6,468
edits
Incels.wiki in news and academia: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Tao Beloney
m (→Tao Beloney) |
m (→Tao Beloney) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
The article concludes by arguing that incels' (purported) views are increasingly accepted by society, and that "misogyny is ascendent in American politics and life". The article then rather tenuously tries to link what the author perceives as incel culture to such disparate cultural phenomena as 'violence against Asian women' and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion law, via tying online incels to mainstream American Right-Wing intellectuals like Tom Wolfe and Ross Douthat. | The article concludes by arguing that incels' (purported) views are increasingly accepted by society, and that "misogyny is ascendent in American politics and life". The article then rather tenuously tries to link what the author perceives as incel culture to such disparate cultural phenomena as 'violence against Asian women' and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion law, via tying online incels to mainstream American Right-Wing intellectuals like Tom Wolfe and Ross Douthat. | ||
In general, while the article is commendable in the sense that the author seemed to have actually researched the Wiki beyond skimming a few pages (as many professional academics appear to do), the article is not much different from the bulk of the scholarship on the Wiki, as it accepts as given that inceldom is only a modern online subculture and not an [[Donnelly study|empirically investigable cross-cultural and cross-temporal life circumstance]]. The article also likely exaggerates the direct influence online incel culture has had on right-wing thought, with any overlap that does exist likely being mediated by third party platforms (such as [[4chan]]) that host both viewpoints, and perhaps draw from a similar demographic (younger men), promoting the cross-germination of ideas. At minimum, it is very unlikely that the American right-wing [[boomers]] mentioned by Beloney were directly influenced by online incels in the promotion of their natural [[tradcon]] agenda. Overall, the essay's emphatic pursuit of this central inference makes Beloney's conclusion (that incels are shaping public policy and cultural norms by influencing conservative thinkers) appear more like a facile attempt to gain ammunition in the American left-right 'cultural war' by linking a maligned group (online) incels to the American conservative movement more broadly than a seriously scholarly analysis of the Wikipage, whether of the author's explicit intent in writing the article. | In general, while the article is commendable in the sense that the author seemed to have actually researched the Wiki beyond skimming a few pages (as many professional academics appear to do), the article is not much different from the bulk of the scholarship on the Wiki, as it accepts as given that inceldom is only a modern online subculture and not an [[Donnelly study|empirically investigable cross-cultural and cross-temporal life circumstance]]. The article also likely exaggerates the direct influence online incel culture has had on right-wing thought, with any overlap that does exist likely being mediated by third party platforms (such as [[4chan]]) that host both viewpoints, and perhaps draw from a similar demographic (younger men), promoting the cross-germination of ideas. At minimum, it is very unlikely that the American right-wing [[boomers]] mentioned by Beloney were directly influenced by online incels in the promotion of their natural [[tradcon]] agenda. Overall, the essay's emphatic pursuit of this central inference makes Beloney's conclusion (that incels are shaping public policy and cultural norms by influencing conservative thinkers) appear more like a facile attempt to gain ammunition in the American left-right 'cultural war' by linking a maligned group, such as (online) incels, to the American conservative movement more broadly than a seriously scholarly analysis of the Wikipage, whether of the author's explicit intent in writing the article. | ||
Finally, Beloney would likely be enthused by the news that (his/her/their?) article contained several quotes worthy of inclusion in the aforementioned Wiki page which were previously unknown to the authors of said page, as, despite its flaws, Beloney's article was not entirely bereft of insights into Classical-era thinkers. | Finally, Beloney would likely be enthused by the news that (his/her/their?) article contained several quotes worthy of inclusion in the aforementioned Wiki page which were previously unknown to the authors of said page, as, despite its flaws, Beloney's article was not entirely bereft of insights into Classical-era thinkers. | ||