Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 daedalus wrote:


Gonna wrap my notes in a spoiler because no one needs to read that stuff. If they click the button it's their fault.

You know that Elliot Rodgers guy from a few years ago had a manifesto? Well, since the whole incel popped up in the news, I decided to read it out of a morbid curiosity to try and get an understanding of this alien perspective.

I wish I hadn't.

I would not recommend reading it - basically a hundred thousand words of hatred and disgust - unless you have a cast iron stomach. It was a Very disturbing and twisted read.

You literally cannot argue with that kind of hatred.

 Ketara wrote:
Got some more gems here for those of you who want to keep staring into the abyss.

Spoiler:

The incel movement is weirdly split between young naive autistic men who can't figure sex/relationships out, and the equivalent men ten years older who never did and consequently blame women for it. The younger ones seem to post depressive stuff (which is fair enough) because they feel crappy about the 'Chads' at school/college getting laid whilst they don't. Meanwhile, the older ones have usually latched onto some sort of warped pickup artist methodology and sit there Emperor Palpatine King Nerd style whispering misogynistic crap in the younger ones ears; on account of the fact that it lets them feel validated about themselves and their own failures.

'Yes, yes. Let the hate flow through you. It's not your fault you were born inadequate, it's natural to want a relationship. It's those women, their whiteknights and their cucks. They're the ones stopping from getting what you want, what you need...'

etcetc

You're a mod, get a fething grip on yourself. I'll bet you any amount of money that the vast majority of these gits are far more like you than they are like us yet the first thing you jump to is "lol autistics".

I've seen a lot of likely neurotypicals self-diagnose themselves as Autistic because they were having trouble socializing and could or would not change their behaviors. Perhaps the mod was referring to these types?

 sebster wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah man - look at some data on dating sites. Men really are at a huge disadvantage in the game. There is no question that it does and will drive some men crazy.

When there is an equal number of men and women on the planet, and each relationship includes a man and a woman, it is a mathematical impossibility for men to be at a disadvantage compared to women.

What we see instead is observer bias. Consider a population of 10 men and 10 women, where the custom is for the men to approach the women. There's five women that all the guys want, and every guy contacts each of those girls. Those girls take the five most desirable men. On a simple level there's 5 men who have been rejected, which makes it look tougher for the men than the women. But note there's also 5 women who were never contacted at all, they were also rejected, just not actively.

This isn't how it actually works.

It works more like this in the online dating.

Hot girls get whatever they want
Average girls get whatever they want
Hot guys have a pretty good time
Not so cute girls have a pretty good time
Average guys get almost nothing
not so cute guys need not apply.

Pretty much - it sucks to be a not so cute guy.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I've seen a lot of likely neurotypicals self-diagnose themselves as Autistic because they were having trouble socializing and could or would not change their behaviors. Perhaps the mod was referring to these types?

Perhaps it's a gakky thing to say regardless of whether he means it as-written, in the same misused sense as you mention, or just as a shorthand. Perhaps a mod should know better, given they're ostensibly a responsible person in a community that's likely to have a reasonable amount of people with an ASD in it.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah man - look at some data on dating sites. Men really are at a huge disadvantage in the game. There is no question that it does and will drive some men crazy.

When there is an equal number of men and women on the planet, and each relationship includes a man and a woman, it is a mathematical impossibility for men to be at a disadvantage compared to women.

What we see instead is observer bias. Consider a population of 10 men and 10 women, where the custom is for the men to approach the women. There's five women that all the guys want, and every guy contacts each of those girls. Those girls take the five most desirable men. On a simple level there's 5 men who have been rejected, which makes it look tougher for the men than the women. But note there's also 5 women who were never contacted at all, they were also rejected, just not actively.

This isn't how it actually works.

It works more like this in the online dating.

Hot girls get whatever they want
Average girls get whatever they want
Hot guys have a pretty good time
Not so cute girls have a pretty good time
Average guys get almost nothing
not so cute guys need not apply.

Pretty much - it sucks to be a not so cute guy.

According to this, based on my (admittedly limited) online dating experiences, I'm a 'hot guy'

We may want to re-think the chart.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This isn't how it actually works.

It works more like this in the online dating.

Hot girls get whatever they want
Average girls get whatever they want
Hot guys have a pretty good time
Not so cute girls have a pretty good time
Average guys get almost nothing
not so cute guys need not apply.

Pretty much - it sucks to be a not so cute guy.

gak. I'm a fat balding dude who looks about 10 years more haggard than I actually am. Back when I did the online dating thing, I never really got much back for the effort i put into it. I started slapping pictures of myself on kayaks and out camping and stuff like that and it went from me putting a few hours of effort into trying to get a date mostly unsuccessfully to me putting a couple hours effort in and usually having a date i was more excited about (and some of them would contact me first!).

I didn't even lie on the profile. Didn't have to. Just needed to show that I was active and doing interesting things.

Women aren't NEARLY as fixated on looks as men think they are. If they are, they're probably not the ones worth dating anyway.

I can tell you what women are fixated on. At least the ones I've been around. They're usually fixated on confidence, stability (economic and personal), and usually just a desire for someone to not be an utter dullard.

Ketara's post already qualifies the statement in question: "young naive autistic men who can't figure sex/relationships out," i.e., recognizing the difference between finding social interaction more difficult and failing at it altogether. But his larger point seems to be that socially (and perhaps neurologically, if that's the right term) vulnerable younger men are being groomed/radicalized by predators.

You man very well be a hot guy. I am just an average guy. I've had some success with online dating but it takes a lot of work. I've also looked at the apps of many girls that I have been with through online dating and it is astounding the amount of attention even a very average girl gets. 20 fold higher than me. It's amazing I was able to get anyones attention.

That's the point I am trying to make. Obviously this incel group is taking it too far - and they are only hurting themselves. But it is very tough for even average men to find love in this world. I don't have the answers to fix that but at least acknowledging the problem is a good place to start. Sexually frustrated men are easy to manipulate and control and are vulnerable to this kind of nonsense.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You man very well be a hot guy. I am just an average guy. I've had some success with online dating but it takes a lot of work. I've also looked at the apps of many girls that I have been with through online dating and it is astounding the amount of attention even a very average girl gets. 20 fold higher than me. It's amazing I was able to get anyones attention.

Totally true on women receiving more attention than men. They'll get a deluge of activity constantly. It's pretty horrifying what guys say a lot too. That's why you gotta do something to stand out, especially in the picture. My way was tossing a waterproof camera to a buddy on a float trip and getting the "action" shot of me on the kayak. It really did make a noticable difference. Got any female friends? Have one vet your online profile. Maybe you're doing / saying something wrong.

Obviously if you're the elephant man, there's not much that can be done, but particularly in this online era, there's SO MUCH subtle little stuff that influences whether you get a response that's more important than your looks.

On the one hand, you gotta work harder to get noticed. On the other, no unsolicited dick pics. Seems like a win for the fellas to me.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You man very well be a hot guy. I am just an average guy. I've had some success with online dating but it takes a lot of work. I've also looked at the apps of many girls that I have been with through online dating and it is astounding the amount of attention even a very average girl gets. 20 fold higher than me. It's amazing I was able to get anyones attention.

That's the point I am trying to make. Obviously this incel group is taking it too far - and they are only hurting themselves. But it is very tough for even average men to find love in this world. I don't have the answers to fix that but at least acknowledging the problem is a good place to start. Sexually frustrated men are easy to manipulate and control and are vulnerable to this kind of nonsense.

Sorry, but you've not experienced being on a dating website as a woman. Talking to some female friends, they have to put up with some horrendous stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw I completely agree that there is a sinister older contingent to this community who are working to radicalize these guys for their own ends. You'll see them on any of the fora, if you can stomach browsing them.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah man - look at some data on dating sites. Men really are at a huge disadvantage in the game. There is no question that it does and will drive some men crazy.

When there is an equal number of men and women on the planet, and each relationship includes a man and a woman, it is a mathematical impossibility for men to be at a disadvantage compared to women.

What we see instead is observer bias. Consider a population of 10 men and 10 women, where the custom is for the men to approach the women. There's five women that all the guys want, and every guy contacts each of those girls. Those girls take the five most desirable men. On a simple level there's 5 men who have been rejected, which makes it look tougher for the men than the women. But note there's also 5 women who were never contacted at all, they were also rejected, just not actively.

This isn't how it actually works.

It works more like this in the online dating.

Hot girls get whatever they want
Average girls get whatever they want
Hot guys have a pretty good time
Not so cute girls have a pretty good time
Average guys get almost nothing
not so cute guys need not apply.

Pretty much - it sucks to be a not so cute guy.

The issue with this reasoning is that there is supposedly an infinite supply of hot guys. But there isn't, once the hot ones are taken most of the average women price themselves out of the market, then what? So basically the hot people succeed at online dating in this theory, not women.

I think the underlying assumption is that there's more hot guys than hot girls trying to find a partner online. Whether that's true or not is a topic that I'm not going to touch with a ten-foot pole.

On the subject of the effort needed to be successful in internet dating, I feel like the factor of experience in dating is missing from the discussion. If someone has no previous experience of dating or being in a relationship, that person is pretty likely to fail in finding a partner online, no? It feels a bit like going "you haven't had a partner? Why don't you get one?" to someone who doesn't know how.

The Incel movement needs to die, the sooner the better, but brushing them aside through anecdotes of one's experiences of online dating isn't going to accomplish that.

Hot guys and hot girls do really well obviously.

Average girls do a lot better than average guys. Hot guys will go down with average girls quite often. Hot girls almost never go down.

It's even worse at the bottom. Where do you think most of these incel guys are?

Plus we are just talking about online dating as a proxy. It's even worse at a bar or a club. Girls are even less likely to consider lesser attractive guys when people can see them with lesser attractive guys.

That's still making the assumption that there's X "hot girls" and at the most X-1 "hot guys" as otherwise the two would just pair up.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I've seen a lot of likely neurotypicals self-diagnose themselves as Autistic because they were having trouble socializing and could or would not change their behaviors. Perhaps the mod was referring to these types?

Perhaps it's a gakky thing to say regardless of whether he means it as-written, in the same misused sense as you mention, or just as a shorthand. Perhaps a mod should know better, given they're ostensibly a responsible person in a community that's likely to have a reasonable amount of people with an ASD in it.

Perhaps it might be a good idea not to assume as to whether another person is...well, as you so delicately put it, 'like you', or 'like us'. We are all faceless people on the internet, after all. Not to mention that it's only about two steps from dividing the world into 'normies' and 'us' like incels do.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hot guys and hot girls do really well obviously.

Average girls do a lot better than average guys. Hot guys will go down with average girls quite often. Hot girls almost never go down.

It's even worse at the bottom. Where do you think most of these incel guys are?

Plus we are just talking about online dating as a proxy. It's even worse at a bar or a club. Girls are even less likely to consider lesser attractive guys when people can see them with lesser attractive guys.

Are you living in an alternative dimension where 50% of the population isn't female? Because if 75% of men get rejected than 75% of women will also end up alone, unless your dimension includes large scale polygamy


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I think the underlying assumption is that there's more hot guys than hot girls trying to find a partner online. Whether that's true or not is a topic that I'm not going to touch with a ten-foot pole.

On the subject of the effort needed to be successful in internet dating, I feel like the factor of experience in dating is missing from the discussion. If someone has no previous experience of dating or being in a relationship, that person is pretty likely to fail in finding a partner online, no? It feels a bit like going "you haven't had a partner? Why don't you get one?" to someone who doesn't know how.

The Incel movement needs to die, the sooner the better, but brushing them aside through anecdotes of one's experiences of online dating isn't going to accomplish that.

Online dating is just a minefield because people also all tend to aim higher in the looks department and you get overloaded with choices: "what if the next person is even better?". In real life you can also develop relationships with people you know well/beforehand and where looks matter less. Online dating lets you weed out an incredible amount of people who you could have had fulfilling relationships with just because you go for those check boxes.

 Manchu wrote:
Ketara's post already qualifies the statement in question: "young naive autistic men who can't figure sex/relationships out," i.e., recognizing the difference between finding social interaction more difficult and failing at it altogether. But his larger point seems to be that socially (and perhaps neurologically, if that's the right term) vulnerable younger men are being groomed/radicalized by predators.

Spot on. People on the autistic spectrum often have difficulties relating to other people, or reading their intents and emotions. Indeed, it's one of the primary identifying factors. Certain young men in that position (namely those who have difficulties relating to/reading people, wherever it may came from) who also happen to be reasonably unattractive have their difficulties multiplied half a dozen times over. At which point if the issue goes on long enough, more normal psychological barriers and problems begin to get stacked on top (summoning up the courage to ever make a move becomes a massive thing instead of something you forget by the next day, erectile dysfunction from only ever getting one kind of stimulation, etcetc).

If that carries on until the poor sod hits their early twenties, they understandably get depressed about it. and then increasingly bitter. Once they're in an echo chamber of reinforcing validation? Even more so.

These people are horrendous, but they're also really quite sad in a way. The problem is that they react to any woman saying, 'Cheer up it can't be too bad' or trying to help them gain confidence, etc, with 'Alright, spread your legs and fix it for me then &^%^(*'. Which women aren't too inclined to do from that sort of proposition.

If a suitable lass gets hold of them young enough and they get into a real relationship, a goodly chunk of the misogynistic crap would get knocked out of them in short order, I should think. Nothing wrong with a spot of healthy kink or suchlike in a relationship that involves being a bit more dominating in the bedroom or suchlike (I think that's often all that's showing through in some of the more frustrated rants); but the key here is that the lads have to learn that what happens consensually on one side of the bedroom door and then out on the other side when the washing up needs doing are two very different things.

The ones that start pushing 30 would appear to be the worst ones though; those seem to be the more twisted and warped. They can't differentiate, get horrendously depressed and fatalistic, and just start spewing hatred and vitriol out of loneliness and perceived inadequacy.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hot guys and hot girls do really well obviously.

Average girls do a lot better than average guys. Hot guys will go down with average girls quite often. Hot girls almost never go down.

It's even worse at the bottom. Where do you think most of these incel guys are?

Plus we are just talking about online dating as a proxy. It's even worse at a bar or a club. Girls are even less likely to consider lesser attractive guys when people can see them with lesser attractive guys.

Are you living in an alternative dimension where 50% of the population isn't female? Because if 75% of men get rejected than 75% of women will also end up alone, unless your dimension includes large scale polygamy

Not necessarily polygamy, but more of a serial monogamy. The high-status males will probably end up dating more than one woman over time, even for ones who wish to settle down and be monogamous. This means that even if they only date a couple women in a year, the number of women who have experienced some form of relationship is much higher than men. Sure, men and women form long-term relationships at about equal rates, but when it comes to the dating game, human behavior dictates that it is much easier for a woman to stay in the status of dating than for a low-status male.

So at the end of the day a woman who ends up spending her life single is more likely to find herself in a position where she has dated, and rejected, an number of men, whereas a guy in the same position is much more likely to have had few or no partners. One of these ends up on a couch with a dog and tub of Ben & Jerry's, the other goes off the deep end and joins the incel "Movement".

 Xenomancers wrote:
This isn't how it actually works.

It works more like this in the online dating.

Hot girls get whatever they want
Average girls get whatever they want
Hot guys have a pretty good time
Not so cute girls have a pretty good time
Average guys get almost nothing
not so cute guys need not apply.

Pretty much - it sucks to be a not so cute guy.

The point is that your theory doesn't match the numbers. You can't have more girls than guys getting what they want because, assuming nobody is gay (and not in this dating pool in the first place), a girl succeeding inherently means a guy succeeding at the same time. Maybe you can make the principle work for a single dating site by assuming that there are only a few women and lots of desperate men on that particular site, but the numbers have to average out elsewhere. In a country with a roughly 50/50 gender ratio and overwhelming heterosexual monogamy you can't have significantly disproportionate success rates.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hot guys and hot girls do really well obviously.

Average girls do a lot better than average guys. Hot guys will go down with average girls quite often. Hot girls almost never go down.

It's even worse at the bottom. Where do you think most of these incel guys are?

Plus we are just talking about online dating as a proxy. It's even worse at a bar or a club. Girls are even less likely to consider lesser attractive guys when people can see them with lesser attractive guys.

Are you living in an alternative dimension where 50% of the population isn't female? Because if 75% of men get rejected than 75% of women will also end up alone, unless your dimension includes large scale polygamy

Not necessarily polygamy, but more of a serial monogamy. The high-status males will probably end up dating more than one woman over time, even for ones who wish to settle down and be monogamous. This means that even if they only date a couple women in a year, the number of women who have experienced some form of relationship is much higher than men. Sure, men and women form long-term relationships at about equal rates, but when it comes to the dating game, human behavior dictates that it is much easier for a woman to stay in the status of dating than for a low-status male.

So at the end of the day a woman who ends up spending her life single is more likely to find herself in a position where she has dated, and rejected, an number of men, whereas a guy in the same position is much more likely to have had few or no partners. One of these ends up on a couch with a dog and tub of Ben & Jerry's, the other goes off the deep end and joins the incel "Movement".

This is vastly overestimating how many women some men go through. Multiple surveys and research in the US into the topic have found that the median for sexual partners between men and women on average is only 1 or 2 apart. the margin between men and women is smaller than 10% on average, then take into account that men might exaggerate for status and women give lower numbers because of social stigma. Men more often than women claim to have had more than one sexual partner.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Not necessarily polygamy, but more of a serial monogamy. The high-status males will probably end up dating more than one woman over time, even for ones who wish to settle down and be monogamous. This means that even if they only date a couple women in a year, the number of women who have experienced some form of relationship is much higher than men. Sure, men and women form long-term relationships at about equal rates, but when it comes to the dating game, human behavior dictates that it is much easier for a woman to stay in the status of dating than for a low-status male.

So at the end of the day a woman who ends up spending her life single is more likely to find herself in a position where she has dated, and rejected, an number of men, whereas a guy in the same position is much more likely to have had few or no partners. One of these ends up on a couch with a dog and tub of Ben & Jerry's, the other goes off the deep end and joins the incel "Movement".

Statistically, this is unfounded. Men and women have the same number of partners on average and are celibate at pretty much the same number. They of course have children in pretty much the same proportion. If some men are serial monogamous partner, so are their partner by necessity or by choice. The number of celibate people who also happen to be actively searching for a partner is comparable to a few digits between men and women. The idea that dating is easier for one gender over another is mostly an illusion caussed by selection biais. In other words, the grass always looks green on the other side of the fence. Traditionnal dating culture present different challenges and roles to men and women though.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
Not necessarily polygamy, but more of a serial monogamy. The high-status males will probably end up dating more than one woman over time, even for ones who wish to settle down and be monogamous. This means that even if they only date a couple women in a year, the number of women who have experienced some form of relationship is much higher than men. Sure, men and women form long-term relationships at about equal rates, but when it comes to the dating game, human behavior dictates that it is much easier for a woman to stay in the status of dating than for a low-status male.

That only works if you have all of these women sitting idle while waiting for their brief turn with the highest-status man. In reality the serially monogamous types are going to line up another date the moment the first one fails, and that means keeping the 1:1 success ratio.

 Peregrine wrote:
Awww, the incel wants to be treated like a terrorist. This should be arranged.

It's perfect! Now America can claim any male they dislike is a Incel terrorist and any women killed near by were unfortunate collateral damage! Since that's the degree of actual proof required to be a 'terrorist' and the usual outcome one you deploy one of those drones. Regardless of their rights under the law.

Hmmm, with the exception of my next to most recent relationship, most of my dating pool has consisted of either people met at work or one of my two main social circles - folk music and role playing games.

Not a lot of overlap - my wife is a wonderful, wonderful exception. We are in an amateur steampunk band together, and we game together... anywhere between three and five times a week. (I can honestly say that I beat my wife, or at least her army, on a regular basis, But then I would also have to admit that she beats me, and my army, also on a regular basis.)

Honestly, I think the biggest step is just to be socially active - you can't have a relationship if you don't, you know, interact with people.

The Auld Grump - my wife is a lot better looking than I am.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Hmmm, with the exception of my next to most recent relationship, most of my dating pool has consisted of either people met at work or one of my two main social circles - folk music and role playing games.

Not a lot of overlap - my wife is a wonderful, wonderful exception. We are in an amateur steampunk band together, and we game together... anywhere between three and five times a week. (I can honestly say that I beat my wife, or at least her army, on a regular basis, But then I would also have to admit that she beats me, and my army, also on a regular basis.)

Honestly, I think the biggest step is just to be socially active - you can't have a relationship if you don't, you know, interact with people.

The Auld Grump - my wife is a lot better looking than I am.

Exactly, but while this seems natural to most people, that's not what the incel community believes for the most part, there the expectation is that women should be lining up at your front door. Because you know, they have such great personalities or something?

As for the better looking part, I think on average women tend to be better looking than men, so men are the lucky ones in that regard


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Awww, the incel wants to be treated like a terrorist. This should be arranged.

It's perfect! Now America can claim any male they dislike is a Incel terrorist and any women killed near by were unfortunate collateral damage! Since that's the degree of actual proof required to be a 'terrorist' and the usual outcome one you deploy one of those drones. Regardless of their rights under the law.

Well so far incels have done 'better' than Islamic terrorism in Canada. So for those arguing that radicals need to be on a watchlist

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


As for the better looking part, I think on average women tend to be better looking than men, so men are the lucky ones in that regard

I would say the same, but I would say that's due to the fact I'm heterosexual. While I can appreciate a man's beauty or charm, I'm not exactly a connaisseur in that domain. To me, again, that's selection biais (better personnal hygene and more extansive use of cosmetic amongst women might also help in that regard).

epronovost wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:


As for the better looking part, I think on average women tend to be better looking than men, so men are the lucky ones in that regard

I would say the same, but I would say that's due to the fact I'm heterosexual. While I can appreciate a man's beauty or charm, I'm not exactly a connaisseur in that domain. To me, again, that's selection biais (better personnal hygene and more extansive use of cosmetic amongst women might also help in that regard).

Men can look absolutely gorgeous too indeed. But most of us on average spend significantly less time and money relative to women on how we look, so that might be the main reason.

Anyway, Elliot Rogers and Alek Minassian are both good looking guys, from what I see.

If they had trouble getting a girlfriend it might have been started by shyness and insecurity as teenagers. That said, their situation certainly wasn't helped by becoming creepy misogynists that any normal girl would run a mile from.