Incel Wiki talk:Incel is not an organization or community

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Maybe the problem with incel is that it's not an organization or community[edit source]

Imagine if blacks or women were to say, "We're not an organization or community; we're just a group that we were born into" and therefore refused to organize or share any sense of common identity.

I'm seeing a resurgence of religion lately, where a lot of guys from the manosphere are deleting their past work and saying, "I'm turning to Jesus now." They're willing to trade in their past accomplishments just so they can be a part of a faith and have a sense of belonging.

Imagine, though, if Christians were, instead of saying, "We're part of the body of Christ," were to say, "We're not an organization or community"? They too would be weak, like any other group that refuses to have a sense of solidarity.

In 2020, everything is about identity politics, where different groups clash to get what they consider their fair slice of the pie. To try to stand outside that and say, "We're rugged individualists who are just concerned with lofty principles for making the pie bigger" is to be rendered mostly irrelevant; people will in that case consider you easy prey for them to try to grab your slice of the pie, since you're not making any claims for why you deserve it, nor organizing with similarly-situated people for the mutual protection of your rights. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:C455:27C8:F14D:CBF9 07:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It's mainly just because people use the term 'community' to imply incels are organized or plotting or homogeneous and these things don't apply to incels as a whole imo, or even any subsections. Incels are broadly a 'class' maybe. When I hear people say 'black community' I hear them saying 'the collection of activist blacks', not all blacks. Anyway I could be wrong as the dictionary definition of 'community' is pretty broad.William (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, "black community" usually in practice means corrupt blacks like Jesse Jackson who have taken it upon themselves to represent their race and thereby grab for money, fame, and power by claiming, "You offended blacks when you said x so now you need to pay restitution." Blacks know this but get behind guys like him anyway because they don't have anyone else who can serve as more responsible leadership.
For a group to lie down and say, "Don't hurt us; we're actually meek and harmless rather than dangerous, and we're not even a cohesive group with coordinated activities, but rather just a bunch of individuals each pulling in his own direction" has its own risks, because then people may figure they can trample all over you with impunity since you're not in any position to fight back. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:789C:7AF5:183:436C 10:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
There really isn't any group with coordinated activities that I'm aware of, even the discord for this wiki, who only talked about this wiki, fell apart. The ALF is just one person, same with Incel Party. But as far as advocating for incels in a coordinated, effective political matter, the only attempt so far has been joint emails notifying certain places of defamation. Because if certain media calls incels an organized group, which I disagree with, then they probably just mean the loose 'collection of forums', in which case the press has made a lot of false statements and narratives.William (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)z
As far as the forums or parties becoming registered legal entities for the purpose of advocating for incels, just too much work, too little reward. Only someone with no frontal lobe function, who cannot experience feelings, and who has a shit ton of money could have the emotional energy to engage in court battles over this topic. And at this point probably wouldn't change anything, as the media wave is over.William (talk) 12:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, basically the exact kind of people we need are those who are willing to act contrary to what seem to be their own interests; essentially nutcases, crackpots, cranks, etc. acting on the basis of autism, anger, paranoia, obsession, narcissism (and accompanying need for attention), or whatever other emotions, eccentricities, quirks, syndromes, or complexes need to be harnessed to get them to go to extremes for the sake of the common good.
If someone were going to file a lawsuit, it should be basically an lolsuit intended to make a point. Probably it would be more expensive in terms of time, energy, money, and emotions invested, but the goal would be to serve as a symbolic gesture.
It's by this means that you figure out what paths aren't really very promising. For example, a lot of people (including me) invested a lot of effort into trying to secure individual liberty. That whole civil libertarian movement fell apart, though, as it tried to cater to the mainstream more, which defeated its whole point of trying to stand up against the mainstream's desire to infringe the liberty of individuals (including those with extremist tendencies, as long as they weren't hurting anyone).
A movement, the MRAs, also arose that tried to argue that men should simply be treated the same as women. That failed because it isn't possible to unite men on the basis of sex alone. When that's attempted, the plans don't survive contact with the enemy, because divisions among men (often over stupid stuff; see the deleted Florellegate) happen immediately and break the bonds of friendship in a rather devastating manner. Men, to remain bound to each other, need superordinate goals that transcend women; they need a religion or something, some source of authority to help settle disputes so they don't bicker so much as soon as a source of conflict, such as females, enters the picture.
We're at a point where the more obvious solution may be to play the race card; to say that certain races are disadvantaged by the current power structure. But, that's probably going to fracture the incelosphere along racial lines, which might not be a bad thing. It wasn't going much of anywhere anyway in its current state. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:C455:27C8:F14D:CBF9 12:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't think of my propositions as extremism as I don't advocate for violence. The only radical idea I've put forward is lowering GDP through dramatically limiting work hours by government decree, just to get the ball rolling on valuing a male beyond his labor for capitalists or government. Government created and subsidized free community centers would be set up so men and women can hang out and be social and not stay at home. They would only allow low-income people to enter. There would be dedicated same-gender non-psychiatric/authoritarian social workers there to help soothe the nerves of agoraphobics or extreme introverts and hang around them until or when they are comfortable. They would be like retreats but you can go to them whenever and just hang out. There'd also be optional group field trips. Wealthy people already have hang out spots, typically that they bought. Community centers already exist but they typically require payment or work or being lectured, which is not how these would work. It'd be very laissez-faire. Maybe a lawsuit would be radical, but only relatively.William (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Extremism can refer to either methods or proposals, I suppose. But then, pretty much every proposal has some method by which it's carried out, and often these methods ultimately involve violence if people refuse to submit willingly. An ordered society involves people being restrained using violence or the thereof from disrupting the order; a completely pacifist approach results in anarchy.
Certain methods, like lawsuits, are good when you're dealing with an adversary whose will to rule has weakened to the point where they would even allow a fair process. It's kinda like how the U.K.'s desire to rule Scotland, or Canada's desire to rule Quebec, diminished to the point where they would even allow a secession referendum. When it gets to that point, you don't need to rebel like Jefferson Davis or Mohandas Gandhi; all it takes is a slight push and the structure tips over.
Proposals to limit work hours don't have immediate relevance to me, that I know of, since I work 0 hours a week as it is. I devote myself entirely to unpaid intellectual pursuits.
At the other extreme, there have always been people who made up for whatever they were lacking in looks, and in intelligence, and other inborn qualities, by working harder. And there are some who are workaholics and actually WANT to spend 80 hours a week at their job because they're obsessed/passionate, or else just really greedy. Hey, I admire them somewhat and almost wish I could be like them, because then I could maybe leverage some of my education and skills to make some money and betabuxx my way into some pussy, but I'm pretty lazy, plus my organizational and interpersonal skills can be dodgy sometimes, so that'll never be me.
What you describe above sounds a lot like a university, except without necessarily the learning component. E.g., I can sign up for a French class and maybe go on a class trip to Paris. But, I have to pay out the wazoo for that, unless I can get a scholarship or take out a loan. There are also a lot of clubs and stuff to join, or you can hang out in the open spaces, or the student unions, or the gym, etc. At this point, though, I just wanna find some meaningful stuff to get involved in, which is going to require learning some new stuff so I can explore new communities. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:C455:27C8:F14D:CBF9 19:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Universities are authoritarian. These community centers would not be so. Universities are full of rich brats. These would ban the middle income and wealthy people. "hang out zones" at colleges are typically cringey because dorms are already 'hang out zones'. I don't think that government is always predicated on violence, but big government typically is. People would be free to work for themselves or organizations that do not engage in trade for as long as they want.William (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
It might be relevant to you in that women would be less uppity from working all day, there would be less stigma from not working as the difference in effort btw not working and working is minimized, working becomes easier to move in and out of, and society would have room to set up spaces based on casual bonding rather than trade. Trade ultimately creates losers, and I want to get rid of the game.William (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Your interpersonal skill seem fine tbh, and you are above average as far as conversation. Betabuxxing seems awful, it's making onesself a disposable employee of a woman.William (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I didn't find the "hang-out" spaces at the university particularly cringe, but it kinda depends on the social group you're with. E.g., if you're with a group like Alpha Phi Omega whose rules don't allow drinking at official fraternity events, then someplace like the Johnson Center (which has multiple floors, with some places more secluded than in the pictured food court), is fine for socializing.
Alpha Phi Omega, though, was founded by the same people who founded the Boy Scouts (and I think it's basically a continuation of scouting for those who have graduated from Scouts and gone to college), so it's no wonder they have goodie-two-shoes sentiments about a lot of stuff; they're actually more that way than the Boy Scouts themselves, who have tended to be a lot more degenerate than one would think based on their clean-cut public image. Any organization that dresses up little boys in uniforms and organizes them into a quasi-military structure is going to tend to be implicitly fascist, which tends to be accompanied by a certain amount of hypocrisy when it comes to personal habits (e.g. sex, drugs, etc.) Alpha Phi Omega, being coed, has less of that going on; it just creates a different kind of atmosphere when a bunch of girls are introduced to the scene.
I didn't really see my university as full of rich brats. It was more just full of ambitious normies of all races and colors. The bourgeoisie, you might say, but not necessarily the 1%. Lots of chicks riding the carousel or getting with a Chadly boyfriend who's ultimately going to dump them. There was a Catholic chick in my fraternity who got dumped by some Chadly military dude, and then said she was holding out till marriage before she had sex again; basically a born-again virgin.
There's a certain amount of stigma attached to being an unemployed dude, but mainly that's because chicks see such a guy as useless unless he's good-looking (in which case, he might be good to keep around as a fucktoy but they'll be on the lookout for a higher-status and wealthier guy so they can quit their job and have babies).
The physical workplace involves some different interpersonal skills than what are demanded online, although even online, I've gotten kicked out of a lot of places. Actually, though, my main problem is just a lack of productivity; I don't get a lot accomplished in a workday, usually, and often the quality of my work is mediocre. I have trouble consistently staying focused on anything because I tend to drift from interest to interest rather than just grinding away at stuff day after day, week after week. The corporate world tends to demand a lot of attention both to detail and to schedules. And if you're not all that competent, you have to at least know how to pretend to be competent. 2601:5CD:C200:9BE0:979:7B09:88A4:D6CA 04:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)