Categories
aggrieved entitlement crackpottery empathy deficit entitled babies incel irony alert jordan "slappy" peterson men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny rape rape culture redistribution of sex sex sexual inequality

Incels: We shouldn’t pay taxes because women’s bodies are a “public good” that we don’t get access to

How incels see taxes

By David Futrelle

Pity the poor incels, who are not only oppressed by snooty women who refuse to have sex with them just because they’re “pretty sure this guy would murder me and use my skin to make a fedora,” but also have to pay taxes.

Now, because of that first thing, incels think they shouldn’t have to do the second thing. Like many of their manosphere brothers, you see, incels are convinced that women live lives of ease, heavily subsidized with the money that Big Daddy Government extracts from hardworking male taxpayers like them (assuming they’re not living the incel dream, sitting pretty in mom’s basement without the bother of a job).

But at least non-incel men get to have sex with the women they supposedly subsidize with their tax dollars. Since these women (aka femoids, aka foids) are basically living off the government, their bodies are a “public good” that incels are unfairly being denied access to.

On Incels.me, the largest incel forum outside of Reddit, one unhappy taxcel recently demanded what he sees as justice:

The text:

Robo Sapien:

Since wagecuckcels are funding a public good that we don’t get access to, who else here thinks that verified incels shouldn’t be taxed? Or at least given prostitutes as fair compensation for state programs that go to foids? Let me know your thoughts gentleman.

Robtical:

We should either not be taxed at all or given weekly prostitutes.

Robo Sapien posted a little poll, and those who clicked on it overwhelmingly agreed:

Aggrieved entitlement in action!

The unfairness of taxes is a longtime obsession of incels. In a Incels.me thread last December, someone calling himself Dry Spell argued that women should have to pay higher taxes than men because

it’s too easy for them to make money. Women can literally flash (part of) their boobs on youtube and make easy money. They don’t even have to be super attractive.

Another commenter had a slightly more radical idea. “Women must not pay taxes,” wrote Incelman. “Thye must have sex with an incel instead.”

In another December thread, a regular commenter called wandercamp suggested that women should be forced to pay a “sex tax” — not a tax on having sex, but a tax in the form of sex — in order to prevent the sexual frustration that he thinks leads incels to seek “retribution” through mass killings.

“What would have saved the lives that ER ended?” he asked.

Sex. Thats it. 20 minutes and all of those young women would be alive.

But apparently thats too much to ask after a weekend long cock train that your average sorority sister rides each saturday.

So its simple, we make it mandatory for women to sleep with incels.

>b-but thats oppressiv…

Shut up. You wont put out for 20 minutes to save the lives of 7 people?

>we need to examine his mental state
>our culture led to this

who cares? We want to save lives. Put out. Its that simple. You can spend 50 years researching sexual culture to solve the problem of homicidal virgins or you can put out.

>but sex is personal

Obviously not if you defend casual sex

>its enslavement

No its not. You work a certain amount of hours each week to pay taxes, and you dont call it enslavement. Requiring some of your sex to be with incels should be no problem

Stated this baldly, these various proposals to combat alleged “sexual inequality” by giving incels tax breaks and/or forcing women to have sex with them are obviously deeply offensive and completely absurd. But as I’ve said before these spurious solutions — and the perverse logic behind them — are not that far off in spirit from the more carefully worded “solutions” to so-called sexual inequality that have begun to seep into the popular discourse.

Like wandercamp here, George Mason University economist Robin Hanson thinks that “involuntary celibacy” fuels mass murders and that reducing the celibacy would reduce the murders. Like so many incels, he sees sexual inequality is fundamentally analogous to income inequality and his proposed, er, solutions seem to come straight from the incel playbook. “Sex could be directly redistributed,” he wrote in a now infamous blog post after the Toronto van attack, “or cash might be redistributed in compensation”

That’s pretty much exactly what Robo Sapien was suggesting. But Hanson isn’t an anonymous commenter on an incel forum; he’s a tenured professor whose blog post on the “redistribution of sex” inspired a New York Times column that reached millions.

Meanwhile, psych-professor-turned-self-help-guru Jordan Peterson — the most influential representative of the so-called “intellectual dark web” — also thinks that men turn violent when they can’t have sex, and wants us to essentially reorganize society in such a way that women are essentially forced to marry the guys who now call themselves incels (though he now insists that his vision of “enforced monogamy” will somehow managed not to involve force, which makes one wonder why he used the word “enforced” in the first place).

Though both would vehemently deny it, both Hanson and Peterson are de facto apologists for incel terrorism. Their ideas are as dangerous as those of incels like Robo Sapien and wandercamp; unfortunately they are much more influential.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

119 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sonia
Sonia
2 years ago

Hi, I don’t normally post here but these stories reminded me of a few years ago when the girlfriend of the man who murdered 5 sex workers in the UK (she was not involved in any way with the crimes) was interviewed by Sky News. The interviewer asks her straight out if she thinks he wouldn’t have done it if they had had a better sex life.

It seems this logic is age old unfortunately.

Amaror
Amaror
2 years ago

The thing with incels and enforced monogamy is, is that they believe that we currently don’t have enforced monogamy. Basically they believe we have something called hypergamy.(I think that’s what it was called.)
Basically they think that all the hot women get with the hot guys, then all the average women use makeup to make themselves seem hot and also get with the hot guys. And then there are only the ugly women left for every man that isn’t hot.
That’s obviously badshit insane, but they truly do imagine that every Chad has his own harem and that’s the only reason that the incels aren’t getting any.

Violet the Vile, Wielder of an Ideologically Weaponised Vagina
Violet the Vile, Wielder of an Ideologically Weaponised Vagina
2 years ago

@wwth – Well, a lot of the time I DON’T understand Jordan Peterson, to be honest, despite my graduate degree and job involving reading scientific literature on a regular basis.

But that is because he doesn’t make his point clear and frequently redefines terms to suit himself (as an aside, people keep saying “oh but you don’t understand the term ‘forced monogamy’ because it is a technical term used by scientists.” I understand EXACTLY what forced monogamy is (at least in terms of research biology). It is an experimental technique used to examine particular behaviours, or when you want to make a particular genetic cross. IE if you have fruit flies with red eyes and fruit flies with white eyes, and you want to see what the resulting genotype would be when you breed those two types together, you might segregate a red-eyed female on her own with one white-eyed male (That way, you know for sure any eggs you get are a red-eyed/white-eyed cross, and if you are a good scientist you will also segregate a red-eyed male with a white-eyed female to see if the results are different) Or, for example, you might look at the effects segregation with a female has on the mating behaviour of a male which normally has to compete for females with other males. Etc).

If he is using a definition of “forced monogamy” from another source (it may be used in social science or some other field in a different way) then there are clearly multiple definitions and you would really think someone who is allegedly a senior academic would understand the importance of definitions and footnoting. Because as it is, all this term says to me is some kind of human genetic breeding programme. So he needs to clear that up.

It’s not our job to untangle someone’s load of woolly and ill-defined nonsense. It’s his job to make his point clear.

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
2 years ago

Jordan Peterson’s communication is either fundamentally dishonest or just plain sloppy. I can’t decide which it is. I suppose it could be sloppy in the service of dishonesty.

Bah. I’m going to knit a hat. My day will therefore be more productive than Peterson’s.

brian
brian
2 years ago

i know it’s silly to pick at grammatical weirdness from these chucklefucks, but sometimes i can’t help it:
how do you do a “weekend long” anything, “each saturday”? Clever foids, managing to do something that takes two days in a single day!

pitshade
pitshade
2 years ago

“Wagecuckcel,’ sounds doubleplus ungood to me.

Funny how progressives are supposed to be the social engineers and yet the right are the ones trying to coopt the language to manipulate people’s thoughts.

Katamount
Katamount
2 years ago

@wwth

Either he’s incompetent, or he’s being intentionally vague in order to dogwhistle to his real audience. Neither of those options make me want to take him seriously.

I actually think this needs to be pointed out more and more whenever these bloviating chucklenuts like Peterson or Sam Harris have any kind of interview or profile. Ask for some concrete policy positions and if they start going out on hypotheticals or jargon-laden “thought experiments,” call that shit out on what it is.

Then remind them of the story of Rumpelstiltskin. Call something by its true name, and it dies.

Also, can we take the term “Judeo-Christian” out back and just empty a magazine into it? The fact that this stupid term has caught on is a testament (no pun intended) to the ability of the right to manipulate language. There is no such thing as “Judeo-Christian,” particularly with the history of anti-Semitism being what it is and continues to be to this day.

Tessa
Tessa
2 years ago

Other Tessa:

I enjoy your blog, but would like to clarify what Jordan Peterson means by “enforced monogamy”. In anthropological terms western society is considered an “enforced monogamy”, because other forms of bonding such as polygamy are illegal and/or censured; basically Peterson states that he supports standard western style (Judaeo-Christian) monogamy – one man, one woman, but nothing coercive as you imply. I agree that the term “enforced monogamy” sounds ominous and he should avoid using it, as it is easily misunderstood.

That is not what he is saying at all. What you are saying is “exclusive.” Enforced is strict and ENFORCED or else it wouldn’t do anything to appease or “cure” incel terrorists.
From Jordan Peters:
“He was angry at God because women were rejecting him. The cure for that is enforced monogamy.”

See? Enforcement takes rejection off the table. Someone would HAVE to be with him. Of course the “or else” isn’t said. But we all know what it is.

Unless you can explain a way rejection could be taken off the table without removing every woman’s right to say no.

Also, why is the solution ALWAYS removing women’s freedoms when it comes to men’s actions against women?

Wouldn’t the better option be to keep these guys as far from society as possible? Since the believe any one of them will go on a killing spree at any minute?

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
2 years ago

@Parasol

I’m gonna go with dishonest, personally. Motherfucker knows exactly what he’s doing. I think that if it was just sloppy he’d have changed his habit after so many callouts, but he doesn’t. Hell it’s almost like he has a “misunderstanding” excuse up his sleeve before he even publishes his stuff.

It’s just a new form of dogwhistling, is all, relying on implications to get his point across. But because it isn’t concrete he can cry “no no you got it all wrong!” when the heat turns up.

Tessa
Tessa
2 years ago

Dangit… “Peterson” not Peters! Stupid phone. Sorry.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Another clue would be that this enforced monogamy talk tends to only come up when female supposedly immoral sexual and romantic choices are being discussed. You don’t hear talk of enforced monogamy curing unfaithful husbands or rapey PUAs. The people who like Peterson are the same types of people who like Trump, the guy who has had multiple marriages and even more extra-marital affairs. That’s not even counting whatever non-consensual assault he’s committed. If Peterson and his fans were using the concept of enforced monogamy in a dry academic way, and there’s no misogyny involved whatsoever, it would apply across the board to everyone.

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
2 years ago

Mostly tho, whatever the reason, Gen X pundits are waaay too freaked out/enthralled by this. I promise, the kids are alright

Gen X’er here, am also totally confused by the Millennial panic coming from, well, everywhere it seems.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
2 years ago

That’s something I don’t get about the alt-right in general. They lionize their cult leaders for being brave, forthright truth tellers, but then they’re constantly having to walk back their awful comments.

Trump supporters: “You liberals can’t handle TRUTH BOMBS! He tells it exactly like it is!”

Trump supporters, five minutes later: “No, no, he didn’t mean that.”

“No, he didn’t mean that either.”

“You just misunderstood what he meant.”

“You’re quoting him out of context.”

(None of them are ever able to explain what this mythical context is that makes dehumanizing rhetoric sound logical and reasonable.)

Side note – it’s also interesting that (assuming the Venn diagram of incels and libertarians is mostly circular) most of them will argue tooth and nail for letting society’s “makers” keep their wealth as a reward for their efforts, but when it comes to Chad, suddenly the pitchforks and Marxist slogans come out. Why doesn’t Chad get the same deference as the 1%? Doesn’t he put in the effort to use deodorant and talk to (not at) women and go on dates and put in the hard work of LTRs? Why is it fair to steal his hard-earned harem?

How can you demand to forcibly redistribute anything (let alone something as complex as a human relationship) and not sound like a monstrous 3 year old? “I will randomly murder people until everyone on earth has an equal amount of crayons.”

How can the media give this even one femtosecond of serious consideration?

As Violet pointed out, their plan has the virtue of being not only morally appalling, but full of ill-thought-out, unworkable contradictions. If women are a “public good”, but they become fatally used up after one encounter, then mathematically the pool of available sacrificial virgins (because, let’s be clear, these guys want to be angry volcano gods, because goodness knows we haven’t tried THAT, ever) will shrink to zero within months. Then what? They’ll have to keep raising the acceptable notch count, much like the Social Security retirement age.

@moon_custafer Thanks! Help yourself to a forehead cupcake 🙂

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
2 years ago

That’s something I don’t get about the alt-right in general. They lionize their cult leaders for being brave, forthright truth tellers, but then they’re constantly having to walk back their awful comments.

See also: Denying that they’re Nazis, from “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler!” to “Leftists are the real Nazis!” to both “Everyone I don’t like is Hitler!” and “Leftists are the real Nazis!” in the same bloody paragraph, despite having swastikas for usernames and Iron Crosses for avatars.

So brave. *sheds a tear*

Viscaria
Viscaria
2 years ago

Thanks to everyone who pointed out that a) it makes no sense in context that Peterson was suggesting we keep doing what we’re already doing and b) how any criticism of his work is dismissed as misunderstanding because his positions are slippery and either ill-defined or undefinable.

But let’s pretend for a minute that Peterson was just endorsing the existing system of social and tax incentives towards exactly one style of relationship – long-term committed romantic and sexual relationships between one man and one woman. Here’s the thing: that sucks too. Our current system of hurts queer people. It hurts people who do not thrive in monogamous relationships. It hurts people who are staying in relationships that have ceased to work for them. It hurts children of more than two parents. So yeah. I’m not into it, even if that was what Peterson was advocating (lol it was not.)

But what do I know? I’m just a chaotic bog witch.

Robert
Robert
2 years ago

I’ve been gingerly asking questions over at the subReddit. Three pertinent nuggets so far:
Success as a man is dependent on procreating and keeping your biokids alive long enough for them to procreate as well. Every other achievement is secondary.
Women wear makeup to accentuate sexual signalling; men cannot be around a woman wearing makeup, heels, and displaying cleavage without being aroused.
If a man can’t ask a colleague for a date, we might as well be living in Maoist China.

Regarding the first, I was told that my unemployed alcoholic brother is de facto more of a success as a man than I am because my sons are adopted, therefore I’m raising an ‘enemy’s’ offspring.

Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
Lumipuna (nee Arctic Ape)
2 years ago

I hazard to guess Peterson honestly meant the solution would be kinda like our current “enforced monogamy”, just a little more so. You know, like the good old days of conservative Gilded Age, whatever that’d mean in practice. Whatever you personally imagine, if you’re any kind of social conservative.

Mind you, the Gilded Age would be a solution for his own agenda. He doesn’t care if it’d make incels happy, or even solve their purported problems. He’s just eager to pimp himself in the media and let all kinds of conservatives imagine he’s saying whatever they want hear, including incels and others who pine for the Republic of Gilead.

Kevin
Kevin
2 years ago

Well Peterson seems to be working straight from the ‘Demagogue Playbook.’ – Give the followers general platitudes that they think are what they want to hear, (possibly seeming to, or even genuinely, including a ‘hate bone’ or three for them to chew on) while ducking any genuine attempt to make policy.

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
2 years ago

@Kevin Sounds like Doug Ford and the CPC were following the same playbook. 😛

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Success as a man is dependent on procreating and keeping your biokids alive long enough for them to procreate as well. Every other achievement is secondary.

Pretending for a minute this is true, the reactionaries who love this rhetoric tend to forget the keeping kids alive long enough for them to procreate part. They only concentrate on the opportunities to spread sperm part. They gloss over how the infant mortality rate used to be much, much higher than it is now and if they got their wish of a collapse of the current “degenerate” west, infant mortality would go back up. Even if their libertarian wet dreams came true without an apocalypse, they would rise sharply. Government investment in infrastructure such as sewage treatment, regulations protecting water and keeping food safe, vaccination programs, access to affordable health care for children and for pregnant people and many more “socialist” things that they hate are crucial for keeping kids alive long enough to procreate. Not just poor kids. The wealthy still used to lose children during childbirth or during the first few years of life. Even if alt-right/manosphere types were the ubermenschen they believe themselves to be, they wouldn’t be able to bootstrap their way out of that.

Not to mention these dude’s hatred of being forced to pay child support to keep their children alive.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

@Fishy Goat:

Gen X’er here, am also totally confused by the Millennial panic coming from, well, everywhere it seems.

I think it’s because all the conservatism/kyriarchy/etc. shit got a “No Sell” from nearly all the Millennials. So they’re shitting themselves in terror that their day is nearly done.

pitshade
pitshade
2 years ago

Gen X’er here, am also totally confused by the Millennial panic coming from, well, everywhere it seems.

The Boomers pretty much said the same sort of thing about us. We were the reason ‘underachiever’ entered common use, after all. But they were a bunch of dirty hippies… It’s like every generation thinks of its youth as freedom and innocence, but the next generation are aimless and unmotivated.

Bakunin
Bakunin
2 years ago

@Robert

‘Interesting’ criteria they have. I’m curious though, I had two kids before starting to transition, where does that put me? They really don’t think these things through, do they?

Pie
Pie
2 years ago

@pitshade

It’s like every generation thinks of its youth as freedom and innocence, but the next generation are aimless and unmotivated.

See also: music peaked back when I was young and at my most emotionally vulnerable, but ever since then it has been going down hill, and it’s all just noise these days.

It’s all the same old whine.

kupo
kupo
2 years ago

That’s obviously badshit insane

Please mind the comments policy. Thanks. 😊

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I was born on the cusp of genX and millennial. So I got to be an aimless slacker in my teens and early twenties and now I get to be selfish and entitled. Best of both worlds!

Fishy Goat
Fishy Goat
2 years ago

@WWTH LOL!

@Pitshade I guess I missed it when the boomers were dissing us.

@Surplus to Requirements And here I am, cheering the Millennials on and wishing more (older) people were like them. 🙂

Miss Cobalt
Miss Cobalt
2 years ago

@weirwoodtreehugger:

My money would be on the dogwhistling

Robert
Robert
2 years ago

Oh, I’ve just been assured that expecting men not to sexually harass their co-workers is ‘vilifying half of the population’, and ‘squeamish’.

I’m feeling more confident about my rejection of Lobsterology.

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
2 years ago

@Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Yay we get to conquer and watch as they turn older and more bitter.

Ray of Rays
Ray of Rays
2 years ago

It’s all the same old whine.

Is it, though? The generational whining feels a lot more vicious than I’d expect, or that I’ve read about (beyond maybe the height of the Vietnam War). It feels like it’s left “kids these days” sighing way behind in favor of “fuck these kids, they need to suffer.”

Or maybe it’s just because it’s getting signal-boosted by right-wing blowhards of all ages who use “millennial” in the same instances they’d use “libtard.”

Katherine the Adequate
Katherine the Adequate
2 years ago

“Wagecuckels”? Incels use a strange vernacular indeed. And since in the “poll” one of them posted few agreed they were citizens (therefore subject to tax laws), they should be deported immediately. I’d say shoot them into space and see what planet would take them.

Katherine the Adequate
Katherine the Adequate
2 years ago

Re: Generational wars, I was born on the cusp of Boomer and Xer. My younger brothers are Xers, and I seem to relate to them better. My offspring are Millennials. I love Millennials. I love their curiosity, and their openness to change and innovation. I have little patience for people who dismiss these things because “we’ve always done it this way!”, and I hear that refrain too often from Boomers. Even my late mom, who was a member of the Lost Generation (Depression baby), loved the internet and embraced technology. People are never too old to learn and adapt.
JMHO.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I think that as baby boomers and to a lesser extent genXers have watched things get worse and worse economically for everyone who isn’t in the upper classes and are just desperate to believe that it isn’t their fault. If they admit that the problem is tax cuts, deregulation, union busting, and those were the policies of the elected officials they voted in, then they are admitting that they fucked up. Nobody wants to admit that they wrecked the country. So they have to create this myth of millennials as almost monstrously self absorbed and entitled. It’s pure projection. Everything they’ve accused the younger generations of being, it’s what they are.

Hopefully all this will backfire big time and result in far more progressive policies when millennials finally start getting into higher offices. From what I’ve seen, millennials are mostly (alt right and manosphere) aside not buying into this notion that they’re horrible lazy brats if they don’t want to work until age 80 for little pay. Who would buy that? The bootstraps mythology worked on boomers and older genXers because they got to start careers and buy houses before things started to get bad for working and middle class people. They got theirs, and even if they lost in the great recession, they can tell themselves “hey, I worked hard and I got results.” They got enough economic privilege for the line that if you work hard and follow the rules you can prosper to ring true. Younger people followed the rules and didn’t get jack shit. So they’re the ones who’ll eventually change the rules. I hope!

Skylalalalalalala
Skylalalalalalala
2 years ago

@Buttercup Q. Skullpants

Why doesn’t Chad get the same deference as the 1%? Doesn’t he put in the effort to use deodorant and talk to (not at) women and go on dates and put in the hard work of LTRs? Why is it fair to steal his hard-earned harem?

Because they believe they’ll somehow, someday BE the 1%. They know they’re never going to be a “Chad”.

Cohen the Librarian
Cohen the Librarian
2 years ago

Like many academics, Jordan Peterson has learned the art of making his arguments hard to decipher so that they are also hard to refute. However, unlike most academics, he has a mass audience.

A former colleague of his spoken out:

“Shortly after Jordan’s rise to notoriety back in 2016, I emailed him to express my upset with his dishonesty and lack of intellectual and social integrity. He called in a conciliatory voice the next morning. I was reiterating my disappointment and upset when he interrupted me, saying more or less the following:

“You don’t understand. I am willing to lose everything, my home, my job etc., because I believe in this.” And then he said, with the intensity he is now famous for, “Bernie. Tammy had a dream, and sometimes her dreams are prophetic. She dreamed that it was five minutes to midnight.”

That was our last conversation. He was playing out the ideas that appeared in his first book. The social order is coming apart. We are on the edge of chaos. He is the prophet, and he would be the martyr. Jordan would be our saviour. I think he believes that.

He may be driven by a great and genuine fear of our impending doom, and a passionate conviction that he can save us from it. He may believe that his ends justify his questionable means, and he may not be aware that he mimics those figures from whom he wants to protect us. But his conviction makes him no less problematic. On the contrary.
[…]
Currently, Jordan is the darling of the alt-right. He says he is not one of them, but has accepted their affection with relish.”

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html

Allandrel
Allandrel
2 years ago

@Skylalalalalalala

Because they believe they’ll somehow, someday BE the 1%. They know they’re never going to be a “Chad”.

Indeed. I have never, ever met a libertarian who believes that they will be a janitor in Galt’s Gulch.

Full Metal Ox
2 years ago

pitshade:

‘Wagecuckcel,’ sounds doubleplus ungood to me.

Funny how progressives are supposed to be the social engineers and yet the right are the ones trying to coopt the language to manipulate people’s thoughts.

Katherine the Adequate:

“Wagecuckels”? Incels use a strange vernacular indeed. And since in the “poll” one of them posted few agreed they were citizens (therefore subject to tax laws), they should be deported immediately. I’d say shoot them into space and see what planet would take them.

What I’d like to see are some prefixes that reflect truth in labeling (but therefore would never be self-applied); what do you say to “douchecel”? “Creepcel”? “Bigotcel”? “Bratcel”? “Bullycel”?

Bananananana dakry: Short-Haired, Fat, and Deranged
Bananananana dakry: Short-Haired, Fat, and Deranged
2 years ago

@Allandrel

Indeed. I have never, ever met a libertarian who believes that they will be a janitor in Galt’s Gulch.

People like them always think they’ll be amongst the elite of whatever New Society they cream their pants over and they get to oppress everybody else. The reality is odds are they’d be lucky to be spear carriers for the elite of the society in question, if that. More likely, they’d just be the mooks that are fodder for whatever the elite wants, to be chewed up and spat out the same way they fantasize about doing to other people.

Me, I think a good barometer of what would be an actual good society is to imagine if life would be liveable and not just survivable on the bottom tiers of it. But alas, delusions of grandeur get in the way of most of their fantasies. They get in the way of a lot of people’s, really.

The whole millennial hate just makes me shake my head and facepalm, because I’m a Gen Xer and remember when we were called “slackers” and lazy for realizing work for work’s sake was a rigged game and not wanting to buy into it. The bashing is just another way to deflect and blame someone else for your own problems– or rather for the power elite’s causing them. I’m really hoping that since millennials as a whole have seen the rigged game for what it is that they steer society away from that crap now that they’re coming into their political power… and that I’ll see the positive results before I die. Because living my last years in a society that is the logical end result of “I’ve got mine, fuck you, oh look, SQUIRREL!” does not sound like a smashin’ good time.

Full Metal Ox
2 years ago

@Violet the Vile:

and my favourite:
If an incel has sex with a government-sponsored prostitute, he is by definition no longer an incel, so he’s not entitled to have sex with a government-sponsored prostitute. Incel22!

See also: this means his prostitute simultaneously exists and does not exist

I’m sorry, but you handed me this one gift-wrapped: would this liminal sex worker (I’m presuming a cis woman, as per incel stipulations) be a purveyor of Schrodinger’s Pussy?

Full Metal Ox
2 years ago

@ Surplus to Requirements:

I think it’s because all the conservatism/kyriarchy/etc. shit got a “No Sell” from nearly all the Millennials. So they’re shitting themselves in terror that their day is nearly done.

And that’s one of the reasons that The Last Jedi drew such screaming conniptions from certain fanbrats: the story is in large measure about the inevitable death of established heroes and the passing of the torch to a new generation, with insinuations that Star Wars is a story far bigger than the House of Skywalker and the Force is a mysterious and mystical thing that might happen to anyone–I personally squeed at the Big Reveal of Rey’s backstory.

(People, if you’re old enough to remember the original run of the Prequel Trilogy, much less the first trilogy, your Precious Little Childhood is over–I’m not asking you to leave the pool, but could we make room for the literal kids, please? A fandom successfully gatekept from the n00bs will eventually become a dead fandom–I’ve been involved in a number of fannish endeavors that imploded for want of new blood, having turned into boomer echo chambers.)

Robert
Robert
2 years ago

Has anyone else seen Suzanna Walters’s mordant essay about hating men and the potential utility thereof?

My Petersonian interlocutor had. He brandished the link and a quote, challenging me to deny the Great Cis Male Oppression in the face of such evidence. My reply?

“What’s the phrase I’m looking for? Oh, yes – you’re taking it out of context.”

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, FemiNest Collective agent, Hell Toupee keeper, & Intergalactic Meanie
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, FemiNest Collective agent, Hell Toupee keeper, & Intergalactic Meanie
2 years ago

Based on nothing more than a reading of the relevant Wiki page, it sounds like the women that are closest to the incel dream are the Houri, who make up the so-called 72 virgins per martyr of the Islamic heaven. They’re eternally young (the description makes them seem around 20-ish), eternally beautiful, and have renewable virginity (they’re supernatural folks; they can do this). The women of their dreams, right?

Except the Houri were all once mortal women who were good enough in their old lives to gain access to heaven, and were given young beautiful virgin bodies as part of their reward. I can just see the incels throwing a huge fit because they were given reeeeeeeefurbs instead of brand spanking new women who were created solely for them, and no-one else. So yeah….

In a related link, last year an alt-right troll tried to, well, troll a Muslim-American Human Rights activist by asking how to redeem his 72 virgins. He got owned. XD

https://stepfeed.com/this-muslim-lawyer-has-the-perfect-response-to-the-72-virgins-myth-2350

Bina
2 years ago

Since wagecuckcels are funding a public good that we don’t get access to, who else here thinks that verified incels shouldn’t be taxed? Or at least given prostitutes as fair compensation for state programs that go to foids? Let me know your thoughts gentleman.

Welp, I’m just a lady (or a “foid”, in your odious parlance), but here are my thoughts, “gentleman”:

YOUR THOUGHTS ARE A STEAMING PILE OF SEX-CRAPITALIST FUCKERY. WE ARE NOT OBJECTS, THEREFORE WE CANNOT BE COMMODIFIED. AND SINCE WE CANNOT BE COMMODIFIED, WE CAN’T BE A “PUBLIC GOOD” FOR “REDISTRIBUTION” AMONG THE IDIOTS WHO CAN’T GET LAID (BECAUSE REPULSIVELY FUCKING STUPID). SO PAY YOUR TAXES AND GET SOME DAMN PUBLIC EDUCATION, BECAUSE YOU NEED IT IN THE WORST WAY!

(Sorry for the ALL CAPS shouting, but I felt I had to yell it for the ones at the back. And these guys are ALL the ones at the back).

it’s too easy for them to make money. Women can literally flash (part of) their boobs on youtube and make easy money. They don’t even have to be super attractive.

Who does this fuckass think he’s kidding? Any woman on YouTube who’s not super attractive gets mercilessly trolled by self-designated male eugenics officers who tell her to kill herself because she’s old/fat/ugly. Or to kill herself because she’s young/thin/pretty and they can’t have her. Flashing boobage won’t help, because men who hate women are going to troll and troll and troll. And the sight of tits is like a red cape waving in front of a bull to them.

It’s not “easy money” either, as anyone who’s braved the Adpocalypse there could tell you. Getting monetized on YouTube is hard, and it pays peanuts. In fact, it was a factor in the rampage of Nasim Aghdam, whom some of these guys are ironically worshipping as a Freeze Peach martyr. (She’s dead now, so her spectacular figure didn’t help her, either.)

“What would have saved the lives that ER ended?”

Sex. Thats it. 20 minutes and all of those young women would be alive.

Bull-fucking-SHIT. What would have saved those lives is Rodger just not being such an entitled megalomaniac asshole. And not being such a droning bore.

Also, 20 minutes? Isn’t that the amount of time Brock Turner’s dad said was dedicated to “action” (i.e. RAPE) that ended up derailing precious sonnyboy’s competitive swimming career? Why yes, it was! And here these volassholes are recommending that as a “cure” for a condition they could treat themselves, by voluntarily choosing not to be fucking assholes! And they threaten us with death for choosing not to “put out” for men who don’t deserve sex, ever. Seven lives spared for 20 minutes of rape by a droning asshole! What a fucking bargain!

Aaand now I’m going to puke. Anybody got a barf bag they can spare?

Catalpa
Catalpa
2 years ago

If sex with anyone is all incels need to not be murderous jackasses, surely it would be most efficient if the incels have sex with other incels. That way, 20 minutes of action can save 14 lives instead of just 7! As for them not being attracted to fellow incels, well, that doesn’t stop them from advocating that other people should just have sex with them regardless of not being attracted to the incels. Surely it should apply to the incels themselves, too, right? Surely they wouldn’t be hypocritical about expecting other people to be raped put out for twenty minutes and be unwilling to make the same sacrifice themselves?

Dalillama
Dalillama
2 years ago

Like many academics, Jordan Peterson has learned the art of making his arguments hard to decipher so that they are also hard to refute. However, unlike most academics, he has a mass audience.

And, like all such academics, he does this because he’s talking complete bollocks and trying to obfuscate that fact. Basically, anyone who writes (or talks) like Jordan Peterson can and should be summarily dismissed on that basis alone.

rugbyyogi
rugbyyogi
2 years ago

@luminipuna

I hazard to guess Peterson honestly meant the solution would be kinda like our current “enforced monogamy”, just a little more so. You know, like the good old days of conservative Gilded Age, whatever that’d mean in practice. Whatever you personally imagine, if you’re any kind of social conservative.

Yep I reckon that’s what that means… divorce much harder, access to birth control, abortion, etc all much harder. Basically what’s happening now in the US.

I don’t know why people want to make divorce harder. I have rarely ever come across anyone who divorced ‘just ‘cos’ – and frankly divorce is PLENTY hard enough – says me who isn’t divorced 3 yrs post separation. But I’m divorcing soon.. fingers crossed.

I’m sure my ex is lapping up the sour milk of Jordan Peterson. He would much prefer a system where he could treat me how he liked with me not having recourse.

Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
Surplus to Requirements, Observer of the Vast Blight-Wing Enstupidation
2 years ago

I don’t know why people want to make divorce harder.

Because they want to be able to abuse a wife without her having any way to leave.

Violet the Vile, Wielder of an Ideologically Weaponized Vagina
Violet the Vile, Wielder of an Ideologically Weaponized Vagina
2 years ago

@Full Metal Ox

Ah…THERE’s the joke I was looking for! I knew there was one….

Gaebolga
Gaebolga
2 years ago

So in that stupid OP poll, one of the two incel-positive options is:

yes incles should have tax free status

and the other is:

yes incels should get prostitutes in lieu of taxes

…now obviously, these are incels we’re dealing with – they’re not very bright and have severe problems with both logic and reading comprehension – but still:

Twice as many of them voted to be tax-free rather than be both tax-free and provided with government-funded prostitutes.

That’s like getting a buy-one-get-one-free deal and saying “nah, I’ll don’t want the free one”…