Talk:Incel/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 26 July 2022. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

love-shy.com article was basically RW's incel page before 2018, but love-shy.com is not listed in this page anymore[edit]

I'm hoping to get feedback here on people actually interested in this topic, whether it be Kauri0.o or whoever. Love-shy.com was basically the incels.is of it's time during Rammspieler's adminship, in contrast to incelsupport.org. (We're talking about 2004-2009 era incel forums) I know Kauri likes the Wikipedia article, and that actually lists love-shy.com as an incel forum due to it being more toxic than incelsupport.org according to zach Beauchamp of Vox. (or something, i'm trying to get into the logic of people who think that history starts in the present, the way things are now defines the way things were in the past, or what actually occurred in the past). Love-shy.com actually has it's own article on RW that the RW community took very seriously. Since then the forum has changed URLs to love-shy.net.

So I propose either the love-shy.com be AFD'd or for love-shy.com or .net to be included here. Having both an article on love-shy.com and not including it here don't make no sense. Apart from media incorporating the forum and a former documentarian of it named Sarah Gardephe in media reports on incels, it was also an incel forum due to the fact that they advertised it towards self-described incels, and believed that incel was basically an advanced form of love-shyness. So in other words, they welcomed incels as severe love-shys. Also the the love-shy.com FAQ page was one of only a handful of places you could find a definition of incel anywhere on the internet back then. Additionally the founder of the term love-shy used the terms incel and love-shy interchangeably on video.

ALSO I want to make a timeline of incel forums using the software that makes those linux distribution timelines, if anyone wants to help me out let me know, thank you. 2600:8806:0:C2:3D0C:6EDF:60CB:76F (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have time right now, but could you track down when information on love-shy.com was removed? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 02:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Stuff on Gilmartin, Love-shyness, and .com's new domain (.net) were removed here https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Incel&type=revision&diff=2296832&oldid=2293682

Not trying to make this section a referendum on that entire edit, but I do think RW should either afd the love-shy.com page or include at least some reference to it here as having this one not mention RW's pre-2018 effective incel article material don't make no sense 2600:8806:0:C2:70F2:54B3:B0D3:C582 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be better included in the history section of the article. I removed it because that section was whitewashed as fuck, and I don't have the care to learn about some defunct forum just to add it to our article. You're welcome to do it yourself, and I will review your edits. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why GorillaWarfare and Kaurio's "rebranding" narrative falls flat to most readers[edit]

'Incel' is defined in both articles as a subculture started by Alana, who defined and coined incel as involuntary celibacy in 1997. Both articles go on to say the term was hijacked in 2016, and then rebranded to 'involuntary celibacy' in 2018, posing involuntary celibacy as a foreign term. It's hard to point out what's wrong with it as the narrative isn't even intelligible, especially as the distance from the alleged 'hijacking' and rebranding was 3 years out of 25 years, and the 'rebranding' was the original definition'. Better term would be 'reclaiming' or 'partial reclaiming' or something like that. 2600:8806:0:C2:ACE9:A5D9:F47B:107B (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

evidence of the narrative being nonsense includes the wide ridiculing of various people who went on TV after the Jake Davison attack saying 'incel' was 4chan culture, chads/stacies etc. No one bought it, and people on twitter etc mostly just made fun of that narrative for being grifty and weird. General internet subculture != incel, and 4chan culture != incel 2600:8806:0:C2:ACE9:A5D9:F47B:107B (talk) 12:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're trying to say. 'Incel' only became a notable term around 2016; prior to that no-one cared. Attempts at reclaimation have been unsuccessful, and common usage of the term refers to the toxic subculture. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no 'common usage of the term'. No one gives a shit about incels outside "digital """"journalism""""" every 6 months, a few gender blogs, Twitterers, (Twitter is not IRL) a few criminologists and sociologists, and 2-3 "countering violent extremism" NGOs looking for government grant money.

You and Gorilla are saying that incel is a 'subculture', but

subcultures are not organized groups
subcultures cannot be terrorist (that is a legal concept applied to individuals or organized groups)
subcultures have a unique culture, but this does not exist vis-a-vis self-described incel forums as it's all 4chan grift

My main point is that the definition on here and on Wikipedia is not even intelligible, and asking other people to flesh out an unintelligible assertion that 'incel is a subculture', like you did earlier is bad faith, when you yourself made the assertion without quite knowing why you did it. 2600:8806:0:C2:34D2:622A:216B:B998 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

No, "incel" refers to a member of the subculture based around certain ideologies.

1. inceldom is not an organized group.

2. inceldom is not held to terrorism, but individuals can commit terrorism on behalf of its ideology. ideological terrorism.

3. incels do have a unique culture. calling it 4chan grift is a wild assertion. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

When you say "incel has a culture", I'm not sure what you (and others who have adopted GorillaWarfe's framing) are referring to. Instead of telling us what you mean you ask us to define it for you. The internet subculture terminology used in r/incels-derived forums (and many forums outside incel forums) "chad, stacy" etc, almost exclusively was coined and developed on 4chan. If it's the argument that the fusion of 4chan culture and PSL (PUAhate, Sluthate, Looksim) culture constitutes it's own subculture, it would make sense to call it "r/incels culture", as that is where "reputable sources" define the start of that. Additionally, those within and outside "r/incels culture" do not gatekeep who is "incel" based on adherence to any "culture". After being around self-described incels for almost 7+ years I"ve never seen someone accuse someone of not being "incel" due to not being 'blackpilled' or not posturing in a specific subcultural way. Those who gatekeep a bunch, gatekeep 'blackpill' and being 'blackpilled'. There may be is a valid argument that a large portion of today's self-described incels, by their exclusion of women, gatekeep the world incel beyond a strict definition of the term 'incel'. But there are also modern self-descrbied incels who recognize female involuntary celibacy, or are women themselves. 2600:8806:0:C2:F858:F514:2C26:10F7 (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You seem to think all members of a certain subculture must necessarily hold the same ideology. Rather, they can hold a range of ideologies. In the case of incels, blackpill is not only the most commonly-held ideology, but also the most dangerous, irrational and consequential. Thus it is reasonable to focus on it in the article. We can also discuss redpill/purplepille/bluepill/whatever other incel ideologies there are. But it will not be given undue weight.

I can call myself a Christian, but if I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, am I really a Christian? It is worth noting there is debate amongst researchers as to whether adoption of the blackpill ideology forms a central part of the incel identity. It is not my place to assert the answer, and [EDIT] I would be happy to describe the range of ideologies, and make note of the debate.Kauri0.o (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Page split proposal[edit]

This page would be best split to blackpill, ~~incels.is~~ incels.co (no reason to advertise their current domain), Incel Movement and Involuntary celibacy, with love-shy.com deleted. even though I don't think an incel movement exists, sources do, and this page further tries to give the impression one exists after Kaurio took ownershp. 2600:8806:0:C2:ACE9:A5D9:F47B:107B (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

No. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a reason for this or is this just more reflexive dislike on a page that primarily grifts someone else's writing and without good faith or detailed discussion with that writer 2600:8806:0:C2:34D2:622A:216B:B998 (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

One big commonality between incel erasers and incel extremists, is that they love to grift other people's shit. 2600:8806:0:C2:34D2:622A:216B:B998 (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not in any way restricting you from writing about these subjects. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Ideology[edit]

In my opinion discussion of incel ideology would be the best way to improve this article. Their actions are what make them most notable, which stems from their ideology. I will work on this but I don't contribute much so it'll be very slow progress. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Focussing on things like history and websites, while useful information, is not really focussing on the crux of what makes them notable. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of the issue with this page is the lede makes the topic unworkable from a logical perspective, either pro or for or neutral toward incels. Both WP and here say

"incels are part of a subculture who define themselves as...", ok but what's the subculture? Why not just do an article on what that is if they are allegedly enveloped by it and it's defined as larger than them.

In my opinion the subculture WP meant was 4chan culture and want to tie 4chan culture into something they can try to broaden the scope of legally defined terrorism onto.

Pushing an alleged subculture as legally defined terrorism? Welcome to 2022. Maybe individual forums could be, but subcultures? Back in 2004 people opposed to the authoritarians and right-wingers of the world actually cared about the definition of 'terrorism' not including arbitrary 'cultures' 'religions' or 'ideologies'. Wikipedians and digital journos made it about 4chan culture in 2018 because they hate 4chan culture that much, (wouldn't it just die out on it's own from stale memes?) Minassian was lying about being motivated by incels for notoriety as the judge established, so almost all the commentary on how there's some ideology that motivated him beyond narcissism was mostly moot from the experts in that trial at least. Narcissism is extremely common among people who are mass violent in general.

But if that lede was changed to 'incels are people who use forums for people who self-describe as incels', not something I agree with, but more workeable, the culture would be PSL + 4chan culture imo. And the philosophy for most, but not all, self-described incel forums is blackpill, as you know.

Could be a whole separate page on blackpill, as there are even standalone forums geared toward 'blackpillers' that allow non-incels 2600:8806:0:C2:6CD0:58EA:497:448B (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, that's what I was getting at with pushing for expansion on ideology, ie the beliefs of their subculture. This article, or the existing definition for blackpill are suitable places to expand on blackpill ideology until it gets big enough to deserve its own page. Kauri0.o (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, have you not heard the term "ideological terrorism"? Kauri0.o (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of people put various terms in front of the word terrorism to expand the scope of the counterterror and defense sectors. Obviously they can do it if they want. If you recall there've been many editorials, lawsuits etc. about the value of assigning terrorist labels or extrajudicial state surveillance on ideas/cultures/ideologies rather than very explicitly defined groups. The argument back in the heydey of the opposition to the War on Terror was that making terrorism something other than individuals directly associated with specific attacks on the state, was a misuse of government, given it could be applied to virtually anyone the government doesn't like, to be held without trial by the government, including environmentalists, animal rights activists, male supremacists whoever.

It seems the issue some feminists (rightly) have and want to stop are forums which 24/7 argue for the death of women. I don't think they've done anything but corner such people into places where they can't be monitored. And the only thing to have toned that gross stuff was the NYTimes expose on the .is founders, where they left and the new admins were scared and instituted more broad sanctions on users who are violent or pedophilic. Although their were negative externalities to what NYTimes did as well.

Countries other than the USA have made violent misogynist speech illegal, but not under terrorism laws unless it was a specific individual involved in a specific IRL hate crime. But in the USA, both the idea of making sexist speech illegal or expanding the scope of terrorism prosecutions to include situations involving only non-specific violent sexist speech is simply not happening. The Department of Homeland Security even made that clear in their last report on people it haphazardly labeled 'incels', as it's an obvious point. Such laws would apply to "kill all men" tweeters, and it won't pass any court without prior overturning of multiple supreme court decisions, and even rewriting the US constitution.

The SanctionedSuicide angle and the fact that that forum had 500+ reported estimated deaths however does open up the option for legally using state level suicide encouragement laws against .is if it meets the requirement for a RICO charge, or if not, standalone investigations into individual users on the sites who may have been encouraging suicide illegally. That's was or maybe still is a smart angle to (legally) bring a stop to the worst forums in the minds of a few people who've thought about this, and your WP:Incel/Talk comments seem to confirm you agree somewhat.

This article, or the existing definition for blackpill are suitable places to expand on blackpill ideology until it gets big enough to deserve its own page —

There was a blackpill article on here contributed to by RW veterans that got deleted during a spat involving a former RW moderator. Regardless of whether or not that was a good article, one can find 57 citations for a blackpill critical page to use for RW here https://en.incelwiki.org/Blackpill 2600:8806:0:C2:ACE9:A5D9:F47B:107B (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I did not suggest we should call incels terrorists, so I'm not sure why you're getting your knickers in a twist. Though clearly there's a debate to be had, and I personally don't care to have it.

I reiterate that you can expand on Blackpill either here, or on the blackpill definition. You could create an article too if you'd like, but do not get offended if it gets merged.

Of the 57 "citations" you reference, nearly half of them are links to incels.co, and only a handful of them appear to be from reliable sources. I don't care to check that those RS actually support what their article says, but if you use them on RW, I will. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a common tendency to take a general term and redefine it as referring to a subset of its original domain of definition. I think there is a lot of confusion between "incel" as a social condition, that is a person unable to obtain a mate or sexual partner, and a person who derives from their situation a view of the world or ideology (Frankfort school definition); an ideology that they may well continue to hold even after acquiring a partner. Perhaps we should coin a term for the latter, say "incelists?" It is impractical as well as censorious to associate an incel with immoral behavior in light of the former definition. Ariel31459 (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that "incel" does not refer to the social condition, full stop. Not everyone who is involuntarily celibate is an incel. Incels are those who call themselves one. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

"reputable sources" do not hold a consistent definition of incel[edit]

Reputable source cannot agree on the definition. I can make a spreadsheet of the different definitions contained in Google Scholar and google books. But from memory, sources cannot agree if it's:

a subculture
a social movement
a "culture-bound" organic manifestation of mainstream societal biases and bigotries
a life circumstance
involuntary celibacy (without a value judgement on if it is a real life circumstance or not)
those who are in a life circumstance of involuntary sexual abstinence but are also misogynistic
those who are in a life circumstance of involuntary sexual abstinence but are but are also a member of an online subculure
a dual-gender subculture with entitled and hateful men and women
an only male subculture defined by misogyny
a disability
a stigma or generic insult
a group
a political movement
a collection of forums
a member of a collection of forums
anyone who self-identifies 2600:8806:0:C2:34D2:622A:216B:B998 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the definition supposed to be then? Kauri0.o (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably some of these concepts could be combined for convenience ('a group', 'social movement' and 'political movement'; 'a collection of forums and the memberships thereof'); possibly different aspects are more evident when specific aspects/collaborations/discussions are being considered. Anna Livia (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps consider the using of the term "incelist" in the article.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll add another definition (albeit a lone one), this academic article posits incels as a sexual strategy XD https://psyarxiv.com/pve8u/download/?format=pdf 2600:8806:0:C2:C5BC:4BA6:E4F2:EA7E (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

RE: Anna Livia I think any concrete definition one chooses (beyond "is or believes they are sexless against choice/will") would start to disqualify many people the media (and even this article) labels incels. Eg even the current RW definition would not apply to eg Sodini and other listed, as they were not apart of the r/incels or 4chan subculture. I think that the way media uses the term is nonsensical but can accurately be described as a generic insult, to be applied however the writer so chooses. 2600:8806:0:C2:C5BC:4BA6:E4F2:EA7E (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

But regardless, it matters (for any encyclopedia) whether 'incel' is a movement, subculture, or something different. Something only for those who self-identify, or something that can be applied to those who do not self-identify. And if it's decided to be a subculture, to identify how it's distinct from generic r/incels culture. 2600:8806:0:C2:C5BC:4BA6:E4F2:EA7E (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Incels are members of a subculture, they must self-identify, and r/incels was an influence on its current culture. Getting sick of you JAQing off. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Are two Xenforo forums with less than 50k Alexa ranking enough to call it a subculture which is retroactively applied to the (longer) history of incel forums before r/incels, as well as any other websites or people outside those two Xenforo forums who decide to call itself incel? Your definition is essentially giving the to Xenforo admins: Vcelguy and Lamarcus Small a monopoly on what constitutes a word given all the other active, publicly-facing self-described incel forums are, in 2022, dead and gone. And for what reason? Because they give you the most negative portrayal for the word. I would suggest it's a toxic framing, disconnected from how most use the term, that, if it spreads more in academia and mainstream culture, will ultimately be harmful to both incel erasers and incels. 2600:8806:0:C2:70D5:2E12:9A5:6E45 (talk) 09:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a tendency among Reddit users on Wikipedia and RationalWiki to give disproportionate weight to things that have a Reddit or Reddit-derived equivalent. The thrust of this page lede and Wikipedia's entire page starts and ends with r/incels derived forums, and everything else is an aside. Had I not gotten involved in the recent Work refusal article here, the same would have happened there. Some Reddit-derived forum making news doesn't negate or supercede what goes on before or outside Reddit-based cultures and communities. Nor does something which claims or appears to be a movement or representing a culture on Reddit or Reddit-derived places, make those things outside Reddit-derived places apart of the same 'movement' or 'culture'. 2600:8806:0:C2:70D5:2E12:9A5:6E45 (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We don't do OR; we follow what RS say. RS consistently focus on incels -shall we say, post 4-chan/Reddit influence. Those trying to reclaim the word today to mean anything else are wasting their time. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at RW's mission statement? One of the tenents is challenging media coverage. When media "RS" is being ridiculous, RW should point it out. 2600:8806:0:C2:7D3C:7CC2:E5EF:A0A1 (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, as far as the literal definition, there's nothing to reclaim, as the 2022 incels, and even the internet at large uses the same definition the "original self-described incels" did. The major thing that changed was some morons in media decided to weigh in after the forums got more toxic. The only thing to reclaim is media perception or lack thereof. Media, Wikipedia, and (some) academia operate on their own mostly unique definition(s) of 'subculture', 'movement', 'mindset', 'strategy' etc. Those definitions (which makes no logical sense, given it's separated from how the term is used by those they are writing about) is notable for like a section in the article maybe.2600:8806:0:C2:7D3C:7CC2:E5EF:A0A1 (talk) 11:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Megan Twohey incel definition (which now is also apparently the MoonshotCVE definition) is somewhat better than yours though, as it was "people online/offline who believe that they are involuntarily celibate, some who subscribe to this belief system" rather than "online subculture of people who believe that they are involuntarily celibate, who also subscribe to this belief system" 2600:8806:0:C2:7D3C:7CC2:E5EF:A0A1 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

You still haven't stated what your definition is, so I don't really know what "literal definition" you're talking about. I hope you are not trying to say we should define incel as "anyone involuntarily celibate".

It doesn't take long on Google Scholar to see that majority of academic papers written in the last three years describe incels as being part of a subculture. And RS in media is similarly generally consistent. We are here to challenge media coverage - but we are not here to challenge RS. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I am here to challenge media when it is wrong, I don't know who 'we' is here. Challenging media is one of the purposes of RW. As far as academic studies, I'll do the work and show the last few definitions, in order of publication date on Google Scholar (the 6 most recent articles)

Riccardi, J. (2022). Frankenstein’s Monster is an Incel. The Rock Creek Review, 45.

Definition, "community" whose members have become toxic masculine. A "concept" that women exist for purpose of men 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the full article. This is a paper about English Literature. A fucking comparison to Frankenstein. Not relevant. No further investigation required. Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Canby, M. (2022). Dangers of the Incel Movement.

Defines as a "movement" 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a piece of art. Not relevant. No further investigation required. Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Sparks, B., Zidenberg, A. M., Olver, M. E., & Sparks, B. Involuntary Celibacy A Review of Incel Ideology and Experiences with Dating, Rejection, and Associated Mental Health and Emotional Sequelae.

Definition 'Incel' is those who are involuntarily celibate. 'Incels' have high levels of romantic rejection and a greater degree of depressive and anxious symptoms, insecure attachment, fear of being single, and loneliness. 'Achieved recognition in popular society' through violence 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

You misinterpret the definition. You quote their findings, not their definition - and their findings hardly support your previous points.

The closest thing they give to an actual 'definition' is “"involuntary celibates” refers to a loose collection of individuals who are experiencing sexlessness despite their desire to be active." It later states "One of the fundamental tenets of incel ideology is the belief that society is organized along a looks-based hierarchy that dictates much of social (and sexual) relations." A "loose collection" is not mutually exclusive to a subculture, so this does not exactly contradict us.Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Anderson, L., & Laughren, F. (2022). The right to sex feminism in the twenty-first century by Amia Srinivasan, New York, Farrar Strauss & Giroux, 2021, 304 pp., AUD $38 (hardback), ISBN 978 0 37424 852 9.

A world alone Masculinities, humiliation and aggrieved entitlement on an incel forum Definition

incels is a "movement", "incels movement" (note odd use of plural) 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't access the full article. This is a book review, and the only "research" the two authors have ever done. Likely not relevant. No further investigation required. Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Vallerga, M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2022). Hegemonic masculinities in the ‘Manosphere’ A thematic analysis of beliefs about men and women on The Red Pill and Incel. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy.

Definition: A manosphere concept of being involuntarily celibate

I can only access the abstract. Looks like a quality article.Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Grau Chopite, J. (2022). Framing of Inceldom on incels. is A content analysis (Master's thesis, PsychArchives).

Unable to access article 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I was able to access this. "The “Manosphere” can be defined as a group of online communities and websites that explore men issues and desires, alleged discrimination against men, and hostility against women or feminism"..."Within the Manosphere, the so-called “Incel” community is the most extreme one." Sounds like a sub-group to me. Which, again, is not mutually exclusive to a subculture.

Further supporting my point that the idea of a "group", "community", etc is not contradictory to "subculture", in comparison to incels, the author states "...members of similar but milder subcultures...", and in discussion of incels, repeats "subculture" five other times.Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Barcellona, M. (2022). Incel violence as a new terrorism threat A brief investigation between Alt-Right and Manosphere dimensions. Sortuz

Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies, 11(2), 170-186.: Definition: "virulent manosphere community of Involuntary Celibates [capitalized]" 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Further supporting my point that the idea of a "group", "community", etc is not contradictory to "subculture", the author also uses the term "Incel subculture".Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

2 define as movement, 2 define as community, 1 define as 'manosphere concept of being literally involuntarily celibate', 1 define as 'literally involuntarily celibate', 0 define as 'subculture of people'. And again this is the most recent 6, I can do more out of curiosity, but this confirms what I remember about the subculture definition being a minor one, mostly only notable on Wikipedia places or places that likely cribbed from there. As far as I can remember the WP article chose 'subculture' because of an assistant professor of subcultures at Toronto U being among the first to comment on the Minassian Van Attack. Her words were subsequently used on a few of the early pieces, which WP grasped onto on their rewrite, but it is not the most common, or even a particularly common academic definition (when you take the studies in sum). 2600:8806:0:C2:59E8:A15F:F98C:1E15 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Your summary surprised me, so I've looked at each of the papers in detail. Most of the papers did not give a hard definition, so some interpretation is required. I have added a comment beneath each paper, as I have rather different interpretations compared to you. (Sorry for editing your comment, I know it's bad practice but I couldn't figure a better way to do it.)

Some terms are not mutually exclusive. A member of a community can also be a member of a group or a subgroup or a collection or a subculture. This idea is reinforced by the author's interchanging of terms, depending on the context of their discussion.

A subculture may be defined as "an identifiable subgroup within a society or group of people, esp. one characterized by beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger group; the distinctive ideas, practices, or way of life of such a subgroup." So, we are looking for something that defines incels as members of a group" - or something to that effect - that falls within the Manosphere group.

The term "subculture" is useful because it does well to allude to the wider context of incels belonging to the Manosphere. There could be an argument that we should use the term "group" or "community", but you are clearly not arguing for this.

I really can not be fucked to further explain how the English language works, and I am sick of you JAQing off.

I have not bothered to pull up the plethora of papers that do specifically state incels as "members of a subculture" or something to that effect. I will do that in the future. Kauri0.o (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

My argument was about your original premise that the most academics use the term to mean a subculture, which I think is demonstrably false. There's now hundreds of academic articles which use the term incel and dozens which provide their own definition. As the term was not previously widespread in academia, academics tend to define the term before they use it. If it's your position that most people use it to mean 'subculture' in academia, simply linking articles where it is used in that way would not prove your point. If you want to make an argument that it's the most prominent way that academics use the term, and that my method of pulling the most recent papers is flawed, perhaps it would make sense to summarize the most cited/highest-impact papers instead. However, if all you'll do is cherry pick, there is no point. I acknowledge that some academics use the subculture definition, but my argument is that it is not even a majority of academic papers that use it in this way, and my summarizing was an attempt to show that. And to show that 'subculture' is also, in particular, not a recent way to describe the term 'incel' (note the Wikipedia article using the 'subculture' definition was written way before most academic articles referencing incels, were written.) As far as articles not counting, because they are commenting on art or are apart of a review of something, I don't know what to say. The discussion is about how academics use the term in general. 2600:8806:0:C2:D469:59C5:8297:6A5E (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Correct. Further supporting my point that the idea of a "group", "community", etc is not contradictory to "subculture", the author also uses the term "Incel subculture". —Kaurio

I missed that article using the word subculture, thank you for pointing that out. So 1/6 of the most recent academic articles mentions that self-described incels have a subculture. That is not the same as saying that "most academics define incel as a subculture". In fact, almost all of the most recent academic articles referencing incels define/describe 'incel' as a movement or community. (although I disagree with their assessment) When possible I try to look for terms such as "incel is a", or "incels are" etc...

If most articles attempting a definition of incels do not define it as a subculture that would contradict the statement 'most academics define incel as a subculture'. If most academic articles do not even use 'incel' as a way to reference a subculture, that would also contradict the statement 'most academics refer to incel as a subculture'.

And I argue it is the case that most recent academic literature on incels does not refer to incel as a subculture or define incel as a subculture, and that I've demonstrated as far as recent articles, by citing and quoting the definitions in the most recent 6 articles which include definitions. You've responded pointing out that 1/6 of the most recent published articles makes a passing reference to 'incel subculture', and I'd argue my point still stands. To make a comparison, 'NEET' is not a subculture, but a demographic, and it is not unusually used to refer to a subculture. However NEET forums have their own subculture (you know... 4chan grift) and people have used the term "NEET culture" a lot. That doesn't mean "NEET" is a culture lol, but rather NEET forums have a subculture, which some refer to as "NEET culture".2600:8806:0:C2:D469:59C5:8297:6A5E (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here's how I think the lede would be written if it were based off recent post-2018 academic literature, in a way that prioritizes post-2018 media and academia over common or self-described incel usage (which is what it seems you would like) (and yet another disclaimer that I disagree with a how most media and academics frame the term, which is in contrast to how many or even most social media users use it)

incel, as defined by post-2018 media and academia, is a manosphere identity reserved for men who have issues establishing romantic or sexual relationships. In academia as of early 2022, 'incel' mostly refers to online communities of self-described incels and a movement as defined by academics researching incels. Some academics and media outlets reference 'incels' as containing a subculture or being a subculture. This is in contrast to how self-described incels and other social media users in general use the term, who define incel as the life circumstance of being 'involuntarily sexually abstinent', regardless of how the person self-identifies. For example, by excluding those deemed non-celibate or "voluntarily celibate". A popular social media usage of 'incel' is as a general basket of "sexist male things I don't like", including as an insult for "misogynistic man", "sexually controlling man", "sexually entitled man", and/or "sexually bigoted man". Between 1997-2014, academics used self-described incel forums to study what they decribed as self-identification of experiencing a real life circumstance of involuntary sexual abstinence, and sometimes also referred to the condition of those on the forums as occurring regardless of identity. A small amount of recent academics refer to 'incel' as being a sexual strategy or literal involuntary sexual abstinence spurred by social inequality in local mating ecology —

2600:8806:0:C2:3444:21D4:DDEA:89AE (talk) 13:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

what is the purpose of this insane pendantry? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You know that you could remove over half the people in that list you just edited if your requirement is the same as Kaurio's ie to self-identify. 2600:8806:0:C2:55D7:A21E:193F:4320 (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

no i don t know that. i am only aware of the facts concerning the chap i removed. as far as i can tell, most of the others had some kind of manifesto, or at the very least had been posting threats of violence prior to making good on their threats. and my removal of this one person is unrelated to all this tedious pedantry over definitions of 'incel' especially considering how loose a term like 'subculture' is, which is is even looser when 'online' is prefixes it. as far as i can see there is a fair bit of consensus broadly defining incels as a disparate group of males coming together via the magic of the internet and forming a misogynistic and extremist ideology and/or subculture around the difficulty they have in finding sexual partners. too specific a definition will not catch all significant usage or its manifestations of incel, so we must go broadly with the most salient features. there is room for a fair bit of variance within that broad descriptor when you get down to details, which is where any article worth its salt would discuss it. not worth discussing is inane nonsense qvetching about the subculture vs community vs movement vs any other terms you can think that are not mutually exclusive, nor is any definition that does does not have misogyny and violent extremism at its core. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

so in other words your definition is

male
misogynistic
online
forms ideology or subculture

This is contrary to the wikipedia definition which allows female incels, and also to Kaurio's which requires self-identification. If it's your stance the term has many different usages that 'subculture' encompasses all of, that would be false as that doesn't include the definitions that do not specify a subculture and explicitly refer to it as any degree of plain culture-less involuntary sexual abstinence. For example, every single definition of incel on the dozens of incel communities before and after r/incels. Or that of Gilmartin, Blake, Donnelly, Carpenter etc There should be a much longer section in the article on different usages if the by those the term was invented by and is for will continually erased in the lede and not respected. 2600:8806:0:C2:6115:3FD8:416B:278C (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You know, Marjan (of r/incels) and Lamarcus (of .is) didn't steal 'incel' from Alana. They might be grifting to the extent they try to feign 4chan culture as an 'incel culture', but they still use the same basic definition, just applied differently in forum moderation. You all are trying to steal the entire definition from those who invented the term. Ask Bella Freeman on Quora if incel is a subculture and she'll probably say media and you don't get to define a term her community came up with, like she's said just a month or so ago. If you and glorified bloggers "digital journalism" want your own term, perhaps consider RW user Livia's suggestion of coming up with a different term. 2600:8806:0:C2:6115:3FD8:416B:278C (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

actual quote of the 1stg couple of lines from from wikipedia 'An incel (/ˈɪnsɛl/ IN-sel, an abbreviation of "involuntary celibate"[1]) is a member of an online subculture of people who define themselves as unable to get a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. Discussions in incel forums are often characterized by resentment and hatred, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people.'

this followed directly by quote from the splc 'The American Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) described the subculture as "part of the online male supremacist ecosystem" that is included in their list of hate groups.[17][18] Incels are mostly male and heterosexual,[12][14][19] and are often white.[20][21][22][23][24] Estimates of the overall size of the subculture vary greatly, ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands of individuals.[25][26]'

what exactly is your point here? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

i have no interest in what you think 'incel' maybe was but that it is what it means now whether you like or not. anyone still clinging to a label of incel as something other than what it is today, free from resent and hatred, it would be better coming up with new self descriptor because misogynistic murderers own it now. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thankyou AMG. This article will NOT imply that any virgin who wants to get laid is an incel. What makes someone an incel is their participation or beliefs relating to the incel community/subculture/movement/group/collection - and most, if not all recent academic research makes this abundantly clear. Our article already states how incels try to define themselves. They are not the first group to try and define themselves in a way that is out of line with reality.

"I disagree with a how most media and academics frame the term, which is in contrast to how many or even most social media users use it." Yeah, probably because all your social media use constitutes incel forums. Why the fuck did you pull up 8 papers if you're just going to disagree with all of them?

Fuck off with your incel apologia. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Update on incels.is news[edit]

Uruguay opened up a criminal investigation on one of the incels.is founders (Diego) according to WBUR https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2022/01/18/suicide-websites-caution, and the other founder claims to have returned to the site https://archive.ph/Fv9va 2600:8806:0:C2:C5BC:4BA6:E4F2:EA7E (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Jake Davidson[edit]

Hi AMG, I reverted your edit regarding Jake Davidson. Can you please provide clarification as to why it was removed. I did a bit of quick reading and it seems to me this guy was heavily involved in the incelosphere. The existing Daily Beast source clearly backs this up. Other ones that we could potentially also include make this link very evident, for example, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/14/plymouth-gunman-ranted-online-that-women-are-arrogant-days-before-rampage which also states "Davison was immediately hailed as a hero by incels". I think Davidson's case is a very relevant example of Incel Violence. Kauri0.o (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

i say all i intend to say on the matter here AMassiveGay (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, I am in agreement. I have reinstated your changes. Having said that, I think it would not be unreasonable to keep the section, elaborate better that there is no clear motive, but that Davidson was praised by incels for it nonetheless. Kauri0.o (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Reinstated as per reframing of section description. Kauri0.o (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)