Florida Yoga Studio Shooter Identified As InCel

[Senkaku]

Incidentally, feminist and many (but not all) womens reaction to the MRM is often used as the main talking point for the other three as to why it is pointless to bother with women.

Women are in fact an unsolvable problem if they refuse to change, refuse to admit they have a problem, and refuse to take on board the points the MRM has made, which broadly speaking, they do. So long as they have internalized feminist ideology in spite of all the evidence for the harm it is causing and so on, and so long as they refuse to honestly engage with criticism of it, they are an unsolvable problem.

The view that pushback to the MRM is solely do to feminist intractability in the face of perfectly legitimate points, rather than a reaction to unnecessary and at times shocking and misogynistic attacks not on feminism and modern society's impact on men but on women's rights themselves, is self-serving and self-deceptive and prevents you from genuinely understanding your opposition. You want to explain all the hateful little gradations of MGTOWs and InCels to us, but you're uninterested in the reverse happening or understanding your "opponents"' argument in this debate, because you've already decided what those arguments are and that they're nothing more than malicious attacks or blindly defensive reactions.

Men cannot force women to be honest and fair actors. Hence why some men go MGTOW, it is reclaiming agency in this dynamic instead of waiting for women to stop being gynocentric chauvinists and listen to reason.

Do you really not understand why some people think you're a misogynist when you describe all women as dishonest and unfair actors who are "gynocentric chauvinists" incapable of listening to reason?

Often, reaction to the MRM is used by the more virulent strains to argue for womens biological incapability of being fair actors (Either that they are biologically malevolent and deliberately disingenous/gaslighting over MRM talking points, or have a biological blindspot that makes them incapable of noticing their own flaws and impulsive in projecting them onto men). This is the stuff that fuels TRP and extremist Incel ideologies, expressed as "Feminism is nothing more than the organized expression of womens nature.", which when viewed through an anti-feminist lens, is pretty damning.

I mean, the fact that you view the hateful extremism of the "virulent strains" and their promotion of the suppression of women's rights and ideas about women's biological inferiority or malevolence not as incredibly problematic for the entire movement and an internal cancer to be suppressed but as "pretty damning" arguments should be a sign that you've lost sight of your professed aims.

Ultimately it's an open question that is up to women to resolve. ARE you capable of more than this, or is this really the best you can do, outliers excepted?

Can't tell if you're addressing me or the Everywoman, but figured I'd clarify I'm a dude.

Personally I tend MRA, but would want to study the matter. Firstly you genetically test MRA women to see if there's a similarity and so on, measure empathy levels in them to see if they are outliers (high empathy), and so on.

Then measure whether low-empathy women can have their level of empathy altered by exposure to MRM talking points. (If so, this goes against the biological narrative).
Then measure whether high-empathy women are more receptive to MRM talking points and more likely to join the MRM. (If so, this validates a lot of MRM ideology imo.)

Biological and genetic testing to determine someone's ideological receptivity where low levels indicate some inherent inferiority according to said ideology is reeks of borderline eugenics and is just a big ethical no-no.

Two questions need to be resolved;

Can womens levels of empathy for men be altered, and is the level at which empathy is sufficient to stop being chauvinists a level which can be attained the majority of the time?

And so on. I'd want to study it specifically to put an end to this question.

I'm sure somewhere there are radical feminists asking the same thing about men. It seems like the worst idea I've ever heard.

Womens chauvinism, in-group bias, and misandry, and so on being biological is something TRP and some Incels use to argue women having agency is an inherent negative for society. Like if there was a race of people who for genetic reasons were literally incapable of not being racists. You wouldn't want them being cops. You wouldn't want them being teachers. You wouldn't want them to have a vote. Etc.

The fact that you view these arguments as convincing enough to be worthy of mass human experimentation to find out if in fact half the population are inferior beings after all might be a reason why some people would accuse you of being motivated by misogyny rather than advancing men's rights.

Imagine if someone were making this argument about whatever race you are- really, we just need to test all of you to see if you can ever overcome your ingrained bias against everyone else, and if we decide you can't, then clearly you having rights was a mistake! You would probably call them a racist and any ethics board would probably reject such a campaign of testing for its ideological content and moral proximity to eugenics.

[Ostroeuropa]

(quoted before your edit, I'll update appropriately later)

Explaining these people is not apologizing for them. Understanding how and what they think is important.

I think you (and especially Costa) veer from explanation into apology more often than you'd like to think, though I know that such a suggestion pisses both of you off. But people keep saying it to both of you for a reason, and it's not just because we're all so incredibly triggered by anything that isn't ultra-woke post-gender twelfth-wave feminism that we're blinded with rage and immediately want to attack you.

MGTOWs don't retreat into themselves. They often associate with other men

Fine, into their gender, whatever- you got the point.

and live fairly fulfilling lives.

I don't think a person who automatically decides to cut half of the human race out of their life is probably a very happy or fulfilled person.

A sociologically inclined MGTOW might retort that it is not their job to fix women

"fix women" fucking lmao

and they aren't owed their effort, if someone concludes they don't want to associate with racists, that isn't necessarily viewing them as an unsolvable problem, its deciding that they have better things to do personally and don't want to devote their life to it.

Do you just not see the problem in equating not associating with women and not associating with racists? One is an innate identity, the other is a shitty belief system.

Or you just don't care, or you really do think all women [insert whatever terrible blanket generalizations].

Women have large amounts of prejudice and bias which is empirically measurable, hence the comparison.

I'm just going to hazard two little things- that generalizing three and a half billion people is rarely productive, and also that saying any such large population "have prejudice and biases that are measurable" isn't really remarkable or an argument. Of course- any large identity group may have some statistical correlation to certain biases or what have you, whether it be blacks or Americans or gays or women. Depicting that in terms of a collective moral failing is wrong, and depicting it as a remarkable statistical anomaly is just silly.

I agree with you that deciding not to associate isn't productive, that's why i'm an MRA, but I don't begrudge MGTOWs.

I mean, if you're actually committed to your ideology, then you should- if you genuinely believe it's not productive and not helpful, one would think you'd castigate them.

Where women have overly positive and sanitized views of themselves as a group (The norm), yes, they need to be torn down from angelic to human.

Sure, but your general stance and that of many other MRA types on this forum is generally not only to do that, but to invalidate all women's struggles and issues, claim that those advocating for them are wrong (both morally and from a perspective of policy) and often malicious, and to spend most of your time attacking the various strawmen you collectively identify as "feminism" rather than actually drawing attention to men's issues. You don't just tear down "overly positive and sanitized views", you launch full-scale rhetorical bombardments on almost every front of women's rights in a way that makes it seem more like you have an axe to grind with women than like you have a deep commitment to aiding men's issues. And your response, when this is brought up, is just that we're all too deep in our feminist programming to take any form of criticism or accept that men face any problems in society, rather than to critically analyze what you've been doing.

It's disappointing, because at the end of the day it reinforces the idea that the causes of women's rights and men's rights are fundamentally in conflict, which is an absurd and unnecessary framework to view things through.

1. Maybe if people understood what they were talking about we wouldn't need to correct them so frequently. Have you asked either of us what's wrong with Incels in our view?

2. It's not retreating.

Men cannot force women to be honest and fair actors. Hence why some men go MGTOW, it is reclaiming agency in this dynamic instead of waiting for women to stop being gynocentric chauvinists and listen to reason.

3. Why not?

4. Yes. On the whole, their perspective is dysfunctional and causing harm to themselves and others, and they most often have a delusional view of reality. (see the women are wonderful studies, studies on womens in group bias, and so on.). You're uncomfortable with that kind of terminology because of feminist influence on our society and its repeated demands that we reject any view of women that notes things which go against fundamental feminist beliefs. It is possible for women to be worse than men on an issue, or indeed many issues. It is possible for women to be delusional. I wouldn't bat an eye at someone talking about fixing another demographic in regards to their toxic beliefs.

5. The extremely overwhelming majority of women are chauvinists and we live in a society that celebrates female chauvinism as a result of feminism. Women who aren't are an outlier. It is perfectly fair to compare women and racists when it comes to a decision not to associate with them for your own safety and wellbeing. 99% of the time if someone is pointing a gun at you, its gonna loaded.

6. Men do not have similar in group biases according to the same studies and in fact are slightly biased in womens favor, so your assertion falls flat on its face. It is a collective moral failure on the part of women to confront this despite the evidence of it and the harm it causes others, and instead cling to their unrealistic and self-serving view of the world articulated in the feminist movement and its discourse, it is a collective failing on the same scale as those who would rather believe in biological racism and so on, it is merely sociological sexism. The hostility to this observation stems in part from feminist discourse and its impact on our society, people are quite literally completely unwilling to even consider the notion that the majority of women could be something immoral which men aren't doing, as though such a thing were impossible.

7. I do often tell them they could be doing more. But I myself have had moments of feeling like it was pointless. Usually i review testimony by women MRAs to get over that.

8. We don't invalidate them, we point out factual errors and flaws in their reasoning. There's several womens issues i'm fully supportive of because they aren't based in feminist dysfunctions, mostly by coincidence. Broken clocks and all that. We do actually draw attention to mens issues, but also in to the ways feminism fails to fix them. You are not a mens advocate, you haven't seen how the major blocks to fixing mens issues are most often feminists and their dogmatisms. It's like you're arguing "You should draw attention to black peoples problems instead of attacking meritocracy so much."
Mens rights and womens rights aren't in conflict with eachother, but both are in conflict with feminism.

[Ostroeuropa]

The view that pushback to the MRM is solely do to feminist intractability in the face of perfectly legitimate points, rather than a reaction to unnecessary and at times shocking and misogynistic attacks not on feminism and modern society's impact on men but on women's rights themselves, is self-serving and self-deceptive and prevents you from genuinely understanding your opposition.

Show any factual example of this thing you are claiming from MRAs.

You want to explain all the hateful little gradations of MGTOWs and InCels to us, but you're uninterested in the reverse happening or understanding your "opponents"' argument in this debate, because you've already decided what those arguments are and that they're nothing more than malicious attacks or blindly defensive reactions.

I'm waiting for a coherent argument or a good point to be made that I can't rebut.

Do you really not understand why some people think you're a misogynist when you describe all women as dishonest and unfair actors who are "gynocentric chauvinists" incapable of listening to reason?

The overwhelming majority of women are chauvinists and its backed up by empirical data. The treatment of those who criticize it is dishonest and unfair and this can be demonstrated to be the case. They are capable of listening to reason, hence the MRM and my membership of it. As I pointed out, your kneejerk rejection of these concepts on the basis they are misogynist is the problem, and that is the feminist indoctrination we need to challenge. Women need to do better. They need to actually try, rather than reject the notion out of hand as misogyny. That is what we are saying. It's not suprising either.
Men have a hundred years of discourse on how not to be sexist to women, and women have a hundred years of discourse rationalizing their chauvinism to themselves, projecting it onto men, and asserting the feminist framework. That is what feminism did. The same problems feminism had with exclusion of gays, and minority women, and the refusal to integrate their perspectives and experiences and instead assert that upper class white women had a full understanding of the situation and their demands would fix things, and the injustices that caused, but for men and more pronounced due to the underpinnings of the framework.

We have men fit for the 21st century and women fit for the 20th as a consequence. And the stats back it up when you bother analyzing men and women and how they think in terms of bias, chauvinism, and prejudice.

If you consider that outright impossible or refuse to entertain it as a possibility, then you should explain why. Because to us, it looks like that's basically the problem in the first place. The feminist hostility to noting womens flaws and ways men do better than them and saying such a thing is sexist, even if you believe such things are sociological and can change.

If you reject that notion, please explain why men do not have an ingroup bias and women have a very strong one, why statistically only women believe "If I am good, my gender must be good" and so on, as studies have repeatedly shown.

Our narrative is that feminism was a bunch of sexists getting angry at sexism against them while denying their own and pushing their own sexism onto society. It's what fits the outcomes, the facts, and the data.

Yours appears to be that women are not capable of such a thing by definition. That seems pretty sexist to us.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/com ... _textbook/

I mean, the fact that you view the hateful extremism of the "virulent strains" and their promotion of the suppression of women's rights and ideas about women's biological inferiority or malevolence not as incredibly problematic for the entire movement and an internal cancer to be suppressed but as "pretty damning" arguments should be a sign that you've lost sight of your professed aims.

I view them as reactions to the evidence in front of them that I strongly disagree with and oppose. You won't get rid of those people by denying the evidence. You get rid of it by supplying more evidence to the opposing conclusion, the MRM. We do our absolute best to elevate women MRAs in part because of this.

Can't tell if you're addressing me or the Everywoman, but figured I'd clarify I'm a dude.

The everywoman.

Biological and genetic testing to determine someone's ideological receptivity where low levels indicate some inherent inferiority according to said ideology is reeks of borderline eugenics and is just a big ethical no-no.

Low levels of empathy for men being a biological trait would be an inferiority I think. Notice that the testing for whether high levels of empathy DO increase ideological receptivity are a separate test, I'm not just assuming it.

Personally I think we'd see some degree of biology related to empathy, but not strong enough to override sociological factors.
I suspect high empathy women would be more receptive to the MRM.
I suspect MRM talking points would increase empathy.

I'm sure somewhere there are radical feminists asking the same thing about men. It seems like the worst idea I've ever heard.

Why? The results would hopefully put an end to Incel, TRP, and bio-MGTOW.

The fact that you view these arguments as convincing enough to be worthy of mass human experimentation to find out if in fact half the population are inferior beings after all might be a reason why some people would accuse you of being motivated by misogyny rather than advancing men's rights.

Imagine if someone were making this argument about whatever race you are- really, we just need to test all of you to see if you can ever overcome your ingrained bias against everyone else, and if we decide you can't, then clearly you having rights was a mistake! You would probably call them a racist and any ethics board would probably reject such a campaign of testing for its ideological content and moral proximity to eugenics.

The motive behind the test is to rule those things out. You appear not to understand that science is about disproving things as much as proving them, or are ignoring that because it lets you attack me.

[Petrasylvania]

They think they want romance, or prostitution would have eliminated InCels already.

No it wouldn’t have. Incels don’t want romance they want sex slaves who do what they tell them too

So why do they reject prostitutes as an outlet?

[Ostroeuropa]

As for biology and women and so on, there's the Jordan Peterson point that women are less able to use physical aggression to get what they want, and so skew for social and psychological aggression. This may or may not be true (I'm inclined to think it is, but that aggression can be curtailed in both by sociological means, this view is supported by stats on domestic abuse and the types of abuse the genders go for.), but this is also something that forms the Incel/TRP view that ultimately concludes giving women agency and allowing them influence is not much different to men being violent. (They skew toward an interpretation that begs the question of why they view ALL Womens interactions and activity with others as always social violence, when they likely would not view all instances of men touching other people as physical violence.). But understanding it is important to understanding their view.

It is akin to believing that women, due to their biology, are not capable of interaction with others without psychologically abusing them, or leveraging social power against them, and so on. At best i'd say that Women do it more than they'd like to admit, in part because of a lack of recognition of dynamics actually in play in favor of a feminist psychodrama. (The feminist psychodrama is interpreted as an organized expression of psychological and social violence by women against men. Almost true, it is the organized expression of psychological and social violence by a subset of women against women and men.).

This part of the ideology and view also goes some way to explaining violent outburst by Incel/TRP followers. When you believe that any time women talk to others, they are actually and bio-inherently engaged in a power play to subjugate you to them and are inherently more powerful in social and psychological terms while you are more powerful physically, violence becomes a semi-rational response. (Imagine the Haitian slaves trying to out-argue their owners despite the disadvantage they had and the fact that so long as the owners refused to recognize what they were doing, there is nothing the slave can say to MAKE them. They will continue to hold social power and continue to play word games and sophistry and so on.)

Sometimes you see Incels/TRP circulate information on womens higher social intelligence and assert that this:

1. Biologically inherent
and
2. Is constantly leveraged against men for womens benefit.

The constant word games the feminist movement plays, along with the gaslighting that occurs, and a number of other things, go toward supporting this view in their circles.

Sometimes, this is advanced in conjunction with "Female Solipcism.", but this is more debated. (It comes down to believing whether women are aware of what they are doing, or biologically incapable of being aware.). The debate there revolves around pro-female solipcists arguing that they are simply too convincingly lacking in self-awareness when they advance things like feminism, and the anti-female solipcist side argues that this is merely gaslighting and you should expect women to be better at it than men are, an example of the psychological violence, and that pro-solipcists are simply unwilling to view women negatively in ethical terms and seeking to absolve them of responsibility.

(An example advanced is the hillary clinton war quote.)

google female solipcism for more depth if you want to actually understand these people and argue against them.

[Costa Fierro]

So one retreats into themselves, the other lashes out- in both scenarios, though, aggressively misogynist views mean women are viewed as an unsolvable problem.

I would disagree that MGTOW have "aggressively misogynist views". Probably very few MGTOW actually genuinely hate women in the same way incels hate women, most of them hate the way women behave and are socialised, and how other men enable this behaviour.

I really don't understand why it's necessary to go to bat for such people as part and parcel of trying to point out ways that men can be victimized by more radical modern feminist policy and ideology. Advocating for men doesn't mean one has to tear down women or apologize for hateful and increasingly violent people.

The thing about this is that they're not born to hate women, incels are made that way through a combination of things, and given that a lot of their issues stem from poor mental health and self image, instead of simply pushing them further and further into the fringes, getting them to better their opinions of themselves and achieving higher self esteem. Someone has to bat for them because you have to if you want to prevent further acts of violence.

[Ostroeuropa]

So one retreats into themselves, the other lashes out- in both scenarios, though, aggressively misogynist views mean women are viewed as an unsolvable problem.

I would disagree that MGTOW have "aggressively misogynist views". Probably very few MGTOW actually genuinely hate women in the same way incels hate women, most of them hate the way women behave and are socialised, and how other men enable this behaviour.

I really don't understand why it's necessary to go to bat for such people as part and parcel of trying to point out ways that men can be victimized by more radical modern feminist policy and ideology. Advocating for men doesn't mean one has to tear down women or apologize for hateful and increasingly violent people.

The thing about this is that they're not born to hate women, incels are made that way through a combination of things, and given that a lot of their issues stem from poor mental health and self image, instead of simply pushing them further and further into the fringes, getting them to better their opinions of themselves and achieving higher self esteem. Someone has to bat for them because you have to if you want to prevent further acts of violence.

It's also something that runs against their "everyone is against us because of our sexually undesirable traits, not really because of our ideas" narrative. Both MGTOW and MRAs aren't, we'd be happy to have them on board and helping out, and provide a less toxic environment and one that could lead to more development and wellbeing for them.

Incels have usually tried TRP before turning to Incel, they should turn to another movement if this one isn't actually helping them or making their life better/them more happy and secure in themselves.

[Thermodolia]

No it wouldn’t have. Incels don’t want romance they want sex slaves who do what they tell them too

So why do they reject prostitutes as an outlet?

Because to them prostitutes are used up aka they aren’t virgins

[Thermodolia]

Then why does he act like one? If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and looks like a duck it’s probably a fucking duck

He doesn't. Incels do not focus on why interactions with women are to mens detriment and they should avoid many, most, or all of them for their own sake and for the benefit of them and their lives.

Incels focus on why some forms of interaction with women are unfair and they cannot achieve success in them, often for arbitrary and bullshit reasons.

A MGTOW would say you shouldn't sleep with women because there is a huge power disparity there and she can fuck you over in any number of ways (Pregnancy where you have no family planning agency or freedom, crying rape, etc, etc) and might also oppose it on the grounds it validates an unfair dynamic and so on. An Incel would say they can't sleep with women because of biological hypergamy, or because of unfair societal standards beyond their ability to change.

Costa reacts to me going out with a woman and supporting women joining the MRM as it invalidating my perspective and me doing something akin to "sleeping with the enemy" or clearly having a faulty risk assessment and not truly understanding the level of power disparity in play, as no sensible person would behave this way if they did, and "supporting them colonizing the space" and so on, and that I am perpetrating unfairness, undermining mens efforts, putting myself at risk and not understanding the danger I am in.

An Incel would react by saying I am clearly privileged above them in some way, whether looks, cash, social aptitude, and so on and blame the woman for having arbitrary standards often based on unjust things. (She slept with me because I'm White, or Tall, or Handsome, for instance.) and argue such things are beyond their control yet they are subjected to suffering as a result of them, ESPECIALLY in conjunction with societies vilification of romantically/sexually unsuccessful men.

The area of overlap between Incel, MGTOW, and MRA (But NOT TRP), is that all accept MGTOW-sourced discourse that society should not vilify romantically/sexually unsuccessful men. That's about it. It's to that extent that almost everyone in the manosphere is to some extent MGTOW, if they aren't TRP.

MGTOW's might be a variant of MRA. (Viewing the power disparities, risk to men, and unfairness to men as resulting from society and its narratives, sociological causes, and concluding either that they wish to avoid associating with women for their own benefit, or that men in general should do so), or might not be a variant of MRA, and conclude these things are biological and decide to avoid women/advocate men do the same.

Incels are never a variant of MGTOW, because they actively seek a form of association with women and view it as desirable and positive, and the lack of it as harming them. A MGTOW might tell an Incel they should be happy to be unattractive as it means women won't pay attention to them and try to talk to them and so on.

Because he resides in an adjacent volume of the Manosphere.

Pretty much.

Alright then. I’ll concede on that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So why do they reject prostitutes as an outlet?

Because to them prostitutes are used up aka they aren’t virgins

No, incels want romance, that's why they ravenously consume romance fiction.

[Costa Fierro]

Do you really not understand why some people think you're a misogynist when you describe all women as dishonest and unfair actors who are "gynocentric chauvinists" incapable of listening to reason?

Some people think that because they don't actually know what MGTOW is about, they just assume it's another part of the "Manosphere" dedicated to hating women. Hence why a lot of people often conflate it with incels, because they don't know enough about it to actually form proper criticism.

[Costa Fierro]

Incels have usually tried TRP before turning to Incel, they should turn to another movement if this one isn't actually helping them or making their life better/them more happy and secure in themselves.

The only reason they turn to TRP is because TRP consists of pickup artists and steroid abusers.

[Scomagia]

Incels need to realize a few things.

First, you aren't entitled to be loved and desired. Sex and romance are competitive activities and if you're not succeeding at all, you either aren't playing the game right or are hampered by physical or mental factors (being ugly, being selfish, etc.). Moaning about losing doesn't make you a better player, it makes you much less desirable. Nor does complaining overcome ugliness or a lousy personality.

Second, you don't have a right to some idealized version of love and romance. Real life romance is hardly fair or easy and certainly isn't always what you'd hope it could be. Chances are you'll never end up with someone that checks off all your criteria for beauty, status, or anything else. That might sound terrible, like you just end up settling for something other than what you fully want, but that's okay because, truthfully, you don't have a clue what you really need from a partner. The beauty of romantic relationships isn't in getting what you want but in getting what you need and the two are often quite different. But the more you hang yourself up about your arbitrary desires and exclude anyone who doesn't match them, the more you miss the damn point.

Third, you shouldn't base your value on whether or not you are in a romantic relationship or allow others to do so to you. Your value as an individual is the accumulation of so many different factors and sexual desirability or suaveness are a tiny fraction. You aren't worth less because you don't know how to charm women any more than you're worth less because you don't know how to do calculus.

Last, you can't take out your frustrations about your life on other people. No one claims life is fair and people always get what they deserve. Is it rough to see yourself fail to get what you want? Of course it is. That doesn't mean you get to lash out at others for succeeding where you fail. Get up, take stock of where you're falling short, and try again. And if you fail again, you try again. There's no guarantee you'll ever succeed in anything but you are guaranteed to fail at everything if you stop trying.

[Saiwania]

Last, you can't take out your frustrations about your life on other people. There's no guarantee you'll ever succeed in anything but you are guaranteed to fail at everything if you stop trying.

The problem as I see it, is that those people have nothing to lose- unless they think they can go on with a life they (more often than not) find unfulfilling. There are always going to be people who will want to take that Parthian shot against the world that "wronged" them. This isn't limited to failing to get a man or woman. Some people shoot up a workplace for getting fired, or for not getting hired, or whatever else.

The rage and anger just builds until they snap or opt for suicide, unless they're eventually able to stop getting upset about whatever it is that upsets them. And to find a new purpose for existing.

[Costa Fierro]

First, you aren't entitled to be loved and desired. Sex and romance are competitive activities and if you're not succeeding at all, you either aren't playing the game right or are hampered by physical or mental factors (being ugly, being selfish, etc.).

They already know this, it's the primary source of their ire for how the current dating market functions.

Moaning about losing doesn't make you a better player, it makes you much less desirable. Nor does complaining overcome ugliness or a lousy personality.

You can't really overcome ugliness, and they do have a point about the dating market being unfair towards ugly people. Why is it that when ugly women complain about men not wanting to date women that are considered unattractive, it's considered to be empowering, yet when men do the same, they get ridiculed and shamed for doing so?

Second, you don't have a right to some idealized version of love and romance. Real life romance is hardly fair or easy and certainly isn't always what you'd hope it could be. Chances are you'll never end up with someone that checks off all your criteria for beauty, status, or anything else. That might sound terrible, like you just end up settling for something other than what you fully want, but that's okay because, truthfully, you don't have a clue what you really need from a partner.

Truthfully, they don't need a partner in order to live a fulfilling life.

Get up, take stock of where you're falling short, and try again. And if you fail again, you try again. There's no guarantee you'll ever succeed in anything but you are guaranteed to fail at everything if you stop trying.

That's not really the best course of action, because if the thing they're failing on is something they cannot change, then recognising that you cannot change something and accepting that is better than trying to fight a losing battle.

[Scomagia]

Last, you can't take out your frustrations about your life on other people. There's no guarantee you'll ever succeed in anything but you are guaranteed to fail at everything if you stop trying.

The problem as I see it, is that those people have nothing to lose- unless they think they can go on with a life they (more often than not) find unfulfilling. There are always going to be people who will want to take that Parthian shot against the world that "wronged" them. This isn't limited to failing to get a man or woman. Some people shoot up a workplace for getting fired, or for not getting hired, or whatever else.

The rage and anger just builds until they snap or opt for suicide, unless they're eventually able to stop getting upset about whatever it is that upsets them. And to find a new purpose for existing.

The core problem with that type of thinking is that it is inherently self defeating. "I've failed and therefore will fail, so I have nothing to lose by quitting and blaming the world." Except that they do have something to lose, namely all the potential success and happiness they give up by adopting a fiendish and pessimistic outlook. The fact that life has been unfulfilling so far doesn't mean it's inherently unfulfilling.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Incels need to realize a few things.

First, you aren't entitled to be loved and desired. Sex and romance are competitive activities and if you're not succeeding at all, you either aren't playing the game right or are hampered by physical or mental factors (being ugly, being selfish, etc.). Moaning about losing doesn't make you a better player, it makes you much less desirable. Nor does complaining overcome ugliness or a lousy personality.

Second, you don't have a right to some idealized version of love and romance. Real life romance is hardly fair or easy and certainly isn't always what you'd hope it could be. Chances are you'll never end up with someone that checks off all your criteria for beauty, status, or anything else. That might sound terrible, like you just end up settling for something other than what you fully want, but that's okay because, truthfully, you don't have a clue what you really need from a partner. The beauty of romantic relationships isn't in getting what you want but in getting what you need and the two are often quite different. But the more you hang yourself up about your arbitrary desires and exclude anyone who doesn't match them, the more you miss the damn point.

Third, you shouldn't base your value on whether or not you are in a romantic relationship or allow others to do so to you. Your value as an individual is the accumulation of so many different factors and sexual desirability or suaveness are a tiny fraction. You aren't worth less because you don't know how to charm women any more than you're worth less because you don't know how to do calculus.

Last, you can't take out your frustrations about your life on other people. No one claims life is fair and people always get what they deserve. Is it rough to see yourself fail to get what you want? Of course it is. That doesn't mean you get to lash out at others for succeeding where you fail. Get up, take stock of where you're falling short, and try again. And if you fail again, you try again. There's no guarantee you'll ever succeed in anything but you are guaranteed to fail at everything if you stop trying.

If someone said this about poor people, we'd call him an unreasonable Republican.

[Wallenburg]

If someone said this about poor people, we'd call him an unreasonable Republican.

Poor people =/= mass shooters.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If someone said this about poor people, we'd call him an unreasonable Republican.

Poor people =/= mass shooters.

Poor people often lead political revolutions that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Moreover, the principle of politics is taking our your frustration with society on others at its most basic level.

[Wallenburg]

Poor people =/= mass shooters.

Poor people often lead political revolutions that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Moreover, the principle of politics is taking our your frustration with society on others at its most basic level.

That's about as accurate as saying that white men often lead bloody wars or genocides that result in the deaths of millions or tens of millions. Such a statement suggests that because a handful of individuals from X category did something violent that the entire category of people is inherently violent, and that they'd all do the same if they had the means and opportunity. Or, at the very least, that they all fantasize about such things.

[Saiwania]

The core problem with that type of thinking is that it is inherently self defeating. "I've failed and therefore will fail, so I have nothing to lose by quitting and blaming the world." Except that they do have something to lose, namely all the potential success and happiness they give up by adopting a fiendish and pessimistic outlook. The fact that life has been unfulfilling so far doesn't mean it's inherently unfulfilling.

The lion's share of those people have never experienced success or happiness to any great extent, not even a taste of it. Thus they have no reason to believe that it is even within their reach or remotely a possibility for them. It is discouragement from past experiences or innate low self esteem, a sickness of the mind they suffer that they likely can't escape from.

You can't miss what you never had to begin with, only pine or long for it. Hence they feel they're not losing anything in lashing out.

[Scomagia]

They already know this, it's the primary source of their ire for how the current dating market functions.

They haven't got any entitlement to be angry about how romantic competition functions. It's not a consensus game.

You can't really overcome ugliness, and they do have a point about the dating market being unfair towards ugly people. Why is it that when ugly women complain about men not wanting to date women that are considered unattractive, it's considered to be empowering, yet when men do the same, they get ridiculed and shamed for doing so?

That's not true. If you are diligent you can minimize your less attractive features and maximize your attractive features. If you've got an asymmetric face (often regarded as less attractive) there isn't a lot you can do to minimize that problem. You can, however, take care of your body and health, both of which are generally attractive factors. No one ever claimed it was a fair competition. And I've never heard anyone make that sort of statement about ugly men vs ugly women.

Truthfully, they don't need a partner in order to live a fulfilling life.

Some of them do, actually. Most people do, in fact. That's why most everyone desires a partner.

But if they don't need a partner, why all the outrage and indignation over not having one?

That's not really the best course of action, because if the thing they're failing on is something they cannot change, then recognising that you cannot change something and accepting that is better than trying to fight a losing battle.

Except they aren't in a position to know whether than can change it or not. The fact that you have failed doesn't mean you are doomed to failure. That's pathological thinking. It's literally how depressed people think.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Poor people often lead political revolutions that result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Moreover, the principle of politics is taking our your frustration with society on others at its most basic level.

That's about as accurate as saying that white men often lead bloody wars or genocides that result in the deaths of millions or tens of millions. Such a statement suggests that because a handful of individuals from X category did something violent that the entire category of people is inherently violent, and that they'd all do the same if they had the means and opportunity. Or, at the very least, that they all fantasize about such things.

But all incels are mass shooters?

[Wallenburg]

That's about as accurate as saying that white men often lead bloody wars or genocides that result in the deaths of millions or tens of millions. Such a statement suggests that because a handful of individuals from X category did something violent that the entire category of people is inherently violent, and that they'd all do the same if they had the means and opportunity. Or, at the very least, that they all fantasize about such things.

But all incels are mass shooters?

All mass shooting incels are violent, if that's what you meant. It was quite clear to me that Scomagia was talking to incels who actually attack people, at least in their last item. I understand that "take out your frustration on other people" and "lash out at others" refers to violence.