't have sex even though they want to, but they wouldn't be caught dead in the incel community, so they aren't incels. The same is true for MGTOW. The literal meaning of the word doesn't encapsulate nearly enough. Ryuk9428 said: Alt-right propaganda is so effective, they somehow made you believe that the left is actually making excuses for muslim terrorists lmao.Seiya said: That's sounds a lot like something a liberal feminist would say. Calling people "losers" isn't going to help anyone. If you don't want more people taking up these types of mindsets, then maybe you need to realize that perhaps "society" as a whole is to blame for it. The feminist/SJW reaction to incels is a major reason I completely lost all respect for that ideology. The SJW crowd loves to claim that they are the champions of the weak and the oppressed, they make excuses for people who's behavior is toxic all the time. Muslim terrorists, black and Hispanic gangsters. They'll make excuses for any non-white or female person behaving like a complete asshole but as soon as white, straight men, have any issues, its because they were born evil and all their badness just comes from a sense of privilege. They showed their true colors when they were so eager to look down on and gleefully call incels losers. They showed that they don't give a shit about protecting the weak, the downtrodden, or preventing people from ending up in a situation like that. all they care about is propelling their own group's social status and giving them advantages in society, whether they be a woman, a black person, or gay. They'll say that a BLM guy who shot several cops did it because of systematic oppression but they refuse to acknowledge the role bullying and loneliness plays in creating incels. I suggest you find your way back to reality somehow or, I dunno, you can keep being just another useful idiot. Anyway, I do have some sympathy with incels. I had a reasonably good shot at becoming one when I was like 16, so I know the appeal that inceldom has, but that doesn't mean that we can't judge them. Judging them you should. |
Railey2Aug 31, 2019 12:03 AM
| *lampoons inwardly* |
MasterGlyth said: I don't see this sort of behavior as being about a simple lack of sex. It's more an inability to form intimate connections with others that forces them to lash out, and other similar personal insecurities left undelt with. Ryuk9428 said: I know that for me personally, during long dry spells I do start taking on mild incelish behavior. And I also know as soon as I have sex, that behavior stops immediately. So I can personally attest to the fact that incels do need sex, that sexual frustration is the cause of their anger, and that sex will cure their condition. Honestly, if not having sex for a bit causes that sort of behavior there's probably something wrong with you. Or perhaps I'm just honest about it. Other people usually use more light terms that make them look better. They say sexual frustration makes them irritable, lonely, or feel bad about themselves. I happened to want people to know exactly what it does to me because I care more about informing people as to exactly what the solution to this problem is than I care about the social consequences of admitting that sexual frustration changes my personality for the worse. What I mentioned is a scientifically proven phenomenon. Every society has known that the demographic most likely to commit crimes are unmarried young males. Sexual frustration makes males and females significantly more violent and aggressive but males are especially prone to it. Many sports teams actually ban their players from having sex before a game because its known that having sex takes the aggression out of you. https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/sexual-frustration-contributes-to-violence-say-psychologists http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html Society is playing with fire by belittling or ignoring the incel phenomenon. Major revolutions and chaos is often caused by society trying to ignore its miserable underclass until their anger boils out of control. Something has to be done to prevent people from becoming incels and "they just need to become more confident" is not a realistic solution. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
hazecloud said: consider this a blessing in disguiseAhh I feel old :( cannot understand what op is talking about.. |
☕ Truth be told, I'm quite proud of my house blend. To attain my flavor and fragrance, I use five different types of coffee beans. ☕ |
Railey2 said: Seiya said: That's funny, because it's usually the conservatives that go on about personal responsibility when people get fucked by circumstance.That's sounds a lot like something a liberal feminist would say. Calling people "losers" isn't going to help anyone. If you don't want more people taking up these types of mindsets, then maybe you need to realize that perhaps "society" as a whole is to blame for it. But no, I'm not buying it. If you grew up in a poor, crime-riddled black ghetto and you rob someone, you're still a criminal. If circumstance leads you to become an incel, you're still a loser. I have no issue calling it how it is. I agree that blaming incels is not a way to help them, but this thread is not about the best strategies to therapize them so I don't know why you're making it about that. Feeling a bit attacked maybe? Sphinxter said: how about this:@Railey2 @Lolsebca To more directly address your point: I caren't really to assign a man such trifling labels and invent yet more vague groups wherein a man should be placed and then made guilty by association. I care only for definitions which are based upon essential, exhaustive criteria where no debate is possible whether an object can be placed under that group or not. These groups seem utterly vague so I'm not interested in considering whether a man be an "in.cel." or "m.g.t.o.w." or not; I had in my prævious reply used the essential-criterion definition of "an in.cel." that is "any that is celibate not by one's own wish" and "m.g.t.o.w." that is "any male that avoids any social contact with females." — apparently this is about vague and social definitions and associations which I consider the hallmark of the fool. Both inceldom and MGTOW are dysfunctional coping mechanisms for critical failure with the other gender. That's essentially what it boils down to. You're using the literal definition like "incel merely means that they can't have sex even though they want to", but if you take one look at their community you'll quickly see that this isn't what they are about. There are many people who can't have sex even though they want to, but they wouldn't be caught dead in the incel community, so they aren't incels. The same is true for MGTOW. The literal meaning of the word doesn't encapsulate nearly enough. Ryuk9428 said: Alt-right propaganda is so effective, they somehow made you believe that the left is actually making excuses for muslim terrorists lmao.The feminist/SJW reaction to incels is a major reason I completely lost all respect for that ideology. The SJW crowd loves to claim that they are the champions of the weak and the oppressed, they make excuses for people who's behavior is toxic all the time. Muslim terrorists, black and Hispanic gangsters. They'll make excuses for any non-white or female person behaving like a complete asshole but as soon as white, straight men, have any issues, its because they were born evil and all their badness just comes from a sense of privilege. They showed their true colors when they were so eager to look down on and gleefully call incels losers. They showed that they don't give a shit about protecting the weak, the downtrodden, or preventing people from ending up in a situation like that. all they care about is propelling their own group's social status and giving them advantages in society, whether they be a woman, a black person, or gay. They'll say that a BLM guy who shot several cops did it because of systematic oppression but they refuse to acknowledge the role bullying and loneliness plays in creating incels. I suggest you find your way back to reality somehow or, I dunno, you can keep being just another useful idiot. Anyway, I do have some sympathy with incels. I had a reasonably good shot at becoming one when I was like 16, so I know the appeal that inceldom has, but that doesn't mean that we can't judge them. Judging them you should. Its not alt-right propaganda. Its what I've seen over and over again in my conversations with liberal people. Terrorism is always the US's fault. Whether its because of us accidentally arming Al-Qaeda through the Mujahideen, whether its because we "bombed the Middle East," which btw, I've always asked them to explain wtf they are talking about by saying we "bombed the Middle East" before 9/11 but they can never point to any specific event they are talking about. I've heard people say unbelievably retarded shit like "yeah what ISIS did is bad, but they're doing it because we took their country from them." That's an actual quote from one of my co-workers btw. People always think Muslim terrorism happens for some phony idea about something the US did to Middle Eastern people or a false conspiracy theory and that knowing this makes them look smart somehow. Not knowing that everybody who actually does research on this shit has heard these things a thousand times. You see it over and over again in academic settings. The real, fundamental reason for Muslim terrorism is that they are basically Middle Eastern incels who are directing their anger at the wrong people. What is not often talked about, is the role polygamy in Muslim societies plays towards inceldom. Every man who marries 4 different women in the Middle East makes it so that 3 other men are doomed to be incels for the rest of their life. 3-4% of men in Saudi Arabia have more than one wife, which means that at least 3-4% of the male population will never get married, and if you can't get married in the Middle East, you can't have sex, and there's literally nothing that can be done about it besides going gay for other incels. Marriage in the Middle East is completely based on how much money you have. If you can't afford a wife, you won't get one. Given that men in the Middle East can have up to 4 wives, the situation looks even worse. I don't know how it breaks down, but I'm sure that its enough for 5% of males in Saudi Arabia to be permanently incel due to polygamy and 5% of the male population being that volatile and hopeless is going to go very badly. Not surprisingly, a lot of terrorists in the Middle East are Saudi. They're mostly young men who know that they'll never have a shot at marriage in their society. Thus, they don't care if they die because paradise is so much better than the real world, but they want to kill the people they hate and take them down with them. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: You're insane.Railey2 said: That's funny, because it's usually the conservatives that go on about personal responsibility when people get fucked by circumstance. But no, I'm not buying it. If you grew up in a poor, crime-riddled black ghetto and you rob someone, you're still a criminal. If circumstance leads you to become an incel, you're still a loser. I have no issue calling it how it is. I agree that blaming incels is not a way to help them, but this thread is not about the best strategies to therapize them so I don't know why you're making it about that. Feeling a bit attacked maybe? how about this: Both inceldom and MGTOW are dysfunctional coping mechanisms for critical failure with the other gender. That's essentially what it boils down to. You're using the literal definition like "incel merely means that they can't have sex even though they want to", but if you take one look at their community you'll quickly see that this isn't what they are about. There are many people who can't have sex even though they want to, but they wouldn't be caught dead in the incel community, so they aren't incels. The same is true for MGTOW. The literal meaning of the word doesn't encapsulate nearly enough. Alt-right propaganda is so effective, they somehow made you believe that the left is actually making excuses for muslim terrorists lmao. I suggest you find your way back to reality somehow or, I dunno, you can keep being just another useful idiot. Anyway, I do have some sympathy with incels. I had a reasonably good shot at becoming one when I was like 16, so I know the appeal that inceldom has, but that doesn't mean that we can't judge them. Judging them you should. Its not alt-right propaganda. Its what I've seen over and over again in my conversations with liberal people. Terrorism is always the US's fault. Whether its because of us accidentally arming Al-Qaeda through the Mujahideen, whether its because we "bombed the Middle East," which btw, I've always asked them to explain wtf they are talking about by saying we "bombed the Middle East" before 9/11 but they can never point to any specific event they are talking about. I've heard people say unbelievably retarded shit like "yeah what ISIS did is bad, but they're doing it because we took their country from them." That's an actual quote from one of my co-workers btw. People always think Muslim terrorism happens for some phony idea about something the US did to Middle Eastern people or a false conspiracy theory and that knowing this makes them look smart somehow. Not knowing that everybody who actually does research on this shit has heard these things a thousand times. You see it over and over again in academic settings. The real, fundamental reason for Muslim terrorism is that they are basically Middle Eastern incels who are directing their anger at the wrong people. What is not often talked about, is the role polygamy in Muslim societies plays towards inceldom. Every man who marries 4 different women in the Middle East makes it so that 3 other men are doomed to be incels for the rest of their life. 3-4% of men in Saudi Arabia have more than one wife, which means that at least 3-4% of the male population will never get married, and if you can't get married in the Middle East, you can't have sex, and there's literally nothing that can be done about it besides going gay for other incels. Marriage in the Middle East is completely based on how much money you have. If you can't afford a wife, you won't get one. Given that men in the Middle East can have up to 4 wives, the situation looks even worse. I don't know how it breaks down, but I'm sure that its enough for 5% of males in Saudi Arabia to be permanently incel due to polygamy and 5% of the male population being that volatile and hopeless is going to go very badly. Not surprisingly, a lot of terrorists in the Middle East are Saudi. They're mostly young men who know that they'll never have a shot at marriage in their society. Thus, they don't care if they die because paradise is so much better than the real world, but they want to kill the people they hate and take them down with them. "Terrorists are terrorists because they can't get pussy." Fucking hell. Also, looking at causes of terrorism isn't the same as absolving the terrorists themselves, OBVIOUSLY. Saying that the US caused a shitload of terrorism by methodically destabilizing the middle east and actually FUNDING AL-Quaida isn't the same as saying "oh look at that poor guy who blew up 20 people, but we forgive him because it wasn't his fault!" Where on earth did you get that? Oh wait, I know where you did. As I said, useful idiot. |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
CondemneDio said: I don't have an idea what people are talking about here. What the hell is a megatow, or am I too old for this shit? Seconded. Too old for this shit. What the fuck is a GTOW |
 |
| Incidentally, Osama bin Laden supposedly had up to 26 children with his various spouses. Forming al-Qaeda because he didn't get to cum in the last 20 seconds is a reasonable response I suppose. |
 |
| 1. Yes. Weebs are losers. Also a lot of anime is degenerate AF and promotes weird ideals about women and sexuality overall that is completely detached from reality. 2. No. I like anime because I like the way it looks. To the point where I find anime women more attractive than real women. Why? Simply because I like the aesthetic. It's not a reaction I have any control over. I just like it so I watch anime. It's not anymore complicated than that. The real issue is when people start idealizing waifus and start having unrealistic and unhealthy views on real women. That is a separate thing and can just as likely manifest in people who consume too much regular, 3D porn as well. |
Ryuk9428 said: You can see how ridiculous it sounds saying people are making up excuses for terrorism by looking at the geopolitical and socio-economic scene while you yourself say that they are terrorists because they're sexless, right? It's not alt-right propaganda. Its what I've seen over and over again in my conversations with liberal people. Terrorism is always the US's fault. Whether its because of us accidentally arming Al-Qaeda through the Mujahideen, whether its because we "bombed the Middle East," which btw, I've always asked them to explain wtf they are talking about by saying we "bombed the Middle East" before 9/11 but they can never point to any specific event they are talking about. I've heard people say unbelievably retarded shit like "yeah what ISIS did is bad, but they're doing it because we took their country from them." That's an actual quote from one of my co-workers btw. People always think Muslim terrorism happens for some phony idea about something the US did to Middle Eastern people or a false conspiracy theory and that knowing this makes them look smart somehow. Not knowing that everybody who actually does research on this shit has heard these things a thousand times. You see it over and over again in academic settings. The real, fundamental reason for Muslim terrorism is that they are basically Middle Eastern incels who are directing their anger at the wrong people. What is not often talked about, is the role polygamy in Muslim societies plays towards inceldom. Every man who marries 4 different women in the Middle East makes it so that 3 other men are doomed to be incels for the rest of their life. 3-4% of men in Saudi Arabia have more than one wife, which means that at least 3-4% of the male population will never get married, and if you can't get married in the Middle East, you can't have sex, and there's literally nothing that can be done about it besides going gay for other incels. Marriage in the Middle East is completely based on how much money you have. If you can't afford a wife, you won't get one. Given that men in the Middle East can have up to 4 wives, the situation looks even worse. I don't know how it breaks down, but I'm sure that its enough for 5% of males in Saudi Arabia to be permanently incel due to polygamy and 5% of the male population being that volatile and hopeless is going to go very badly. Not surprisingly, a lot of terrorists in the Middle East are Saudi. They're mostly young men who know that they'll never have a shot at marriage in their society. Thus, they don't care if they die because paradise is so much better than the real world, but they want to kill the people they hate and take them down with them. Right? So, the solution to terrorism in the Middle East is providing sex to the members? Someone tell NATO asap. I thought ISIS had sex slaves, wives and even kids but that didn't stop them from keep on being terrorists... Maybe I was just delusional. It's like saying Elliot Rodger was a terrorist because he was an incel, and not because of his mindset, his radicalization, his political beliefs and his mental illness. |
KosmonautAug 31, 2019 3:02 AM
 |
Aastra343 said: oh my god I didn't even notice lmao.You can see how ridiculous it sounds saying people are making up excuses for terrorism by looking at the geopolitical and socio-economic scene while you yourself say that they are terrorists because they're sexless, right? Right? This is just too good. He's literally doing the exact same thing that he's accusing [the left] of, except he's not getting it because he's notoriously unaware and his accusation is a strawman. Oh man this is funny. Great find |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
Ryuk9428 said: MasterGlyth said: I don't see this sort of behavior as being about a simple lack of sex. It's more an inability to form intimate connections with others that forces them to lash out, and other similar personal insecurities left undelt with. Honestly, if not having sex for a bit causes that sort of behavior there's probably something wrong with you. Or perhaps I'm just honest about it. Other people usually use more light terms that make them look better. They say sexual frustration makes them irritable, lonely, or feel bad about themselves. I happened to want people to know exactly what it does to me because I care more about informing people as to exactly what the solution to this problem is than I care about the social consequences of admitting that sexual frustration changes my personality for the worse. What I mentioned is a scientifically proven phenomenon. Every society has known that the demographic most likely to commit crimes are unmarried young males. Sexual frustration makes males and females significantly more violent and aggressive but males are especially prone to it. Many sports teams actually ban their players from having sex before a game because its known that having sex takes the aggression out of you. https://www.tremr.com/Duck-Rabbit/sexual-frustration-contributes-to-violence-say-psychologists http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html Society is playing with fire by belittling or ignoring the incel phenomenon. Major revolutions and chaos is often caused by society trying to ignore its miserable underclass until their anger boils out of control. Something has to be done to prevent people from becoming incels and "they just need to become more confident" is not a realistic solution. Well I never doubted the ability to find something on the internet that supports what you want. There are likely more complex answers, such as the result of being unable to have sex is a product of other more important issues, but I'm too lazy to look particularly deep into this. It's not like we're trying to argue that violence in some middle eastern countries is the result of conservative views on sex. Oh wait. You're not exactly old,so whatever deprecation your going through seems trivial. I'll just say what you wrote sounded very reminiscent of escapism to me. |
 I can see you |
Seiya said: I love how you try to paint me as irrational without even attempting to say how I'm wrong. If you don't have a valid argument, try thinking of one instead of wasting everyones time like this.Railey2 said: That's funny, because it's usually the conservatives that go on about personal responsibility when people get fucked by circumstance. But no, I'm not buying it. If you grew up in a poor, crime-riddled black ghetto and you rob someone, you're still a criminal. If circumstance leads you to become an incel, you're still a loser. I have no issue calling it how it is. I agree that blaming incels is not a way to help them, but this thread is not about the best strategies to therapize them so I don't know why you're making it about that. Feeling a bit attacked maybe? Lol, I love how you label anyone who doesn't agree with you as "conservative" and "alt-right." Who's the loser now? But to counter the argument that you didn't make: In this instance, I am 100% correct, as it's usually conservatives that push the "it's your own fault if you're poor just work harder lul"-rhetoric, thereby denying any circumstancial factors and putting everything on personal responsibility. You're familiar with that one, right? Also, I don't label everyone who doesn't agree with me as "conservative". I have a different label for you, for example, and one that I'm almost certain you're not gonna enjoy hearing. |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
| I have to confess I didn't even know what the term (M)GTOW meant before reading this thread and I feel like I could only have read it once or twice in passing elsewhere and skimmed over it, because usually if I see a word or acronym I'm unfamiliar with I'd be compelled to research it. I suppose I would be considered an (M)GTOW by default, by virtue of being aromantic, but I don't readily identify with any movement. Incelhood to me is an inane ideology for anyone not born with an egregious mutated face or other physical deformity since everything else about you can be changed with practice/work/masking a fake persona if you care about attracting people enough to you. If you choose not to, you don't really have grounds to complain. It's personally something I couldn't care less about and am aromantic anyway as stated, so I have no reason to complain. |
Railey2 said: Ryuk9428 said: You're insane.Its not alt-right propaganda. Its what I've seen over and over again in my conversations with liberal people. Terrorism is always the US's fault. Whether its because of us accidentally arming Al-Qaeda through the Mujahideen, whether its because we "bombed the Middle East," which btw, I've always asked them to explain wtf they are talking about by saying we "bombed the Middle East" before 9/11 but they can never point to any specific event they are talking about. I've heard people say unbelievably retarded shit like "yeah what ISIS did is bad, but they're doing it because we took their country from them." That's an actual quote from one of my co-workers btw. People always think Muslim terrorism happens for some phony idea about something the US did to Middle Eastern people or a false conspiracy theory and that knowing this makes them look smart somehow. Not knowing that everybody who actually does research on this shit has heard these things a thousand times. You see it over and over again in academic settings. The real, fundamental reason for Muslim terrorism is that they are basically Middle Eastern incels who are directing their anger at the wrong people. What is not often talked about, is the role polygamy in Muslim societies plays towards inceldom. Every man who marries 4 different women in the Middle East makes it so that 3 other men are doomed to be incels for the rest of their life. 3-4% of men in Saudi Arabia have more than one wife, which means that at least 3-4% of the male population will never get married, and if you can't get married in the Middle East, you can't have sex, and there's literally nothing that can be done about it besides going gay for other incels. Marriage in the Middle East is completely based on how much money you have. If you can't afford a wife, you won't get one. Given that men in the Middle East can have up to 4 wives, the situation looks even worse. I don't know how it breaks down, but I'm sure that its enough for 5% of males in Saudi Arabia to be permanently incel due to polygamy and 5% of the male population being that volatile and hopeless is going to go very badly. Not surprisingly, a lot of terrorists in the Middle East are Saudi. They're mostly young men who know that they'll never have a shot at marriage in their society. Thus, they don't care if they die because paradise is so much better than the real world, but they want to kill the people they hate and take them down with them. "Terrorists are terrorists because they can't get pussy." Fucking hell. Also, looking at causes of terrorism isn't the same as absolving the terrorists themselves, OBVIOUSLY. Saying that the US caused a shitload of terrorism by methodically destabilizing the middle east and actually FUNDING AL-Quaida isn't the same as saying "oh look at that poor guy who blew up 20 people, but we forgive him because it wasn't his fault!" Where on earth did you get that? Oh wait, I know where you did. As I said, useful idiot. Funding a terrorist organization, by accident I will point out, means nothing if people didn't have a reason to be terrorists in the first place. Truthfully, humans dont have super complicated reasons for committing criminals acts. They have simple reasons that they dress up with complicated reasons because it's too deeply rooted in their subconscious to say "I'm blowing these people up because I'm angry I'll never have a wife and family." |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: Railey2 said: You're insane. "Terrorists are terrorists because they can't get pussy." Fucking hell. Also, looking at causes of terrorism isn't the same as absolving the terrorists themselves, OBVIOUSLY. Saying that the US caused a shitload of terrorism by methodically destabilizing the middle east and actually FUNDING AL-Quaida isn't the same as saying "oh look at that poor guy who blew up 20 people, but we forgive him because it wasn't his fault!" Where on earth did you get that? Oh wait, I know where you did. As I said, useful idiot. Funding a terrorist organization, by accident I will point out, means nothing if people didn't have a reason to be terrorists in the first place. Truthfully, humans dont have super complicated reasons for committing criminals acts. They have simple reasons that they dress up with complicated reasons because it's too deeply rooted in their subconscious to say "I'm blowing these people up because I'm angry I'll never have a wife and family." Ryuk9428 said: Some ISIS terrorists got slaves after they joined the organization and after their psychological health had already been messed up beyond repair. What do you think happened before they joined? Jesus Christ Ryuk, why are you making excuses for terrorists? Are you a *gasp* [liberal feminist]???! Get that SJW bullshit out of here. I lost all respect. *votes Trump* |
Railey2Aug 31, 2019 10:19 AM
| *lampoons inwardly* |
Aastra343 said: Ryuk9428 said: You can see how ridiculous it sounds saying people are making up excuses for terrorism by looking at the geopolitical and socio-economic scene while you yourself say that they are terrorists because they're sexless, right? It's not alt-right propaganda. Its what I've seen over and over again in my conversations with liberal people. Terrorism is always the US's fault. Whether its because of us accidentally arming Al-Qaeda through the Mujahideen, whether its because we "bombed the Middle East," which btw, I've always asked them to explain wtf they are talking about by saying we "bombed the Middle East" before 9/11 but they can never point to any specific event they are talking about. I've heard people say unbelievably retarded shit like "yeah what ISIS did is bad, but they're doing it because we took their country from them." That's an actual quote from one of my co-workers btw. People always think Muslim terrorism happens for some phony idea about something the US did to Middle Eastern people or a false conspiracy theory and that knowing this makes them look smart somehow. Not knowing that everybody who actually does research on this shit has heard these things a thousand times. You see it over and over again in academic settings. The real, fundamental reason for Muslim terrorism is that they are basically Middle Eastern incels who are directing their anger at the wrong people. What is not often talked about, is the role polygamy in Muslim societies plays towards inceldom. Every man who marries 4 different women in the Middle East makes it so that 3 other men are doomed to be incels for the rest of their life. 3-4% of men in Saudi Arabia have more than one wife, which means that at least 3-4% of the male population will never get married, and if you can't get married in the Middle East, you can't have sex, and there's literally nothing that can be done about it besides going gay for other incels. Marriage in the Middle East is completely based on how much money you have. If you can't afford a wife, you won't get one. Given that men in the Middle East can have up to 4 wives, the situation looks even worse. I don't know how it breaks down, but I'm sure that its enough for 5% of males in Saudi Arabia to be permanently incel due to polygamy and 5% of the male population being that volatile and hopeless is going to go very badly. Not surprisingly, a lot of terrorists in the Middle East are Saudi. They're mostly young men who know that they'll never have a shot at marriage in their society. Thus, they don't care if they die because paradise is so much better than the real world, but they want to kill the people they hate and take them down with them. Right? So, the solution to terrorism in the Middle East is providing sex to the members? Someone tell NATO asap. I thought ISIS had sex slaves, wives and even kids but that didn't stop them from keep on being terrorists... Maybe I was just delusional. It's like saying Elliot Rodger was a terrorist because he was an incel, and not because of his mindset, his radicalization, his political beliefs and his mental illness. Of course the geo-political or socio-economic scene motivates terrorism. Saying terrorism popped up just because would be stupid. But my issue lies with their irrational desire to just attack the United States because they think it makes them look good to say it's all the US's fault which ties into their overall view that it's always the white man's fault. Elliot was a terrorist because he was incel, WTF? Nobody could have outlined it more clearly than Elliot that he was mad because he couldn't get laid. If he could get laid do you think he would have started shooting people? Of course not. Some ISIS terrorists got slaves after they joined the organization and after their psychological health had already been messed up beyond repair. What do you think happened before they joined? You think any of those rich guys with harems are the ones becoming suicide bombers? Married guys in general were unlikely to join ISIS unless forced to do so by the organization. It was a movement fueled by angry, unmarried men who wanted somebody to take their anger out on. The whole Islamic purity thing was just an excuse. Thankfully most people are not lead that far astray by extremist ideologies if they are satisfied with life. Extremism is built specifically to appeal to unmarried men with no reason to live who want to cause chaos against the society that excluded them and made them unable to find a happy life. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Railey2 said: Ryuk9428 said: Jesus Christ Ryuk, why are you making excuses for terrorists? Are you a *gasp* [liberal feminist]???!Funding a terrorist organization, by accident I will point out, means nothing if people didn't have a reason to be terrorists in the first place. Truthfully, humans dont have super complicated reasons for committing criminals acts. They have simple reasons that they dress up with complicated reasons because it's too deeply rooted in their subconscious to say "I'm blowing these people up because I'm angry I'll never have a wife and family." Get that SJW bullshit out of here. I lost all respect. *votes Trump* Bitch please, there's a difference between saying its all whitey's fault and low-key implying that terrorists are just fighting back against evil whitey and saying there are reasons for terrorism. I've seen TV shows refer to Muslim terrorists as "the rebels" and claimed the US intentionally slaughtered villages of innocent people in Afghanistan, which, we don't do, only terrorists do that. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Ryuk9428 said: What are you talking about, the US kills tons of civilians with drone strikes to this very day.Railey2 said: Jesus Christ Ryuk, why are you making excuses for terrorists? Are you a *gasp* [liberal feminist]???! Get that SJW bullshit out of here. I lost all respect. *votes Trump* Bitch please, there's a difference between saying its all whitey's fault and low-key implying that terrorists are just fighting back against evil whitey and saying there are reasons for terrorism. I've seen TV shows refer to Muslim terrorists as "the rebels" and claimed the US intentionally slaughtered villages of innocent people in Afghanistan, which, we don't do, only terrorists do that. Children too. They call it collateral damage. Anyway, just in this thread you do the following: 1) Terrorists are terrorists cause they can't get pussy 2) Accuses [leftists] of "making excuses" for terrorists, then immediately "make excuses" for terrorists yourself 3) Say the US doesn't kill innocent people in Afghanistan, because "only terrorists do that" You're just fucking nuts Ryuk, are you even for real. Just when I regained a little bit of faith in humanity I read shit like this and boom it's all gone again. Lol |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
Seiya said: can you please stop replying and saying nothing Seiya, it's getting real annoying now. You're just namecalling, that's it.Railey2 said: What are you talking about, the US kills tons of civilians with drone strikes to this very day. Children too. They call it collateral damage. Anyway, just in this thread you do the following: 1) Terrorists are terrorists cause they can't get pussy 2) Accuses [leftists] of "making excuses" for terrorists, then immediately "make excuses" for terrorists yourself 3) Say the US doesn't kill innocent people in Afghanistan, because "only terrorists do that" You're just fucking nuts Ryuk, are you even for real. Just when I regained a little bit of faith in humanity I read shit like this and boom it's all gone again. Lol And what exactly about you is "Normal?" |
| *lampoons inwardly* |
| Not to sound Freudian but something I've noticed from both groups is that a lot of them tend to have very toxic relationships with their Mother figures /abuse/ overly dependant etc and a lot of that makes people like that anti-social and turn to escapism like anime for example -which would make you awkward with girls. Just a victim of circumstance. and while that sucks I don't think they should blame an entire gender on their piece of shit mom Not all of them are like this of course though. but to me it seems like the male version of why girls with daddy issues turn hard liberal |
 |
Railey2 said: Ryuk9428 said: What are you talking about, the US kills tons of civilians with drone strikes to this very day.Bitch please, there's a difference between saying its all whitey's fault and low-key implying that terrorists are just fighting back against evil whitey and saying there are reasons for terrorism. I've seen TV shows refer to Muslim terrorists as "the rebels" and claimed the US intentionally slaughtered villages of innocent people in Afghanistan, which, we don't do, only terrorists do that. Children too. They call it collateral damage. Anyway, just in this thread you do the following: 1) Terrorists are terrorists cause they can't get pussy 2) Accuses [leftists] of "making excuses" for terrorists, then immediately "make excuses" for terrorists yourself 3) Say the US doesn't kill innocent people in Afghanistan, because "only terrorists do that" You're just fucking nuts Ryuk, are you even for real. Just when I regained a little bit of faith in humanity I read shit like this and boom it's all gone again. Lol Collateral damage is not intentionally slaughtering civilians, there's a big fucking difference. The difference being that one is meant to strike a military target and, because war is fucking war, we didn't realize there was an innocent guy standing there. Or we know that this terrorist nest is about to shoot down our helicopter and we have no choice but to risk civilian casualties or else we might die. Intentionally slaughtering civilians, which is what this show claimed, was that soldiers run into a village, go door to door, shoot everyone in the face, pile their bodies up in the middle of the village and burn them. That's literally what the show acted like US and Afghani troops did. Acting like we slaughtered a village full of innocent people for taking medical care of a terrorist and then calling the terrorists "the rebels" so as to imply that they're freedom fighters of some kind. Sexual frustration creates deep primal rage. The only other thing that is more likely to cause insane behavior than sexual frustration is food starvation. I already linked another user to James Prescott's research which found that there's an extremely strong correlation (a 98% correlation) between sexually frustrated societies and violent ones. I've been a history major for several years and I've meticulously studied the social fabric of many different historical societies and current societies and I concur with Prescott's research that in almost every historical society you can think of, you can trace the level of societal violence back to the levels of sexual frustration in it. Its because sexually frustrated people are disproportionately responsible for causing chaos, and then counter-measures are needed to combat that chaos which can then backfire and cause more chaos or eventually settle it. Modern people have simply forgotten how dangerous sexual frustration is because for the most part, we don't have to deal with it nearly as much as people in the historical past did so we're not aware of it anymore. But every society before our time was aware of it and either harnessed it for military strength or tried to take measures to alleviate it so as to prevent crime. If we're not careful, as we're noticing with the incel phenomenon, we could end up slipping backwards and we will see a lot more chaos in our future if we don't address this. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| @Seiya @Ryuk9428 Why are you two even bothering to discuss anything with Railey when all you need to do is check out the blog that he/she writes, on which everyone else with a different opinion is portrayed as nothing more than an absolute lunatic. This kind of a person is not to be discussed with. Edit: I forgot to add "Also, I don't label everyone who doesn't agree with me as "conservative". I have a different label for you, for example, and one that I'm almost certain you're not gonna enjoy hearing." Lets be honest here he/she was about to label Seiya with an F word |
  “The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
Ryuk9428 said: Whatever happened to confirming the targets beyond the shadow of a doubt? Eh, I guess a couple random dead civilians are fine, war is war just forget about it.Railey2 said: What are you talking about, the US kills tons of civilians with drone strikes to this very day. Children too. They call it collateral damage. Anyway, just in this thread you do the following: 1) Terrorists are terrorists cause they can't get pussy 2) Accuses [leftists] of "making excuses" for terrorists, then immediately "make excuses" for terrorists yourself 3) Say the US doesn't kill innocent people in Afghanistan, because "only terrorists do that" You're just fucking nuts Ryuk, are you even for real. Just when I regained a little bit of faith in humanity I read shit like this and boom it's all gone again. Lol Collateral damage is not intentionally slaughtering civilians, there's a big fucking difference. The difference being that one is meant to strike a military target and, because war is fucking war, we didn't realize there was an innocent guy standing there. Or we know that this terrorist nest is about to shoot down our helicopter and we have no choice but to risk civilian casualties or else we might die. Intentionally slaughtering civilians, which is what this show claimed, was that soldiers run into a village, go door to door, shoot everyone in the face, pile their bodies up in the middle of the village and burn them. That's literally what the show acted like US and Afghani troops did. Acting like we slaughtered a village full of innocent people for taking medical care of a terrorist and then calling the terrorists "the rebels" so as to imply that they're freedom fighters of some kind. "We're not the bad guys btw". And forget about your dumb helicopter scenario, I was talking about drone-strikes. You know, the aircraft thingies that are remote-controlled? No pilot. Now I don't know what the show is that you're talking about, but maybe you should've been more clear about it before. Ryuk, Ryuk. Trying to justify war-crimes like "it's just something that happens and nothing can be done about it". I guess the Geneva Convention is more of a loose guideline when the US military is concerned. Anyway, all has been said. Now you're at 4 things you did in this thread that'd make me want to immediately delete you from my life, if you actually were a part of it. Good thing you aren't. @Luchse75 because the people on that blog are all completely insane unhinged individuals. Note how I'm not putting Ryuk on there even though I think he's making a complete fool out of himself repeatedly and states views that are quite insane. Even though he's doing all of that, it's just not enough to land on there. But whatever. If you feel like the people on the blog are worth defending, maybe you'd be in good company there :V |
Railey2Aug 31, 2019 12:00 PM
| *lampoons inwardly* |
| I think this song by Freddy Quinn describes very well how much of it is pure chance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtVaf86aOqg While I can relate to having a strong dislike about the whole world in a figurative sense, if such unlucky people get lucky, they will easily turn for the better. The problem is when people act antagonistic towards them instead of being the one who tells them that they should "love - not hate!" and underline that position by loving them. Sayanna said: (1) I have good relations with both of my parentsNot to sound Freudian but something I've noticed from both groups is that a lot of them tend to have very toxic relationships with their Mother figures /abuse/ overly dependant etc (1) and a lot of that makes people like that anti-social and turn to escapism like anime for example -which would make you awkward with girls. Just a victim of circumstance. (2) and while that sucks I don't think they should blame an entire gender on their piece of shit mom Not all of them are like this of course though.(3) but to me it seems like the male version of why girls with daddy issues turn hard liberal (4) (2) I think that negative experiences play a much bigger role of why people have phases in which they are tired of socializing, especially when it pales compared to love-like and/or more intimate interactions (3) I agree that it's stupid to blame an entire sex, but not everyone gets lucky. And sometimes, people shoot themselves in their own foot when they reject people who wanted to get close(r) to them or who wanted to do something with them. (4) What's the connection between being overly liberal and having "daddy issues"? |
Railey2 said: Ryuk9428 said: Whatever happened to confirming the targets beyond the shadow of a doubt? Eh, I guess a couple random dead civilians are fine, war is war just forget about it.Collateral damage is not intentionally slaughtering civilians, there's a big fucking difference. The difference being that one is meant to strike a military target and, because war is fucking war, we didn't realize there was an innocent guy standing there. Or we know that this terrorist nest is about to shoot down our helicopter and we have no choice but to risk civilian casualties or else we might die. Intentionally slaughtering civilians, which is what this show claimed, was that soldiers run into a village, go door to door, shoot everyone in the face, pile their bodies up in the middle of the village and burn them. That's literally what the show acted like US and Afghani troops did. Acting like we slaughtered a village full of innocent people for taking medical care of a terrorist and then calling the terrorists "the rebels" so as to imply that they're freedom fighters of some kind. "We're not the bad guys btw". And forget about your dumb helicopter scenario, I was talking about drone-strikes. You know, the aircraft thingies that are remote-controlled? No pilot. Now I don't know what the show is that you're talking about, but maybe you should've been more clear about it before. Ryuk, Ryuk. Trying to justify war-crimes like "it's just something that happens and nothing can be done about it". I guess the Geneva Convention is more of a loose guideline when the US military is concerned. Anyway, all has been said. Now you're at 4 things you did in this thread that'd make me want to immediately delete you from my life, if you actually were a part of it. Good thing you aren't. @Luchse75 because the people on that blog are all completely insane unhinged individuals. Note how I'm not putting Ryuk on there even though I think he's making a complete fool out of himself repeatedly and states views that are quite insane. Even though he's doing all of that, it's just not enough to land on there. But whatever. If you feel like the people on the blog are worth defending, maybe you'd be in good company there :V "Because the people on that blog are all completely insane unhinged individuals" How so? They have their own points and so do you. Many of scientists/researchers in the past were seen as exactly what you call the ones on your blog. For all i know they could become someone great and so could you. |
“The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| Yes I encountered quite a few incels here on MAL. They are easy to spot always right-wing/alt-right, blame society for their own problems, attack/hate/harass women, have Hitler in favorites, hate gender equality/Feminism. As for MGTOW they are nothing more then incels in denial, equally toxic. I blame bad parenting for their existence, unfortunately most of them are lost cause and beyond help. |
  Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
Flevalt said: Heimur said: Are those the currently popular buzzwords on this site? I only saw the first word when people wanted to insult the Shield Hero fanbase without having to think on why they disliked the show. It's common feminist propaganda terminology. They think of a new FotM buzzword every month, as FotM already implies. Just like the OP of this thread thinks of a new bait thread every few hours. It keeps them active and alive. Complains about thread being baiting while making baiting comments oh the irony. |
AnimeFeministAug 31, 2019 12:51 PM
Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
A_Sad_Dust_Cloud said: Aastra343 said: Her last video was really good as well and I think it kinda approaches some of the themes on this thread, specially the MGTOW. Oh, yeah that one two! We should just plug her whole channel. HEY EVERYONE, GO WATCH CONTRAPOINTS!, SHE'S AMAZING! I love ContraPoints she is amazing. |
Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
Ryuk9428 said: SadMadoka said: It's only hard if you have standards that are unrealistically high. But something being hard does not make it involuntary. YOU (talking broadly here for the sake of example) made the decision to not take action. YOU made the decision to harbor hatred towards women. It's all on the individual. It would only be involuntary if they were in a situation in which they were literally incapable of performing certain actions. Physically impossible? Hardly. It is perfectly physically possible to travel more or less anywhere in the world. If you mean getting to know all those people, well, you don't need that many. Most communities people live in have thousands of members of the opposite sex. (Even more if you count the same sex.) I consider them to be the same as starved people. Can you expect a person who is starving to think or act rationally? Of course not. Most of them have taken action, and were called creepy. So its no surprise they don't want to repeat that experience. From what I've seen, their standards are very low. The biggest thing resembling standards I've ever seen is them saying they don't want someone who's 300 pounds. Standards really have nothing to do with it. Getting a girlfriend is hard for the majority of guys regardless of whether they are incel or not. I've really only known like four or five guys that thought it was easy. Sex isn't necessary for survival. You can perfectly live your life without it. Not to mention you can always visit hookers or mastrubate. |
Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
Railey2 said: Ryuk9428 said: Whatever happened to confirming the targets beyond the shadow of a doubt? Eh, I guess a couple random dead civilians are fine, war is war just forget about it.Collateral damage is not intentionally slaughtering civilians, there's a big fucking difference. The difference being that one is meant to strike a military target and, because war is fucking war, we didn't realize there was an innocent guy standing there. Or we know that this terrorist nest is about to shoot down our helicopter and we have no choice but to risk civilian casualties or else we might die. Intentionally slaughtering civilians, which is what this show claimed, was that soldiers run into a village, go door to door, shoot everyone in the face, pile their bodies up in the middle of the village and burn them. That's literally what the show acted like US and Afghani troops did. Acting like we slaughtered a village full of innocent people for taking medical care of a terrorist and then calling the terrorists "the rebels" so as to imply that they're freedom fighters of some kind. "We're not the bad guys btw". And forget about your dumb helicopter scenario, I was talking about drone-strikes. You know, the aircraft thingies that are remote-controlled? No pilot. Now I don't know what the show is that you're talking about, but maybe you should've been more clear about it before. Ryuk, Ryuk. Trying to justify war-crimes like "it's just something that happens and nothing can be done about it". I guess the Geneva Convention is more of a loose guideline when the US military is concerned. Anyway, all has been said. Now you're at 4 things you did in this thread that'd make me want to immediately delete you from my life, if you actually were a part of it. Good thing you aren't. @Luchse75 because the people on that blog are all completely insane unhinged individuals. Note how I'm not putting Ryuk on there even though I think he's making a complete fool out of himself repeatedly and states views that are quite insane. Even though he's doing all of that, it's just not enough to land on there. But whatever. If you feel like the people on the blog are worth defending, maybe you'd be in good company there :V You cannot prevent all civilian casualties in war, its impossible. Name one war that has ever happened, in which battles did, in-fact, occur, which produced no civilian casualties. You can't, because its impossible to avoid all civilian casualties. What's amazing to me is that the US is repeatedly kicked on despite all that we do to avoid civilian casualties but Saudi Arabia can cause a famine in Yemen that starves tens of thousands of people to death and not receive anywhere near the condemnation that we do for a few mistakes. The US is not guilty of war crimes because we do not intentionally kill civilians. You cannot be guilty of war crimes because of accidents because everyone with half a brain knows that its impossible to avoid all mistakes in war. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| @AnimeFeminist "Yes I encountered quite a few incels here on MAL. They are easy to spot always right-wing/alt-right, blame society for their own problems, attack/hate/harass women, have Hitler in favorites, hate gender equality/Feminism." Ah the good old stereotypes. This nazi, racist, hater of all things female and a person who has Hitler in his favorites says to you that he could use stereotypes as well but i did not. Now why did i not use the stereotypes on people like you. Well thats because i can speak up with my own thoughts and not with the classic blabbering that is usually used in these situations. |
“The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
AnimeFeminist said: Ryuk9428 said: I consider them to be the same as starved people. Can you expect a person who is starving to think or act rationally? Of course not. Most of them have taken action, and were called creepy. So its no surprise they don't want to repeat that experience. From what I've seen, their standards are very low. The biggest thing resembling standards I've ever seen is them saying they don't want someone who's 300 pounds. Standards really have nothing to do with it. Getting a girlfriend is hard for the majority of guys regardless of whether they are incel or not. I've really only known like four or five guys that thought it was easy. Sex isn't necessary for survival. You can perfectly live your life without it. Not to mention you can always visit hookers or mastrubate. You can't live your life perfectly without it, sexual deprivation causes way too much psychological damage. Masturbation only alleviates the need to physically ejaculate, while that is part of it, its only 50% of sexual frustration. Humans need the physical intimacy aspect of it just as much as they need the ejaculation. I already addressed hookers. I do believe they are a good solution and will be an important part of alleviating the incel crisis, but there are various factors in the US which make finding hookers significantly more difficult and expensive than in other countries. Namely, we are the only country besides some of the Scandinavian countries where prostitution is not only illegal, but actively combated by the government. There are several Eastern European countries, including Russia, where it is technically illegal but completely ignored by the police and thus, de-facto legal. I heard a guy say he was in Ukraine, where its technically illegal, and jokingly asked a cop where the nearest brothel was and he legitimately gave him directions. For this reason, I'd say for all intents and purposes in regards to behavior and access, we can consider prostitution to be legal in those countries because the police don't enforce the law. The US, however, runs undercover sting operations on prostitutes and strip clubs to find prostitution, they have targeted online prostitution and attempted to squeeze it out. Most prostitution websites in the US are sketchy and full of scams and the ones that aren't are very expensive. I'm not saying you can't visit a hooker in the US, but its very difficult for young guys on a budget to see hookers with any sort of regularity. Alleviating sexual frustration isn't about a one and done getting sex, you need to be having sex with some kind of regularity in order to have a long term fix. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| @Ryuk9428 What the fuck are you even saying? I'll ignore all the pseudo-psychological bullshit you came up with in your post and I'll only address the statistical. 3-4% of men utilize polygamy as such the other 3-4% cannot involve themselves in wedlock. One thing to note: populations are not fucking static. An empirical observation -- everybody has a chance to marry here. There's no lack of women around LOL. @Luchse75 Dude... Those scientists had ideas that were scientific and technical. The people in his blog are neither scientific not technical, they are abit loose in the head. |
| @Yarub I knew you were going to come sooner or later. What i meant to say is that those scientists were to people back then loose in the head as well and that certain views to them were complete lunacy. Railey sees the people that he keeps in his blog as lunatics, so what Railey sees as abnormal and ilogical, tomorrow might be seen as a complete breaktrough in some fields of science. Now about those ideas same can be said. To some people they are ideas of utterly crazy people and to others something that they find to be true. |
“The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| What? I have never even seen you on the forums and I haven't posted much in atleast a week. Is this some black magic? To address your strawman; you literally acknowledge that what you said was wrong and employ the same fucking logic again. Those scientists that were thought of as 'lunatic' were not being called that in the literal sense. There is such a thing called the scientific method, when Einstein proposed his thesis on special relativity, it was mathematically consistent and provided answers. His peers thought of him folly because of the lack of empirical evidence to back up his purely theoretical prediction. The supposed 'lunacy' is only the result of Einstein's belief and confidence in his yet unproven theory. When evidence was brought, it was labeled as a scientific fact. You compare the situation of Einstein to people who are more in common to some 21st century wannabe- Sigmund Freud than anywhere near a STEM college undergrad. |
Yarub said: @Ryuk9428 What the fuck are you even saying? I'll ignore all the pseudo-psychological bullshit you came up with in your post and I'll only address the statistical. 3-4% of men utilize polygamy as such the other 3-4% cannot involve themselves in wedlock. One thing to note: populations are not fucking static. An empirical observation -- everybody has a chance to marry here. There's no lack of women around LOL. @Luchse75 Dude... Those scientists had ideas that were scientific and technical. The people in his blog are neither scientific not technical, they are abit loose in the head. You have about 15 million men and 15 million women in Saudi Arabia. 500,000 Saudi men are polygamous. That comes out to 3.33% of the population. This means at the very least, 1 million women have been taken as wives. This means 14,500,000 men are still available for marriage and only 14 million women are assuming all those Saudi men only chose two wives instead of two. That means 500,000 men are going to be left permanently unable to marry. How is that difficult to comprehend, you can't manufacture people out of thin air for marriage. There are a limited number and if a few men marry multiple women, then by necessity, there are going to be less women available for marriage. Nothing I say is pseudo science. I've spent many more hours researching this topic than you could possibly comprehend. This topic is new to you because I just presented the theory? I've been researching the social fabrics of various historical societies and noticing the link between sexual frustration and violence in my spare time for almost 7 years now. You should be appreciative of the fact that I've summarized 7 fucking years worth of research into a few posts for you. We'd be sitting here forever if I linked you to or told you everything I've found so just look at the ones I've presented that are the most straight-forward and to the point. To summarize however... Ancient societies were characterized by polygamy where the richest and most powerful men had no limits on the number of wives they could have. Upon entering marriage, women in ancient societies were under strict rules to never stray. Adultery was punishable by stoning them to death, and many women were locked away in palaces. Saudi Arabia right now is a mild version of what civilization had looked like for thousands of years until Christianity started enforcing monogamy. 8,000 years ago, a male trying to reproduce was 4 times less likely to be successful than a male in the modern age is. https://psmag.com/environment/17-to-1-reproductive-success I say "four times less likely" because I don't know if the precise numbers are true. It seems to me unlikely that such a large number of modern men are unable to reproduce, but its still worth noting that the results do show that men in the modern age are much more likely to successfully reproduce than men in the past were. The reason for this, in the article, being tied explicitly to polygamous marriage. At the same time, Ancient societies were easily the most violent in history. Warfare resulted in horrifying levels of death and destruction, atrocities against civilians, and ethnic cleansing was normal. The worldwide homicide rate was estimated to be between 100-150 people per 100,000 compared to the US today which has a homicide rate of 5 per 100,000. Contrary to some people's belief, Christian Europe during the Middle Ages was actually significantly less violent than any societies before were. Yes they had a long ways to go compared to today, but Medieval Times was a huge improvement on Ancient Times. Its no coincidence that this coincided with a system that did not allow the most rich and powerful to create large harems making it impossible for large numbers of men in the underclass to marry. Islamic societies were actually an improvement as well because they limited polygamy to four wives instead of allowing an unlimited number of wives. https://image.slidesharecdn.com/fz9xxydreemo7trg4zuw-signature-8a23f35951a5507751cd4dc9234c523de142a1606af8c304af7fbcd5161e3f30-poli-180510210236/95/polygamy-presentation-9-638.jpg?cb=1525986349 I've told you plenty of information now, if you're still not willing to consider this possibility despite all the evidence in support of it, then I cannot help you. |
Ryuk9428Aug 31, 2019 1:43 PM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Luchse75 said: @Yarub I knew you were going to come sooner or later. What i meant to say is that those scientists were to people back then loose in the head as well and that certain views to them were complete lunacy. Railey sees the people that he keeps in his blog as lunatics, so what Railey sees as abnormal and ilogical, tomorrow might be seen as a complete breaktrough in some fields of science. Now about those ideas same can be said. To some people they are ideas of utterly crazy people and to others something that they find to be true. Original ideas are often considered lunacy to people because its new information to them and nobody else has told them to believe that, and normal people have a difficult time comprehending ideas that various other people have not told them is the truth. They respect old scientists because its well known today that they were right but if they lived in the time those scientists lived in, they would've thought they were lunatics too. Therefore, they are very likely to just believe if one person is telling them something that it is hogwash. Sometimes it is hogwash, not every lone person is correct, but normal people will dismiss anything that hasn't been presented to them by multiple people. They are unlikely to do any of their own research and will instead just say its bullshit without considering it. |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| A year or so ago, I used to get those MGTOW videos in my recommended on Youtube and checked out some of them. I get where they come from (well, mostly for the men that were in actual marriages and got hurt by the system), but I don't think it's the right thing to do. I don't get the whole incel thing. I know what it means, but I never looked much into it. |
Yarub said: What? I have never even seen you on the forums and I haven't posted much in atleast a week. Is this some black magic? To address your strawman; you literally acknowledge that what you said was wrong and employ the same fucking logic again. Those scientists that were thought of as 'lunatic' were not being called that in the literal sense. There is such a thing called the scientific method, when Einstein proposed his thesis on special relativity, it was mathematically consistent and provided answers. His peers thought of him folly because of the lack of empirical evidence to back up his purely theoretical prediction. The supposed 'lunacy' is only the result of Einstein's belief and confidence in his yet unproven theory. When evidence was brought, it was labeled as a scientific fact. You compare the situation of Einstein to people who are more in common to some 21st century wannabe- Sigmund Freud than anywhere near a STEM college undergrad. You are puting words into my mouth, all i did was just expand on exactly what i said before you joined the discussion. Einstein is who you picked for this so i'll add that everything that he came up with and was later proven correct, started as an idea. That idea was to people something crazy and unheard of just like how some of the things are for Railey and you. People here on mal said certain things to which they were called out by people like you and Railey. Now those certain things are ideas of those people that are either diamonds in the rough or complete bullshit. You and I can judge them all we want but at the end of the day who are we? Are we worthy of judging them? I cannot give you an answer to those questions so you'll have to find them yourself. "You compare the situation of Einstein to people who are more in common to some 21st century wannabe- Sigmund Freud than anywhere near a STEM college undergrad. " How did you come up with this conclusion? Was it by reading up on what they said and thinking that their thought process is flawed? What if they are the ones to pave the way for something greater? To be honest most of the stuff said in his blog is completely right, but i disagree with some as well. No its not black magic. You can be found posting comments on similar things that Railey posts so i connected you with him. I also read a lot of your posts and i find you to be a really interesting and inteligent person, so thats how i knew you were going to pop up here sooner or later. |
“The most shameless thing in the world is political power that can be inherited regardless of ability or talent!” |
| Bastardizing Einstein because he's already been brought up here: People who act too little often fall into the lazy habit of overthinking. All the people you're too lazy to approach start to appear .. perfect, oppressively so. Of course women aren't perfect, you can acknowledge that purely academically but the fact is you (assuming you're an incel) will perceive them so and hence act as if they are perfect (i.e women must give me attention, women must accept me, women must.. blablabla...). Maybe if you'd stop typing all these paragraphs on MAL and just said hi to ... no, actually don't do that just yet. There's a thing called situational awareness and I'm not sure you have it so, yea better work on that first. |
| I have some sympathy for incels but it goes away as soon as I see one of them talking about right to rape. I'm neutral about MGTOW, I guess I am a man going my own way by my own choice but eh some things they say seem too cuckoo in the head for me to stand behind. |
 Leading biologist Scott Pitnick said: The bigger your 'nads, the smaller your brains |
| The best advice I can give to those struggling with this is to befriend the opposite sex. Build real friendships and treat them with respect. Don't think of them as sex objects or tools for your satisfaction. Get used to interacting with them and you will find that it's not so hard after all. Ryuk9428 said: It is involuntary, you can't help it if girls don't want to fuck you. Nonsense. If a few people reject you, that doesn't mean everyone will. "I'm involuntarily friendless. It's not my fault no one wants to be my friend." Don't you see how ridiculous this line of thinking is? If you are physically capable of doing something, you cannot conceivably claim you are involuntarily not doing it. This is straight-up delusion. Many of the most successful people (in any area) failed far more times than the "losers" ever tried in the first place. The crucial difference is that they didn't give up. Yes, you can help it. Just take action to make improvements to your life. I'm going to put a quote from someone else in bold later in this post, because I feel it sums it up nicely. Once again, it is only involuntary if you have no choice. If someone locks you in a cage, then you are involuntarily celibate. Ryuk9428 said: They didn't just wake up one day and decide no girl will ever like them and they should start hating people, they started hating people probably as a result of hundreds of bad interactions and very few positive ones. I'm sure they all, like everyone, entered the world of romantic/sexual interactions with girls with a positive attitude that changed once a large number of negative things happened and nothing positive happened to them. If their experience was that negative, I would wager it comes down to their own negativity and personality flaws. Ryuk9428 said: And people making fun of them and using them to make themselves feel better about their own condition, is not going to help their situation at all. You're just adding onto the pile of negative experiences with people and fueling their hatred of everyone. That's cute. You think I care about helping them. I (don't) regret to inform you that it is not my responsibility to do that; it's theirs. Help yourself or get out, I say. Making fun, you say? Far be it from me when I admonish their idiocy. I am on a quest for truth, not to babysit man-children. Petty emotion is not my priority. Likewise, I couldn't care less what self-proclaimed incels think of little ol' me when I tell them to stop being whiny pansies. Ryuk9428 said: Why would you have any reason to like people that you feel mistreat you? By accepting the fact that how others treat you is largely dependent upon how you treat them. Ryuk9428 said: You think that because you've been lucky and very few guys who do okay or are sexually successful seem to understand that sheer luck is probably 80-90% of it. Keep telling yourself that...as if one of the most natural things in the world needs "luck" to occur... Luck is "success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions." Consensual intercourse transpires as a result of deliberate action. Need I say more? Ryuk9428 said: You were born with decent or good looks, Thanks, I guess... I'm not nearly as adorable now, though. :P Ryuk9428 said: you didn't develop an anxiety problem How presumptive of you...but you happen to be right on this one. I'm the most arrogant person I know. Just call me SmugMadoka. hehe  Ryuk9428 said: because you were lucky enough to not meet shitty people, bahaha. No. Quite a good deal of organic carbon-based life forms I have encountered fall under "shitty" in my book. (I don't know how you come up with so many erroneous assumptions. It would happen less if you thought things through before posting.) I've been through a hundred times worse than the typical outcast. Adversity made me stronger, because I resolved to prevail. Stop acting like facing a challenge breaks a person. That only happens if you let it. Ryuk9428 said: you were then lucky enough to meet a girl who was interested in you and either acted on that interest or accepted your advances. Did you just assume my gender and sexual orientation? REEEE  Anyway, more people have been (sexually and/or romantically) interested in me than I can even remember. I had to turn down most of 'em. (There's only so much of my skinny bod to go around! LOL...) For better perspective, ponder this: We were all lucky enough to be born human. If that ain't good enough for ya, guess you're shit outta luck, bud. Ryuk9428 said: Tell me how you actually got laid Uh...not divulging anything personal here. :^) I'll tell you this much, though: It isn't luck, silly-willy. None of this happened willy-nilly. (By accident and without choice, if you're not following my comedic wordplay.) Ryuk9428 said: and I feel like hardly anyone can do it. The number of humans having sex on any given day is in the hundreds of millions. Dunno about you, but that doesn't sound like "hardly anyone" to me... Ryuk9428 said: Most people say stuff like "its just natural" or "it just happened" or "I don't know what I did." Why? Because the factors that lead up to you being the kind of person that can have a sex life is just dumb luck. Essentially, nature decided to let you have sex. Irrational excuses like this are precisely why losers don't win. You're acting like your mind doesn't exist and you're a victim of circumstance with no choice in the matter. This type of defeatist outlook just oozes self-loathing, and that isn't attractive. (To anyone sane, at least.) Taking part in an extremely common activity is not remotely close to dumb luck. It doesn't take a special kind of person like you suggest. There is nothing special about the billions upon billions of people who attained coition. Blaming nature is for chumps. If you have a functional body and mind and reside in relative proximity to potential partners, you've got all that is required to have a sex life. You have everything you need at your disposal. If you want it, but don't go out and get it, you have no one to blame but yourself. Ryuk9428 said: There have been times in my life where I did okay, and other times where I couldn't have gotten laid if you told me I would die in a month if I didn't do it. Only because of your conscious decisions. In most cases, the only thing actually preventing people from achieving such a simple goal is their own mental blockage, which can be overcome by thinking rationally. Ryuk9428 said: I was depressed during the hard times, I'm sure that influenced things, but its not like my depression happened for no reason. Life can be depressing for sure...but it's up to you what to do with the situation you're in. Ryuk9428 said: What I mentioned is a scientifically proven phenomenon. Those actually acquainted with science know that there is no proof in science; only evidence. Everything in science is provisional. (Proof lies in the realm of mathematics and logic.) I doubt anything you're citing involves any sort of scientific methodology. (And no, psychology is not science.) If you would be so kind, please refrain from such empty claims. Ryuk9428 said: Major revolutions and chaos is often caused by society trying to ignore its miserable underclass until their anger boils out of control. True...but "miserable underclass"? Oh man...you make it seem like the government put microchips in their brains to stop them from getting laid. XD If you need sex to feel good about yourself, and are otherwise miserable, you have more pressing issues to address. This may come as a shock to some, but society does not owe you sex. (Or anything else, for that matter.) Thus, there is no basis for faulting society in this regard. They're just butthurt that the world isn't handed to them on a silver platter. Either earn what you want in life, or don't...but for the love of magical girls, stop bleating about imaginary helplessness. Ryuk9428 said: Something has to be done to prevent people from becoming incels and "they just need to become more confident" is not a realistic solution. The solution is simple: Stop creating problems that don't exist, and call it what it is: a group of people who want sex, but do not do what it takes to get it, subsequently blaming non-responsible parties. You cannot become something that is logically contradictory. As for the discussions you alluded to... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment, misanthropy, self-pity, self-loathing, misogyny, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people. I already knew about this, but yikes! Might wanna take that into account before defending them that broadly. Make no mistake: it is an extremist subculture. If you aren't incredibly creeped out by them, something is wrong. Look at how they define themselves. https://incels.wiki/w/Inceldom Inceldom is a disability, nonsexuality, circumstance, social phenomenon and condition characterized by an inability to get a romantic or sexual partner, despite repeated efforts towards this goal, while approaching a wide variety of people. They literally call it a disability. Could they be any more self-defeating? It's not a goddamn disability, ya schmucks. Now pay your respects to Stephen Hawking. ...Then again, you'd have to be mentally disabled to think like an incel, so perhaps they have a point. Let's touch upon some basic terminology, for clarity's sake. inability: "the state of being unable to do something" unable: "lacking the skill, means, or opportunity to do something" Generally speaking, they have the means and opportunity...and it doesn't demand nearly as much skill as you lead on. Some of the most witless bumbling buffoons get frequent sex. Many are poverty-stricken, but that doesn't stop them. So they're not unable; just lazy. That "incel inside" logo (parody of Intel computer processors) cracked me up. It's nice to know they are not without humor. Ryuk9428 said: The real, fundamental reason for Muslim terrorism is that they are basically Middle Eastern incels who are directing their anger at the wrong people. Dang, dude. Shit just got real. (Or should I say, unreal...due to how far removed from reality this statement was.) I won't deny that sexual frustration plays a role in highly religious communities. But bruh...the underlying cause of terrorism (in this context) is extremist beliefs in the first place. It goes far deeper (and dirtier) than pootang. I think you're projecting a little too much. :/ WatchTillTandava said: Incelhood to me is an inane ideology for anyone not born with an egregious mutated face or other physical deformity since everything else about you can be changed with practice/work/masking a fake persona if you care about attracting people enough to you. If you choose not to, you don't really have grounds to complain. It's refreshing to hear a voice of reason. And it's outrageous that any thinking person wouldn't immediately understand what you and I have clearly explained. Ryuk9428 said: Elliot was a terrorist because he was incel, WTF? Nobody could have outlined it more clearly than Elliot that he was mad because he couldn't get laid. If he could get laid do you think he would have started shooting people? Of course not. Didn't and couldn't are two very different things. I hope you realize what you are defending. Mental illness is the likely source of such behavior. Nearly every sexless person doesn't go on a shooting spree. You're so silly, Ryuk-kun~ Have an apple.  Ryuk9428 said: Extremism is built specifically to appeal to unmarried men with no reason to live who want to cause chaos against the society that excluded them and made them unable to find a happy life. Extremism is practically stitched into the fabric of society and applies to so many groups of people. Just look at religion and history in general. If your only reason for living is to conform to the archaic institution of marriage, then that's just sad. Ryuk9428 said: The US is not guilty of war crimes because we do not intentionally kill civilians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes#Crimes_perpetrated_by_the_United_States Jeesh. I spent far too much time composing this. (Perhaps "composting" would be more accurate.) I wanted to do something productive...like gaming. >:D P.S. If this thread is locked, feel free to reply in a spoiler on my profile. |
SmugSatokoAug 31, 2019 7:21 PM
 |
Ryuk9428 said: 149597871 said: There are plenty of virgins on MAL forums, and it's not just the male users of course. Fortunately, the vast majority of the guys are neither incels nor mgtows. When it comes to whether they are susceptible or not - yes, I think so. @Ryuk9428 no, even for someone who is below the average level of attractiveness it should be fairly easy to get laid. Most of them have just adopted some defeatist attitude in order to make people feel sorry for them. The real reason is that a lot of them have never even tried to even talk to girls because they don't have the courage or got rejected like once and black pilled themselves into believing that. Why does everyone think that? Its like a ridiculous myth that has been spread around by so many people that whenever the issue of incels comes up, somebody inevitably says "incels have just never tried to even talk to girls." I mean c'mon dude, you sound like the people who call adults having sex with teenagers pedophiles right now. I know you're smarter than that and wouldn't just accept what other people have said as the absolute truth. Have you ever actually talked to incels? You don't have to join an incel forum, just go on 4chan's R9k section or at least read what they say even if you don't agree with it or find it shocking. Whenever I talk to people who struggle with girls, the answer is the same across the board. Its "I've tried so many times, every girl I talk to just ends up ghosting me or saying no. I don't feel like there's any point to trying anymore because I've already tried so many times and nothing I do ever works." I can assure you that the vast majority of incels have tried many times. That's the reason why they're so hopeless is because they have tried and nothing worked. But normal people, for some reason, can't seem to comprehend why its so hard for them to get laid and the reason why is because normal people don't understand the sheer dumb luck factor and don't want to acknowledge that the reason behind their sexual success is just pure luck and if the wheels of fortune had been different for them, they could've ended up an incel themselves. They'd rather say that its because incels are awful people and of course nobody wants to fuck an awful person because any other answer to the incel phenomenon questions whether they actually have any right to be successful with girls or whether sexual success is just fucking random. If it is random, then the conclusion we'd have to come to is that some people who are sexually successful, have no logical reason for being so and probably don't deserve the happiness they've been given and other people have been lonely and miserable their entire lives and did not deserve to have that happen to them. It also requires people to accept the fact that some people, who could have turned out to be wonderful people, had their lives destroyed by social rejection. They may be an awful human being now, because of it and it could have been prevented if we had more sympathy for or tried harder to accept lonely, socially awkward people. Well, I obviously get what you are trying to say, I just don't complete agree with it. Yes, I don't talk to incels for obvious reasons, the closest I've ever been to having a conversation with an incel is probably quoting some stupid comment they've posted on some popular website. Also they are a pretty "loud" group in general, I'm pretty sure that in nearly every comment section on nearly every website there will be at least one of them repeating the same stuff you described accompanied by some sort of hate speech most of the time so you don't really need to join incel boards and "interrogate" them one by one. ---- Yes, many of them claim they've been rejected thousands of times, that literally every girl they've tried to talk to has ignored them instantly, that they are ugly and poor and only attractive or rich guys get laid, etc. First of all anyone who has managed to get a girlfriend or get laid will immediately tell that all of this is bullshit. A society where the average looking guy gets rejected by 10 000 average girls on average before he is finally able to find a partner, wouldn't be able to survive for long, let alone keep its population growing. Incels are saying that they are "ugly" as a pure excuse, if you look at the world around you chances are far less attractive guys are getting laid on a regular basis. Second, I don't know if even I have talked to a that large number of women in my lifetime. Like where do you even find those thousands of girls to make your instant rejection record that high? It is an obvious exaggeration, even 100 would be pretty hard to believe, I would say that the average incel has probably tried just several times at best. As I previously said many of them probably haven't tried at all or maybe just once despite what they claim. Of course there might be some exceptions, just not the majority of incels. And no, you don't have to be rich, many incels say "I don't have a job". Having a job and being rich are completely different things. Yes, it's hard to be in a relationship if you have literally no income, find a job. ---- "People don't want to acknowledge that the reason behind their sexual success is just pure luck" No. This is flawed logic that won't take you very far. Obviously there is a "luck" factor in nearly everything, but you can make yourself less dependent on it by doing things that will increase your chances of success or just by working harder and trying again and again. ---- Your third point isn't that bad to be honest. "it could have been prevented if we had more sympathy for or tried harder to accept lonely, socially awkward people." The problem is that according to these incels most of them don't just struggle to find a girlfriend. They also don't have any female friends or in many cases friends at all yet they claim their biggest problem is "not getting laid". Maybe if you don't think of girls as walking onaholes and actually try to socialize with people instead of playing the victim in order to make them feel sorry for you and hoping they'll let you have sex with them out of pity, your chances will improve. Maybe even forget about girls, find some non-incel guy friends first because your social awkwardness won't disappear if all you do is sitting in front of your PC and crying on the internet about your problems and how cruel society is, etc. Also "tried harder to accept socially awkward people". The problem is that you cannot force people to be your friends, girlfriends, etc. with some sort of "incel acceptance" movement. I don't think that even the socially awkward person would be happy if they knew that people are doing this just because they pity him or her. When you are in a friends circle or maybe any group of people you want to feel as if you are equal and you truly belong there. Yes, I don't like making fun of or harassing people anymore but I believe it would be far healthier for both sides if they let the person find his own way and people who are able to truly understand him and make him happy rather than blindly "accepting" him and treating him like an actual retard as you are suggesting. Simply giving advises, criticizing certain behaviors and guiding him would be a lot more helpful than forcing themselves to be his "friends". |
149597871Aug 31, 2019 9:09 PM
| Anyway, I don't like incels or MGTOW or any of that, especially the former given their demeanor of self-victimizing entitlement. Getting laid isn't a right and nobody owes them anything, but Iunno. Sometimes I feel like the boundaries of what constitutes an incel is expanding so much that it means very fucking little unless we stick to the traditional definition. I also hate the type of shit that the OP and a couple of users try to do in expanding the definitions to cover basic shit like having waifu or liking ecchi and trying to make these things inherent to one another. It sounds like the type of shit a Trump supporter would say about minorities to try to demonize them further - made-up, reaching connections that are simply there to try to basically be a form of libel. It's a pejorative that's simply trying to take something innocent and fabricate a guilt by association, especially whenever you're the ones making and forcing that association to begin with. It's disgusting, it's dishonest, and it's kind of fucking pathetic and should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes I look at the people who toss around incel so casually like this and kind of wonder if they're really much different than the alt-righters who call everybody who's vaguely leaning towards anything they might find ideologically opposed to them cucks. It's the same shit with a different coat of paint and you should all be rounded up and put in a room with each other, away from the functioning societies that you have no place in. |
 |
More topics from this board
» As a kid ,did you often talk to strangers?VabbingSips - 3 minutes ago |
0 |
by VabbingSips
»»
3 minutes ago |
|
» If a zombie apocalypse happened, what weapon around your house would be your main?TheBlockernator - Oct 4 |
19 |
by Deathko
»»
6 minutes ago |
|
» The Rise Of AI?DigiCat - Oct 2 |
24 |
by DigiCat
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» They are putting ads on Fridges now.vasipi4946 - Yesterday |
23 |
by x_scolopendra_x
»»
36 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever met anyone who believes governments really are hiding little green men? Or are you one to believe in that stuff?fleurbleue - 4 hours ago |
6 |
by x_scolopendra_x
»»
60 minutes ago |