Crime Incels: how online extremism is changing

[tenniswhiz]

There isn’t natural selection with humans because of compassion and technology.
Humans don’t have to worry about getting bludgeoned by chimpanzees, eaten by lions, or hundreds of medical conditions that would have been fatal a thousand years ago. So we overpopulated. The weak and stupid survived, and reproduced. But we’re still the same animals that we were 1000 years ago.

 

[panamaican]

The OK cupid thing is insane to me. Only 7% of men are above average.... I guess 13% maybe if you want to split the 12% middle bucket in half.

And yet there's like this big movement of how women being fat and overweight is no big deal, they are as beautiful and attractive as anyone else kind of thing. When there's no male equivalent. That probably leaks into how least attractive women put themselves in a higher attraction bucket and score men lower.

I know I throw out the words social engineering a lot, but it seems too obvious to me to be anything else.

It's not really the same thing. The talk about overweight women are still beautiful is about how they perceive themselves. Their internal self-esteem. That they shouldn't value themselves based on their appearance. A fat guy can tell himself the same thing -- that his value isn't tied into how he looks. It would be the same thing.

As for the ratings thing - women are more relative in their thinking. So while a guy is going to judge each woman on her individual appearance, women are going to rate men relative to other men.

A guy sees a girl online and says "Would I fuck?", if the answer is yes then she's attractive, even if she isn't the most attractive. A woman sees a guy online and says "Is he more attractive than the last guy I looked it?" If the answer is yes, the new guy is "attractive" and the last guy isn't. If the answer is no then the new guy isn't attractive, only the last guy is.

 

[Satur9]

It's not really the same thing. The talk about overweight women are still beautiful is about how they perceive themselves. Their internal self-esteem. That they shouldn't value themselves based on their appearance. A fat guy can tell himself the same thing -- that his value isn't tied into how he looks. It would be the same thing.

As for the ratings thing - women are more relative in their thinking. So while a guy is going to judge each woman on her individual appearance, women are going to rate men relative to other men.

A guy sees a girl online and says "Would I fuck?", if the answer is yes then she's attractive, even if she isn't the most attractive. A woman sees a guy online and says "Is he more attractive than the last guy I looked it?" If the answer is yes, the new guy is "attractive" and the last guy isn't. If the answer is no then the new guy isn't attractive, only the last guy is.

What? No it is not. It is about others having to view them as beautiful too. That’s why you can be called “fat phobic” on social media and the like, if you say you would date or bang a big girl. This definitely goes beyond accepting of oneself and loving the skin you’re in.

 

[cincymma79]

What? No it is not. It is about others having to view them as beautiful too. That’s why you can be called “fat phobic” on social media and the like, if you say you would date or bang a big girl. This definitely goes beyond accepting of oneself and loving the skin you’re in.

Yeah no clue what they’re on about. Fat women are moving into the you have to fuck me approach. They’re toxic now. It’s bizarre to watch.

 

[panamaican]

What? No it is not. It is about others having to view them as beautiful too. That’s why you can be called “fat phobic” on social media and the like, if you say you would date or bang a big girl. This definitely goes beyond accepting of oneself and loving the skin you’re in.

No, it never required anyone else to find them beautiful. It has required that they not be insulted or shamed for their appearance.

As in a fat chick can consider herself beautiful and not have to put up with someone saying criticizing her for choosing to treat herself as beautiful because that someone thinks that fat women shouldn't dress a certain way or conduct themselves a certain way.

It never went to the point where a fat person could demand or even expect that someone else be sexually attracted to them.

 

[Unknown Pleasures]

It's not really the same thing. The talk about overweight women are still beautiful is about how they perceive themselves. Their internal self-esteem. That they shouldn't value themselves based on their appearance. A fat guy can tell himself the same thing -- that his value isn't tied into how he looks. It would be the same thing.

As for the ratings thing - women are more relative in their thinking. So while a guy is going to judge each woman on her individual appearance, women are going to rate men relative to other men.

A guy sees a girl online and says "Would I fuck?", if the answer is yes then she's attractive, even if she isn't the most attractive. A woman sees a guy online and says "Is he more attractive than the last guy I looked it?" If the answer is yes, the new guy is "attractive" and the last guy isn't. If the answer is no then the new guy isn't attractive, only the last guy is.

I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[tramendous]

Curious what you mean by “stopped being Christian.”

Exactly what you mentioned. Gay weddings, gay pastors, trans pastors, pope supporting 'same sex unions', religion being relegated to one's home and pushed further and further away from people's public life, christians constantly allowing secular people to constantly undermine the sacredness and any respect for their religion and allowing others to stretch and blur the lines between what is and isnt christianity (i.e. the ludicrous notion of 'christian atheist'). Christians lost confidence in Christianity. They allowed the atheists to grind their religion into mere symbolism at best. Hedonism is the dominant religion in countries where Christianity flourished.

 

[So Fresh]

What group? Who is the leader of the incels? What is their command structure like? These are rhetorical questions because its not a group at all, just a large internet mass of people who are together alone. Sure there have been attacks here and there but in the grand scheme of things they are rare and not a real security issue. Some reports suggest up to a third of men under 30 are incels and yet we've seen maybe a handful of attacks over the last decade, they're by and large a harmless herd.

The incel issue is serious but not as a security issue but rather as a social issue. Clearly something is wrong here and its not just with incels and about sex. Young people also have fewer friends with a significant portion reporting having no friends at all. Even women have reported lower and lower levels of satisfaction over the decades. And of course there's the plummeting birth rate we see in the West. The incel thing is obviously a symptom of a wider social malaise that were experiencing but people on the left are more interested in associating incels with the right and making them out to be some boogeyman for which we need to expand the ever expanding security apparatus to deal with.

Well the group as portrayed in the video. The “online community” if that makes more sense. I’m not really sure where you’re going with this? It’s not a hierarchical group or organization but as a community together they are still considered a group of people that influence each other, are in contact with each other and share common values and world views.

And the left is looking for a boogeyman? I didn’t expect this kind of partisanship from you tbh. The economist is hardly a “left” news outlet and “the left” is hardly known for their push for an ever expanding security apparatus. So where do you get this idea?

 

[gspieler]

It's not really the same thing. The talk about overweight women are still beautiful is about how they perceive themselves. Their internal self-esteem. That they shouldn't value themselves based on their appearance. A fat guy can tell himself the same thing -- that his value isn't tied into how he looks. It would be the same thing.

As for the ratings thing - women are more relative in their thinking. So while a guy is going to judge each woman on her individual appearance, women are going to rate men relative to other men.

A guy sees a girl online and says "Would I fuck?", if the answer is yes then she's attractive, even if she isn't the most attractive. A woman sees a guy online and says "Is he more attractive than the last guy I looked it?" If the answer is yes, the new guy is "attractive" and the last guy isn't. If the answer is no then the new guy isn't attractive, only the last guy is.

1. All of the "big is beautiful" propaganda goes well beyond just encouraging obese women to have self-esteem. They get hyped as legit sex symbols.

2. "Women are going to rate men relative to other men". If that were true, you would see something resembling a normal bell curve. But we don't. What we see is a distribution skewed heavily towards the vast majority of men being "unattractive". The data pretty clearly suggests that women tend to rate men based on unrealistic standards.

 

[gspieler]

No, it never required anyone else to find them beautiful. It has required that they not be insulted or shamed for their appearance.

As in a fat chick can consider herself beautiful and not have to put up with someone saying criticizing her for choosing to treat herself as beautiful because that someone thinks that fat women shouldn't dress a certain way or conduct themselves a certain way.

It never went to the point where a fat person could demand or even expect that someone else be sexually attracted to them.

An obese chick got the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, a publication that is overtly about catering to what men find sexy. But yeah, it's all about women being comfortable in their own skin.

 

[uppercutbus]

An obese chick got the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, a publication that is overtly about catering to what men find sexy. But yeah, it's all about women being comfortable in their own skin.

Don't forget all those angry grief editorials and news pieces in magazines and newspapers. Some of them sound like what troll articles would look like hhh. "A music icon lost weight and now I feel bad" grumpy huff huff.

 

[Ichibanner]

An obese chick got the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, a publication that is overtly about catering to what men find sexy. But yeah, it's all about women being comfortable in their own skin.

Careful throwing around the word "obese" my friend! I recently learned that it's medical jargon used to label fat people as sick or ill and not currently a popular term among those pushing fat acceptance.

Imagine being offended by a medical term that is attached to being horribly overweight. "Oh noes, I hate it when people point out that I'm at great risk of heart disease, diabetes, and early death!".....

 

[Belaya Smert]

We used to refer to these people as misogynist or losers. How times change.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well the group as portrayed in the video. The “online community” if that makes more sense. I’m not really sure where you’re going with this? It’s not a hierarchical group or organization but as a community together they are still considered a group of people that influence each other, are in contact with each other and share common values and world views.

Sure they exist as an online community but in the grand scheme of things they are mostly harmless and if anything sensationalist reporting about their mass shootings is only going to produce more mass shootings

And the left is looking for a boogeyman? I didn’t expect this kind of partisanship from you tbh. The economist is hardly a “left” news outlet and “the left” is hardly known for their push for an ever expanding security apparatus. So where do you get this idea?

The Economist isn't left like Jacobin but by virtue of being a liberal, European publication its generally pro-establishment and advances social values that are progressive by US standards. I don't know that many people are hyping up this issue to expand the power of the security apparatus as much as that is a by product, the main motivation just seems to tar the opposition by guilt via association with incels who get framed as far right extremists.

 

[panamaican]

2. "Women are going to rate men relative to other men". If that were true, you would see something resembling a normal bell curve. But we don't. What we see is a distribution skewed heavily towards the vast majority of men being "unattractive". The data pretty clearly suggests that women tend to rate men based on unrealistic standards.

That's not what I said or explained. I even fleshed it out with examples.

I'll try again. Women rate men relative to other men in the following way: They rate a man based on if he is more/less attractive than the man they just rated before. If the man is more attractive then the other man is "not attractive". They're not using a continuum where you have ranges from ugly to below average to average to above average to attractive and they slot men according to that scale. That's what men do. Women have a relative scale -- either you're more attractive than the last guy or you're not attractive. So a guy can be attractive when standing next to an uglier man and become unattractive when standing next to a more handsome man. That's the relativity that I'm referring to.

And that's what you're seeing on dating apps. Every time, a more attractive man shows up in the app, all of the other men are now "unattractive". So a guy's binary position between attractive and unattractive is entirely dependent on if she's seen more attractive men recently. There are no 5s, 6s, 7s, etc. There's just the "best looking option she has" and everyone else is unattractive. And that's how you end up with their rating outcomes.

 

[Yehudim]

Sure they exist as an online community but in the grand scheme of things they are mostly harmless and if anything sensationalist reporting about their mass shootings is only going to produce more mass shootings

The Economist isn't left like Jacobin but by virtue of being a liberal, European publication its generally pro-establishment and advances social values that are progressive by US standards. I don't know that many people are hyping up this issue to expand the power of the security apparatus as much as that is a by product, the main motivation just seems to tar the opposition by guilt via association with incels who get framed as far right extremists.

I've seen graphs that claim that 1/3 young men haven't had sex in the last year - If that's true then I think we're doing OK in regards to extremism since that would mean that 1 in 3 young men are involuntarily celibate.

 

[panamaican]

An obese chick got the cover of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition, a publication that is overtly about catering to what men find sexy. But yeah, it's all about women being comfortable in their own skin.

Yes, she did. And the audience for that was not men. You guys have to understand that we're not the entire audience any more.

Maybe that's the problem, people think that they are the exclusive audience just because they used to be the exclusive audience. The audience now is much broader and companies are trying to provide something for every part of that audience. And in doing so it means that often times what is being delivered is not for you.

Think about it like a restaurant that serves steak and vegan meat substitures. They are trying to serve 2 distinct groups - the meat eaters and the vegans. So they have options that appeal to either group but not necessarily to both. The steak crowd is missing the big picture if they start complaining about the vegan options by saying "This is a steakhouse, no steak eater wants that plant-based meat." They, incorrectly, have ignored that the restaurant isn't only serving them.

The restaurant is going to say "We have people here who like vegan food and we're going to give them options that appeal to them. It's going to be on the same menu that you're reading but those options aren't aimed at you." And the steak eaters need to get over themselves and accept that they no longer represent the only customer base for that company.

Sports Illustrated is no longer catering to what men find sexy. They haven't for years. People who think otherwise are living in a world that hasn't existed for decades.

 

[gspieler]

That's not what I said or explained. I even fleshed it out with examples.

I'll try again. Women rate men relative to other men in the following way: They rate a man based on if he is more/less attractive than the man they just rated before. If the man is more attractive then the other man is "not attractive". They're not using a continuum where you have ranges from ugly to below average to average to above average to attractive and they slot men according to that scale. That's what men do. Women have a relative scale -- either you're more attractive than the last guy or you're not attractive. So a guy can be attractive when standing next to an uglier man and become unattractive when standing next to a more handsome man. That's the relativity that I'm referring to.

And that's what you're seeing on dating apps. Every time, a more attractive man shows up in the app, all of the other men are now "unattractive". So a guy's binary position between attractive and unattractive is entirely dependent on if she's seen more attractive men recently. There are no 5s, 6s, 7s, etc. There's just the "best looking option she has" and everyone else is unattractive. And that's how you end up with their rating outcomes.

Ok, so what you’re essentially saying is women have a, more or less, absolute(or as you put it, “relative to the last guy”) reference for attractiveness, that reference being the most attractive male available, that that reference represents attractive, and that everything is “average” or “below average”. Ok…so women are unrealistic and illogical when it comes to rating men. Does this not pretty much coincide with what so-called “incels”, “red pilll”, etc, claim? And of what use is this information to a male in the dating market?

 

[gspieler]

Yes, she did. And the audience for that was not men. You guys have to understand that we're not the entire audience any more.

Maybe that's the problem, people think that they are the exclusive audience just because they used to be the exclusive audience. The audience now is much broader and companies are trying to provide something for every part of that audience. And in doing so it means that often times what is being delivered is not for you.

Think about it like a restaurant that serves steak and vegan meat substitures. They are trying to serve 2 distinct groups - the meat eaters and the vegans. So they have options that appeal to either group but not necessarily to both. The steak crowd is missing the big picture if they start complaining about the vegan options by saying "This is a steakhouse, no steak eater wants that plant-based meat." They, incorrectly, have ignored that the restaurant isn't only serving them.

The restaurant is going to say "We have people here who like vegan food and we're going to give them options that appeal to them. It's going to be on the same menu that you're reading but those options aren't aimed at you." And the steak eaters need to get over themselves and accept that they no longer represent the only customer base for that company.

Sports Illustrated is no longer catering to what men find sexy. They haven't for years. People who think otherwise are living in a world that hasn't existed for decades.

I don’t see how that is relevant to whether or not obesity is being specialized. Whether or not SI Swimsuit has expanded their target demographics is irrelevant to the fact that she (1) is being marketed explicitly as a sex symbol, and (2) is overtly obese.

 

[panamaican]

Ok, so what you’re essentially saying is women have a, more or less, absolute(or as you put it, “relative to the last guy”) reference for attractiveness, that reference being the most attractive male available, that that reference represents attractive, and that everything is “average” or “below average”. Ok…so women are unrealistic and illogical when it comes to rating men. Does this not pretty much coincide with what so-called “incels”, “red pilll”, etc, claim? And of what use is this information to a male in the dating market?

No, it's not illogical or unrealistic. It's simply not how men do it.

Frankly, given what the red pill crowd says about women having to be more selective than men, the women's approach is consistent with that. If she has to careful with who she sleeps with then it makes sense to only be interested in the best available option and focus on achieving that, instead of accepting lesser quality men just because they're available. In that frame of reference, best available as the only option is logical and pretty reasonable.

What use is this information to a male in the dating market? Well for starters, if a guy wants to know why he's failing at garnering female attention, it's probably a good idea to understand how women are allocating their attention. Instead of applying the guy's perspective to dating, they should grasp what women are actually looking for and try to win that actual game.

If someone was asking me for advice, I would tell them that datnig apps are a bad time investment unless they're pretty high on the attractive scale. For most guys, they might be better served seeking women in real life where the relative options are much smaller. This would increase the chances that they fall towards the top of available men that a random woman encounters.

For example -- go to the library. The average guy isn't a bad catch at the library, there might maybe 1 male model level guy passing through the entire building over the course of a week. But on Tinder? He's in the same pool with hundreds of guys at that attractiveness level and so will almost never be the best looking guy that a girl sees while swiping through. But at the library on a Tuesday? He should take those odds.

That's how I would advise a guy to use that information.