"Incels" Are A Good Litmus Test

ndwolfwood said:
Haha first of all good one.

Pan I think you should think about this. You are blaming people for their own condition. People who are predisposed to negative attitudes and behaviors simply because of what they look like.
Click to expand...

This could be a fun thread except you're spitting boilerplate responses. I looked up "incel" because I didn't know what it meant. Turns out i's not about looks, people can be incels for plenty of reasons that don't require them to be ugly. In many ways, you're actually being far more discriminatory than the term because you're presuming them to be ugly.

Randomly, did you know that supposed creator of the word coined after realizing that the reason she wasn't getting laid was because she was gay. Once she went lesbian, her incel problems went away. Supposedly, this not knowing why was part of the impetus for the putting her feelings (and the word) onto the internet in the 1st place.

Anyhoo, I certainly didn't blame anyone for their condition. I directed them to a self-help group that meets every day at the local bar.
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
Progressivism does have a long, sordid relationship with eugenics and ideas about how to breed out minorities.
Click to expand...

So what? it it what it is. I don't adhere to any supposed 'moral' code. It doesn't have to be applied to minorities and 'minorities' can also apply it to whites if they so wish. I don't care. I am a big picture guy who looks towards the end game. Whatever happens happens.
 
Gutter Chris said:
Weird I aways thought thats more of what liberals stood for ...... til recently anyway when they switched to equality of outcome which isnt possible. Focus on giving everyone access to healthcare and an education and after that let the chips fall where they may is kind of my evolved view on politics . Im kind of all over the map when it comes to the 2 labels and I am not sure they work for most people any longer
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think old school liberals were all for equality of opportunity.
 
Seaside said:
So what? it it what it is. I don't adhere to any supposed 'moral' code. It doesn't have to be applied to minorities and 'minorities' can also apply it to whites if they so wish. I don't care. I am a big picture guy who looks towards the end game. Whatever happens happens.
Click to expand...
Whatever happens happens is a really ugly way to justify eugenics, no?
 
IngaVovchanchyn said:
Whatever happens happens is a really ugly way to justify eugenics, no?
Click to expand...

Eugenics is not wrong in my opinion. weak minded moralists often inflicted with a heavy religious bias which is often a christian bias are the ones opposed to it. And thankfully they are a diminishing breed. eugenics also does not mean nazism. It literally just means improvement of the genetic quality of individuals or any organism. We practice eugenics with animals and many other organism so why not humans?. Those against eugenics are the real threat to humanity and those who are selfish and or not fit to steer mankind for they cannot see past their own childish biases. Thank god they are also a dying breed. It does not have to be applied in such an ugly or warped manner either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
 
HomerThompson said:
OK. I'll just take your word for it with no evidence despite the absurdity of your claim.
Click to expand...
She's right but it's on par with saying "Dems are da real racists because they supported slavery!"

As if shit hasn't changed
 
The incel martyr is Elliot Rodger. He whined incessantly about how women didn't like him even though he was a giant beta supreme gentleman, but what he never once did is contemplate that he himself only liked attractive women, and that he himself was discriminating against fatties. So if he's gonna blame women and kill a bunch of them, he might as well kill himself, too. Oh wait... It makes no sense to be mad at the world.
 
Seaside said:
Eugenics is not wrong in my opinion. weak minded moralists often inflicted with a heavy religious bias which is often a christian bias are the ones opposed to it. And thankfully they are a diminishing breed. eugenics also does not mean nazism. It literally just means improvement of the genetic quality of individuals or any organism. We practice eugenics with animals and many other organism so why not humans?. Those against eugenics are the real threat to humanity and those who are selfish and or not fit to steer mankind for they cannot see past their own childish biases. Thank god they are also a dying breed. It does not have to be applied in such an ugly or warped manner either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
Click to expand...

Would you kill your child if they failed their eugenics quiz?
 
Undying Poster said:
She's right but it's on par with saying "Dems are da real racists because they supported slavery!"

As if shit hasn't changed
Click to expand...
No, she's not right. I have a question for you. Who is eugenics most commonly associated with in history(a leader)?
 
Undying Poster said:
Just because Adolf popularized it doesn't mean he started it.
Click to expand...
I didn't say he started it, but it's not associated historically with progressivism. It's associated with racism, xenophobia, and right wing authoritarianism.
 
Odd thing about incels is they hate Islam but love acid attacks on women.
 
Rational Poster said:
Would you kill your child if they failed their eugenics quiz?
Click to expand...

If a baby was to be born disabled or something yeah I would. It is not moral in my opinion or with my beliefs to bring that child into this world and then use artificial means to support their life when nature would have it that they die upon birth. What life would they be living? The simple fact that I would be unwilling to trade places with any disabled person further proves my point. Anybody against this should then be forced by God of the universe to trade places with a severely disabled person.

Undying Poster said:
Just because Adolf popularized it doesn't mean he started it.
Click to expand...

Yep. There are more practical and non racially supremacist ways to practice it.
 
Seaside said:
If a baby was to be born disabled or something yeah I would. It is not moral in my opinion or with my beliefs to bring that child into this world and then use artificial means to support their life when nature would have it that they die upon birth. What life would they be living? The simple fact that I would be unwilling to trade places with any disabled person further proves my point. Anybody against this should then be forced by God of the universe to trade places with a severely disabled person.



Yep. There are more practical and non racially supremacist ways to practice it.
Click to expand...

>I'll kill my baby if it's not perfect.

>It's moral
 
HomerThompson said:
I didn't say he started it, but it's not associated historically with progressivism. It's associated with racism, xenophobia, and right wing authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
Just because it isn't associated doesn't make it so. Progressives in the early 1910s 20s and 30s were proponents of scientific racism and eugenics.
 
Undying Poster said:
She's right but it's on par with saying "Dems are da real racists because they supported slavery!"

As if shit hasn't changed
Click to expand...
My intention was to point out historical truths, not to suggest that you or @HomerThompson wanted to eradicate black people or other undesirables. Though apparently at least one or two in this thread seem open to the idea.

I think there are plenty of Democrat racists and plenty of Republican racists, though it is correct to point out that historically the Dems were the party of slavery, the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment, Jim Crow, and the Ku Klux Klan. But yes, I do believe that Democrats like MLK, who in my eyes was a very great man and a dyed in the wool lefty, turned that around in the 60s.
 
Undying Poster said:
Just because it isn't associated doesn't make it so. Progressives in the early 1910s 20s and 30s were proponents of scientific racism and eugenics.
Click to expand...
So, that still doesn't make eugenics associated with progressivism. Just like your example of the Democratic party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,645
Messages
55,431,667
Members
174,776
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top