Talk:Incel

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon antifeminism test2.svg

This Men's rights movement related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)


Not sure if I understood this entire shitstorm[edit]

As far as I understand, no one's saying that you if can't get laid, you're worse than Hitler, right? People are saying that the word "incel" despite its etymology (involuntary celibacy), refers to those people we see on the news once in a while. Am I correct? GeeJayK (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@GeeJayK Basically one group maintains that Incels are a toxic subculture as a whole, and they do indeed give rise to mass shooters every now and again. Another group contends that such a view is not representative of the Incel demographic as a whole. And a third group (mainly just me) is stressed out trying to manage this crap. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 05:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Yeah, but is there anyone here saying that in order to be a good person you need to have sex? Because as far as I understand (I admit I didn't read everything), Neil's main argument here is that, because he and people on his site are good guys you can be a good person without having sex. This discussion seems totally semantic to me, and I don't think anyone here believes that Adam Smith, Locke, Newton, Kant, Tesla among others were evil just because they couldn't get laid. The point is, good guys that can't get laid should just find another word IMO, even if "incel" is etymologically correct. GeeJayK (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
This entire thing reminds me of the skinhead culture. They were mostly good guys - at first. Maybe Neil and his folk could create the SHARP version of the incel subculture, dunno. But the idea that many, probably most of the guys that can't have sex aren't evil is so fucking obvious that you don't need an entire article to rant about it. GeeJayK (talk) 05:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, for all Neiltyson1fan talks about the early movement, a visit to his forum reveals some pretty warped shit. Threads like ""what are the cuckiest countries", "can monogamy survive the Biden presidency", and flirtations with bullshit like "soy boys", whining about the "sausage party" nature of certain corners of the Internet (step away from those corners, you nitwits), "Incel/chad analysis" featuring "statistics" pulled out of their ass, and more. It may not be a "blackpill" forum, but it is a forum awash in the sad stereotypes that dominate the incel movement, which in their worst case scenarios *are* "blackpill". It is perhaps unsurprising someone knee deep in the movement doesn't see himself as part of the problem because he's not "blackpill" or "violent" or something, but this forum is part of the problem. It clearly promotes the same tired negative gender stereotypes that over-focus on sex and tropes straight out of a bad Hollywood film. This is not the obscure 2000s incel movement, nor does this compare to "Nazi skinheads vs Oi!" to be honest; this is pretty much the same 4Chan bullshit with just a slight reduction of the vitriol. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@PanGalacticGargleBlaster Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. I think we can all agree that being a Neo-nazi (an actual Neo-nazi, not your edgy teenage cousin or your aunt that voted for Trump) means you're a bad person, right? Is it also truth to incels? If by incel you mean only those Blackpill idiots and a "mild" hateful 4chan dude, maybe. But if incel also means a guy that can't get laid I don't think they are all vile wicked Alt-right enablers. What do you think? GeeJayK (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No, and to be honest this is true of the alt-right or any opposing viewpoint; to me "vile" and "wicked" in my opinion apply in strongest form when the anger crosses over into violence. Just having an opinion isn't necessarily "wicked" (even though it may be something I consider "vile" or "stupid", they probably think the same of some of my opinions, that's life.). I would actually say the vast majority of incel culture (including blackpill) is more of a self defeating prophecy than "wicked"; if they woke up to the fact that women are also human beings (and thus complex and multifaceted, just like men are), maybe they'd have a better chance of finding a companion instead of wallowing in self-pity by posting stereotype and junk memes as justification. However, there is a much thinner line between incel culture and wicked violence then there is in, say, "stamp collecting" culture (or even a more geeky one like, say, the culture of anime fans). It is easier for someone to justify violence when viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype lump, and indeed there have been some studies linking inequitable gender attitudes to violence perpetration. There certainly are issues when one looks at a disgusting shithole of a human like Elliot Rodger as an inspiration instead of a warning sign, and incel culture has been notorious for having several people cross that line. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
On Various complaints from PanGal
The Facebook groups are more active and less toxic, no reason for people to leave facebook unless to evade facebook ToS, therefore using only forums outside facebook nowadays will always be a source of the most toxic content. Here's one example of a facebook group out of many https://www.facebook.com/groups/845148679619854/ Neiltyson1fan Also the word soyboy is word filtered on yourenotalone nowadays so that is extreme cherrypicking with regards to that. (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── sorry uncollapsed. I thought this was not going in a productive direction. I think any group that positively represents the condition of involuntary celibacy needs to distance itself from the term "incel" in order to retain any credibility. For ex, this community tried to move away from it. Love-shy.net describe themselves as love-shy. I'm not even sure they belong in the "incel" article. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a bit odd since I think we have similar doubts here.
I'll put in another way. What does "incel" mean? Maybe it means a guy that for some reason (as far as I know, usually because of some mental and/or physical disability) can't get laid very often. But it can also mean a part of this very group that became notorious for its crankery and hate. Which one are we going for? I believe both are missional and, despite my inital thoughts when I entered on this page for the first time last night, I believe it's ok to say "hey, there are some good guys that can't get laid", since it's apparently a strong myth that every involuntary celibate is either a borderline neo-nazi or an imbecile, sometimes both. GeeJayK (talk) 21:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Please see the section below. I strongly believe we should split the incel subculture from the involuntarily celibate, and that would prevent us from implying involuntarily celibate people are imbeciles etc. I have not seen any good reason from you why we couldn't do both articles. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course you didn't, I agree that we should have two different articles. Both both phenomena are different enough for that in my opinion, even if theoretically speaking every incel is also a involuntarily celibate. GeeJayK (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Questions regarding the future of this article[edit]

Thanks everyone for participating in the discussion thus far, but I do believe it has gotten off track. As tempting as it is to stir the pot, I hope we can have a civil discussion and reach some consensus regarding the future of this article(s).

I believe there is one key question that should help us determine the structure this article will take.

Still seeking further comment. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

1. Should our article Incel relate only to the online subculture, to the exclusion of the condition of involuntary celibacy?

Some relevant follow-up questions:

2a. Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a notable subject worthy of an article?
2b. Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a NeologismWikipedia or a CoatrackWikipedia unworthy of an article? (See Abstinence or sexual frustrationWikipedia)
2c. Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a fringe theory worthy of an article?

3. Should the low-hanging fruit be picked?

Please feel free to add questions if you think they are relevant to the broader picture. We could turn this into a vote format if there is no clear consensus. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Going to say Involuntary Celibacy is soooorta real... but less of a deal than people claim. I've been "incel" for several years at a time, it's called "being a guy". Even the cutest, most outgoing guy, the one that was the "cool kid" in high school? Still has "dry spells" that can last months. But the truth was, at any time I could've hit on a 55 year old woman and gotten laid. Heck, I turned down a few older women that were clearly hitting on me. I was "celibate" because I had standards, and that's the reality. Most of these "incels" could get laid if they really wanted to, but they seem to think they are entitled to an attractive young woman in spite of, well, attractive young women have more options and why should they be forced to choose someone whose life is a wreck over someone whose life is together? Corncob (argue) 22:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Should our article Incel relate only to the online subculture?[edit]

I have read a lot of the discussion relating to inceldom over on Wikipedia and I believe they have come to some very reasonable conclusions. WP's main incelWikipedia page relates only to the subculture. 1 This was done with strong consensus.

Of course, at RW we don’t have to follow what Wikipedia does. But I do think it provides a reasonable starting point for discussion, and I think their decisions are well-sourced and based on a vast amount of discussion that we don’t necessarily have the luxury or manpower of having. I think we can, at least, take note of their conclusions, rather than having to go to the same depth of painful discussions here.

It is my strong opinion that Incel should relate only to the subculture. The subculture and the condition of involuntary celibacy are so clearly two different things. Given the notoriety of the subculture and the absense of notability and innocence of the condition, to intertwine them within a single article gives the subculture a wholly undeserved air of legitimacy and harmlessness. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Do we consider involuntary celibacy to be a notable subject worthy of an article?[edit]

WP previously had a page for "involuntary celibacy", however it was nominated for deletion four times: 2345 (the last one is most notable). It was probably merged with other articles such as "sexual frustration" and "sexual abstinence". The last AFD was quite split, with a lot of votes to keep. The main argument for yay was a lot of sourcing, and enough information to warrant it notable. Main arguments for nay include NeologismWikipedia, CoatrackWikipedia, fringe theory, poor sourcing.

Undecided. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how the innocent incel is missional. That is, people who are not able to attract a romantic partner. The online culture of whingers I understand is noteworthy, perhaps as a group of crackpots, though they appear to be a pathetic bunch. I suppose many younger people are proud of their attractiveness to their idealized sexual partners, but if they ridicule incels for an inability to do likewise, they are the ones being assholes. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Should the low-hanging fruit be picked?[edit]

Incel subculture is, by and large, delusional and toxic AF. If the subculture is split from the condition, I expect the article on incel subculture will naturally become more critical - but it will also become a dirty canvas for the insulting mind. I reckon it's just about ripe. -Kauri0.o (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Gonna vote on keeping article as is, with people editing on merits of existing writing, rather than starting from scratch, see four sections above for other proposals[edit]

Also Kauri0 I don't own the article but can you DM on on Discord on willwill25#3138 thx Neiltyson1fan (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I agree with you. GeeJayK (talk) 14:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No-one is suggesting we should start from scratch.Kauri0.o (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
You aren't planning on editing on the merits of the writing, rather some political campaign. How could this article possibly have any more citations or broad focus, or diversity of sources. Miles of talk page comments and not a single citation given by you, or contestation of existing citations, or a good faith attempt to reach out to the original authors. only trying to recruit people to give uninformed, uncited personal opinions . might as well just create the incel movement page now Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
The lede contains very good citations, mess it up with worse citations because you went on incels.co or it's accidental cheerleader, /r/inceltears, a few times and it'll be a worse article Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Only reason teh wikipedia page is the way it is now despite being different is WP:OWN from Gorillawarfare and Jorm, since 2018 (although maybe at this point other peopple picked up their job). Wikipedia article waws MORE sympathetic to incels than this current RW article for every year prior to 2018. News events dont change a generic life condition unforuntately, if you and jorm and gorillawarfare wanna slander incels using blog-tier news pieces in 2018, and indirectly capitulate and give life to the worst incel forums, go do it more at wikipedia. RW isn't Wikipedia, nor is it Incel Wiki, this page is different than both. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Again, please just start an incels.co page before I make one and move all your future writing here to there, don't make this entire page about one forum, without writing about the actual topic on it's own page Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Reason I'm not making an incels.co page despite me thinking it's the solution to the problem, is that then i'll have User:JosephR, the admin and his buddies trolling me all day here, starting more arguments like this one. (and they did purposefully start this argument knowing it would do this). and don't have teh energy for that, but others would be more suitable for this task if people are so hellbent on writing about everything tangential to incels.co Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Also look up Splitting (psychology), not everything is black and white. Not everything stays in the same place all the time. The incel forums were majority feminist for over two decades and became less so after 2013. Things ebb and flow. Right now there's feminist incel forums, non-feminist ones, ones that let on women, ones taht let on trans people, blackpill ones, bluepill ones, no pill ones etc. If you want more examples of diversity in the article I can add them Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Vast vast vast vast vast majority of people use facebook groups and forums nowadays, (not mentioning twitter clans/groups/threads). this concept is like... foreign to every journalist on incels, except for a few, but theres no reason for people to leave facebook incel forums for non-facebook ones unless they want to break facebook's ToS and so of course they willl be more toxic outside facebook Neiltyson1fan (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Who said we needed an incels.co page? Kauri0.o (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course the existing article has its merits. But as it is, the article is about two separate topics, and thus should be split. Kauri0.o (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
It already got split to blackpill and incels.co, with multiple contributors to each already, for the purposes of covering more information, including 52 additional citations of new information, in a missional fashion. Nothing else to cover. Splitting this (long-existing) article further would be for political reasons as you haven't shown an interest in contributing new information, which then ends up taking the form of drama. Additional framing exclusive to incels.co owned or predecessor forums they owned will be moved into their article, wherever it is, because that is what that article is only about, this article cover more with appropriate citations. Making another, likely inferior, article about them would be redundant. But your writing skills are probably good and could be used to contribute to the incels.co article if you think there is more to add about them or other forms they own or used to own. Like, they are just two guys. Neiltyson1fan (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

bump.[edit]

Bumping this trainwreck. I am still adamant that this page must relate only to the online subculture, and not the state of being unable to have sex. As per every quality reference described within talk above and even within the article itself. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to edit, now that a major belligerent in this dispute has since left.-Flandres (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Probably not the best time to bump something, but I agree the article should focus on the subculture. Christopher (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Why is this not the best time to bump? Anyway, as per above- where do we want to put all the information that relates to the state of being unable to have sex? Kauri0.o (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Kill the whitewashing and apologia. Frag it! Kill it with fire! Its blood makes the grass grow! Take no prisoners! --Goatspeed. Watch meCircularREmail2.gifasoningSee what I've been messing around with 21:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Incel /= involuntary celibate.[edit]

And edited the article accordingly. Removed some apologia, more needs to go. As per above, we shall nuke this page! Kauri0.o (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh and moved information to Draft:Involuntary Celibacy as a temporary measure. Please discuss over there where that information should be located.Kauri0.o (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)