By David Futrelle
If you’re wondering whether Godwin’s Law still has a role to play in a world that’s once again filled with actual Nazis, the answer is yes, because how else are we going to deal with the so-called involuntary celibates on the Incels.is forums who are currently comparing their lack of a sex life to the literal Holocaust, and concluding that what they’re dealing with is somehow worse.
A week ago, one regular Incels.is commenter called lifeisbullshit95 dropped this alleged truth bomb on his incel colleagues:
![[It's Over] Social media and dating apps have killed more men than both world war combined](https://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Captureyg9hu08ji-.png?fit=600%2C384)
His message was somehow even more inflammatory than his headline, an all-caps wall-of-text rant, sans line breaks and even punctuation, declaring that all but the handsomest of men are suffering a “NEW HOLOCAUST” because of Facebook and Tinder.
“THIS IS THE NEW HOLOCAUST,” he began.
HITLER TARGETED THE JEWS TINDER AND SOCIAL MEDIA HAVE TARGETED SUB8 MEN WE’RE DYING A PAINFUL SEXLESS LIFE FULL OF SUFFERING AND DEPRESSION
Huh. Quick survey: Raise your hand if you’re a SUB8 MAN and you’ve had sex. Hell, raise your hand if you’re SUB8 and still alive, despite all the Holocausting from Tinder and Facebook.
Oh, but apparently you don’t have to be physically dead to count as a dude killed by social media.
HOW MANY LIFE TINDER,INSTAGRAM,FACEBOOK ECC HAVE CLAIMED YET? LIVING A SEXLESS LIFE ISN’T LIVING
Raise your hand if you’re not having sex at the moment but are somehow still living a life worth living.
ESPECIALLY AS MAN THEY DEFINITELY CLAIM MY LIFE AND THE SADDEST THING IS THAT NOBODY IS DOING ANYTHING WE’RE LEFT GETTING MURDERED
I can’t help but think of poor, rollerskating Terry on Reno 911.
Of course, Reno 911 was a comedy, and lifeisbullshit95, who has posted more than 700 decidedly non-humorous comments to Incels.is forums, isn’t kidding.
Like many incels lifeisbullshit95 is convinced that social media makes women too stuck up to even consider having sex with any but the most Chadly of men. This, as it turns out, is a widespread belief in the Manosphere, promoted by everyone from MRA douchebag Paul Elam to PUA douchebags like Roosh V to the denizens of MGTOWforums,,com. As these misogynistic men see it, women on dating sites and social media get so much flattery from thirsty men that they come to see themselves as better than the “looksmatched” men they should be dating. (Incels don’t really seem to understand how many of the “flattering” messages that women get online are literal dick pics or otherwise creepy as fuck.)
NOBODY FIGHT SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE DATING APPS THAT HAS GIVEN SO MUCH POWER TO WOMEN EVEN TALKING ABOUT THIS TOPIC IS TABOO
And so somehow we’re back in 1930s Germany, but this time women are Hitler.
HITLER CAME TO POWER BECAUSE THE GERMANS WERE AN- GRY AND WANTED A REVOLUTION WOMEN CAME TO POWER BECAUSE THEY FELT ANGRY ABOUT NOT HAVING EQUAL RIGHTS AND WANTED A REVOLUTION IT’S ALL SO SIMILAR
And now these Hitler-women are using dating apps to sex genocide all but the top 20% of men.
BOTH HITLER AND THE DATING APPS HAD AS A GOAL TO WEED OUT FROM EXISTANCE THE INFERIOR MEN
You may wonder how exactly not getting matches on Tinder is similar to being murdered in a death camp. Lifeisbullshit95 has this, er, answer:
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE? DYING IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER IS STILL DYING WE’RE THE VICTIMS OF THE NEW HOLOCAUST MY FRIENDS.
Okey dokey then.
You may wonder if any of the other incels stopped for a moment and told lifeisbullshit95 that he was completely full of shit. The answer, of course, is no.
“my face is rotting each day and female hypergamy is only getting potentialized with dating apps,” wrote someone calling himself JeffGoldblumInTheFly, and perhaps taking his handle a little too seriously, “its fucking over.”
“Dating apps and social media not only killed men but it make us suffer,” declared someone called Cuyen.
JeffGoldblum and Cuyen have, together, posted more than 20,000 messages on Incels.is, so I’m pretty sure they’re not drive-by trolls.
And even if JeffGoldblumInTheFly is joking about his face rotting away like, well, Jeff Goldblum’s face in “The Fly,” incels do believe that as each day passes they become ever less likely to ever validate their lives by having sex with a woman. More importantly, his comment here serves to offer its own sort of validation — of lifeisbullshit95’s hyperbolic, hateful rhetoric blaming women for essentially every problem in men’s lives.
Social media and dating apps don’t kill, but depression does, and sites like Incels.is add to the problem by steering young, desperate men away from real help and into a hateful, self-destructive fantasy world. That’s the real danger here.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
>>>>Do ugly men deserve to get sex and love?
Yes, many ugly men DESERVE — as in, “are worthy of” — love and sex. Socrates was notoriously ugly, but loved for his wisdom (and was, of course, married). Joseph Merrick, the “Elephant Man”, was loved and appreciated by many, including Queen Victoria herself, despite being literally the ugliest man on Earth. Looks isn’t everything.
No, no ugly men ARE ENTITLED TO — as in, “can force someone to give it to them” — love and sex. In fact, it is precisely those people that think they are entitled to love and sex that do not deserve it, being narcissistic a-holes. They are the REALLY ugly men. Far uglier than Merrick or Socrates, who would never imagine any woman *owed* them love or sex.
Oh boy, we got a hot one!
@Troll JACK:
The same way everyone else is: By communicating pleasantly, showing interest in something other than sex and/or the status it supposedly confers, and bringing something other than looks to the table. A decent personality will do nicely, thank you.
What kind of questions are these? FYI, sex and love aren’t things you GET, they’re things you DO. WITH another person, not TO or FROM another person. Note that I said PERSON, not FEMOID.
Also, they are not rewards conferred for merely being in possession of a penis and a libido.
Capisce?
No, I don’t, because we already ARE. By men who’d be lucky if a sopping wet dishrag consented to date them, no less.
Next round of inane questions, please.
I seriously question as to whether anyone deserves sex and love. This concepts of deserving as well as the concept of entitlement are social constructs. They have no meaning as far as the Universe is concerned. It makes not difference what you deserve, but what you can get(by means of persuasion not coercion just so we’re clear).
Ironically enough, I’ve witnessed intersectional feminists calling out cishet men for being “transphobic” because said men refused to date trans women(which is their prerogative). And this was a recent article in a college news eZine claiming that if you have any racial dating preferences then you’re “racist”. Sorry, dating is not equal opportunity. Not for ugly men, not for transgendered people, or for people of any color(even white). It’s totally unfair and people need to stop claiming that is is somehow fair or that it’s supposed to be so.
@Nowherepants
There’s a difference between “I’ve never felt a spark of sexual desire for a black person, I don’t seem to be sexually attracted to them; I suppose it might happen, but so far it never has, so if I go on a date with a black person, it’s unlikely to end up in bed, even if we get on really well — but hey, if that happens, at least we’ll have had a great time” and “I don’t date black people on the grounds that I’m not sexually attracted to them (or because I’m a racist douchehat), and the only reason to date is to have sex.”
I don’t think I’ve explained what I’m trying to say very well. Apologies, all.
Social construct =/= not real.
Also, given that you’re responding to an obvious troll as an ally, I think we can safely conclude that you were never neutral, the adult in the room, the moderate, the rational one, etc.
Thanks for confirming I was right to not give you the benefit of the doubt.
@Nowherepants
It actually is transphobic to not date trans women. The structure here of this sentence makes it pretty goddamn clear that the reason the man is not dating this woman is because she is trans. And discrimination based on someone’s transgender status is literally the definition of transphobia. So no, not the definition of irony by any understanding of the word.
If the reason you are dating or not dating someone is because of their race, then yes. You are racist. This is the literal definition of racism. Words actually mean things, asshole.
How dare you compare people literally murdered for being alive with misogynists who refuse to let go of their hatred for women.
The concept of money is a social construct, yet we murder people because they don’t have it. Things that are socially constructed are real, even if they’re only real because we say they are.
It takes a mediocre man to assume they can speak for the Infinite.
Lopping off the parenthetical bit because morality is a social construct, and according to you Eternity cares nothing for what we agree is real. You cannot post self-contradicting statements without people calling you on it.
@Everyone who isn’t trolling
Can we agree it’s time for this person to be banned, and contact David to make that social agreement reality?
And so why didn’t you link it so that we could all marvel at the insight and accuracy of your analysis?
If someone does not want to date, mate, or procreate with you they have the right to say nor for any reason. And yes, that does include your race, your gender, your orientation, your ability, your personality, your height, your hair color, your eye color, or anything about you. Even stuff you cannot help. Rejection is not the same thing as bigotry. You love to dish it out to certain men but god forbid you have to follow your own rules. Ce a vida e.
Please be sure to fill this out and attach it to your email to David. Kthnxbai
While true, the right to say no does not guarantee that one’s motive for saying no is not bigotry.
It is in fact possible to be a racist fuck who declines to fuck a specific someone of a specific race. The just response is not to force the racist and the other person to fuck – that would be unjust to both.
However, it is antithetical to justice to refuse to identify a racist motive as racist merely because the action that was motivated by racism is an action whose freedom to choose is protected by legal right.
I have the **right** to say horrible things about an entire race of people. It is a right guaranteed by §2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. But if I actually choose to say those things, others should still call me out for making a racist choice to say racist things like a common racist.
You’re asserting that the article which you will not link calls people racist for making a choice that individuals are free to make and must be free to make – not having sex with someone. That’s fine. No one’s saying they lose that right. But they also don’t magically become non-racist or magically become non-transphobic.
The choice is what it is, protected or no. Perhaps the choices criticized include situations where someone is declining sex for non-bigoted reasons, but since you’re not arguing with the person who wrote the article, you’re arguing with people who have never even read the article, we have no ability to parse with nuance any of the statements the author made.
If you actually believed you had a case, you’d be arguing proof that the specific choices criticized were not bigoted, not that we have a right to do them even when motivated by bigotry. If you actually believed you had a case, you would argue with the person who wrote the piece, not folks here on WHTM. And even failing that, if you actually believed you had a case & really wanted to argue about it on WHTM, you would at least link to the article itself and then quote for specificity and emphases the exact words which you believe were wrong.
Why is it that you don’t do that?
@Nowherepants
Are you actually responding to me? Because you seem to be responding to someone who said “Cis people should be forced to date trans women” instead of someone who said “Not dating a trans person because they are trans is transphobic”.
I’m just going to quote and repost the entirety of my previous post to make a point about your very intentional refusal to engage with content that shows the disingenuous way you communicate.
Oh look. Nowherebrains is butthurt. Get the net!
@Nowherepants
I swear it took me like 10 minutes to stop laughing. It’s been a good week for me here at the mammoth mound.
So much this. What you have a right to do is a completely separate question from whether or not it’s racist to do it.
Thank you for your response, @IgnoreSandra. It means quite a lot to me that you took the time to consider my statements.
I say the following, not as an excuse, but as a preface: I am a coward. I fear conflict, and crave consensus. I never want to be on the “bad” side of things.
In other words, you are right that my talking around you said something about me.
It was wrong of me to not confront you directly. It was wrong of me to talk around you, and in that way I have denied you an opportunity to respond. I apologize for doing that. I will do better.
Your question to me gave me pause. Indeed, I have directly called out masculine-nym’ed commenters for their use of language. As an example, Chris Oakley, for his continued use of ableist language.
But I didn’t directly confront you in this case, and I have to consider why. Do I have a double standard with respect to gendered nyms? Thank you for forcing me to confront this. I will do better.
I agree that attacking the tone of an argument is a tactic used to downplay the legitimate grievances behind the anger. I apologize for doing that. I will do better.
I agree that people on the spectrum are unfairly stigmatized by society, and that too often this is couched in some form of benevolent prejudice. I hear you, when you say that Kiwiwriter’s statements made you feel insulted and scapegoated. I am sorry that I fed into this. I will do better.
I am not you, and I shouldn’t presume to dictate how you respond. I am not you, and my discomfort at your use of an insult is irrelevant to your justifiable anger at Kiwiwriter for insulting you and others on the spectrum.
I am a coward, and I am truly sorry. I will do better.
Thank you for your response. It really means a lot to me. Have a good one.
@Ariblester
No need to self-flagellate. You were wrong, just apologize and move on.
Honestly, my initial draft of my response was a lot more indignant and snippy, far from an apology. It was only after several rounds of editing that something just shifted, and I realized that I was being unreasonable. So to me, this was actually a useful exercise in self-reflection, rather than self-flagellation.
It did go on a bit too long though.
What I find hilarious is how these fuckwits think that this is somehow new. Like, when marriages were made politically or through matchmakers, do they imagine that they’d be in the top 20% then? At a time without proper dentistry, proper medical care, etc. do they imagine they’d be having sex with Marilyn Monroe? I get it, it can be tough to not have a need fulfilled, but people everywhere are struggling. The lack of empathy combined with a lack of perspective is obviously pretty dangerous.
@anonymous
At last, an intelligent response. Thank you for taking the time to answer my simple question.
“Yes, many ugly men DESERVE — as in, “are worthy of” — love and sex. Socrates was notoriously ugly, but loved for his wisdom (and was, of course, married). Joseph Merrick, the “Elephant Man”, was loved and appreciated by many, including Queen Victoria herself, despite being literally the ugliest man on Earth. Looks isn’t everything.”
Here you are correct, but you fail to understand the implications of what you say. Socrates was loved for his wisdom! But today he’d be a sub-4 on Tinder. Xanthipe would have spent 30 years getting wallered out hard by an endless series of huge-dicked ebony Carthagians and throwing her babies into the flames to feed Moloch. Socrates would have died lonely and bitter and his superior DNA would not have been preserved. The whole human race would suffer for the lack of his wisdom and genetics.
Feminism promotes unlimited female reproductive choice at all times. This sounds good until you realize it means no commitments. No consequences. None of the pair bonding that has served our species so well since the dawn of time. This is disrupting the reproductive equilibrium of the entire human race. Sexual pleasure is bait to entice pair bonding and commitment. A looks 9.5 will fuck a looks 6 but HE WILL NOT MARRY HER.
Ask yourself these vital questions.
Is our media and government pushing relationships based on a person’s total value, or just on appearances?
If appearance and other superficial considerations are valued more than intelligence and achievement, who are the winners and losers of the new reproductive playing field?
To whom’s advantage is it to institute these changes?
The answers are staring you in the face I think?
“No, no ugly men ARE ENTITLED TO — as in, “can force someone to give it to them” — love and sex. In fact, it is precisely those people that think they are entitled to love and sex that do not deserve it, being narcissistic a-holes. They are the REALLY ugly men. Far uglier than Merrick or Socrates, who would never imagine any woman *owed* them love or sex.”
Stop swallowing the CalArts “affirmative consent” lies. Men need sex the way we need water air and food. We are designed that way. Without sex, men become frustrsated, restless, despondent, violent. We are already seeing a spike in violence from honest intelligent hard working men who through no fault of their own cannot find adequate sexual partners because 95 percent of women are fucking 20 of men, leaving 80 percent of men with sexual access to just 5 percent of women. That’s Just 1 woman to 16 men. And do to the biological fact of female choosiness, most of those men will never have sex at all and the rest not enough. Ask yourself what this portents for our culture. Historically countries with too many unmating men go to war. Sometimes even with themselves.
@contract JACK
So now your one of those guys who makes excuses for rapist. Good to know.
In my opinion if men were as fragile about sex as guys like contract JACK likes to think then they would have slowly died out a long time ago. My fiance and I have sex for about a week out of each year. He hasn’t went on a killing spree or cheated on me and neither have I to him. In contract jack would have died by now. Especial being the peak condition of a 20 year old man with a very nice high sex drive. Yet he some how doesn’t lose his mind ever time his dick gets hard and there isn’t someone there to take care of that for him. Imagine that Jack. Maybe your just a weak man who needs to get a grip on yourself.
There’s no misandrist like a misogynist.
Women are people. Not goods to be accessed sexually.
Even if it were true that 95% percent of women are having sex with 20% of men (and it’s absolutely not true) that would still be an unacceptable way to discuss it. Jack, you’re really telling on yourself.
I’m pretty sure you’re making the assumption that because no woman will go near you, no woman will go near any man of similar conventionally attractiveness. Not true. We can just sense the creepiness and misogyny.
The most intelligent response possible to you is to tell you to fuck off and burn.
Fuck off and burn. Not only is Socrates wholly irrelevant owing to the fact that he is fictional, the notion of “superior DNA” is some eugenicist nonsense which is not backed by any reputable science.
Fuck off and burn, take your willful misrepresentation of feminism with you.
Fuck off and burn. The ability to choose to commit or not as I will not only sounds perfect but is my minimum right as a human being. Get that, asshole? The ability to choose to commit. Committed relationships of all sorts still exist, they’re just now based on choice instead of coercion.
Fuck off and burn. Oh, right, you’re such a mealy-mouthed coward you have to misrepresent forcing people to fuck you as some kind of “natural consequence” instead of what it is: Coercion.
Spelling errors preserved from original text. Bullshit assumption that we were “designed” also preserved. Citation required.
As someone who was “socialized as a man” and who society considered a man until a few years ago, can confirm that every single word of this is a complete, bald-faced lie.
Hitchen’s Razor states that what is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Since no evidence has been provided, I so dismiss every single word of this rambling nonsense screed.
In conclusion, Fuck off and burn you rape-enabling misogynist jackwipe, you stain on the asscheeks of humanity, you gigglesnorting creepazoid, you and your self-inflicted hatred of yourself and others.
Hmm. I am a man, and have not had sex in some time. I am, however, still alive.
Ergo, sex is not a need on par with water, air, or food, the lack of any of which will kill you in short order.
I’m a little confused about how it is that men are the gender who need sex so much that they become violent rampaging beasts without it, yet it’s women’s right to choose or not choose partners that leads to rampant committmentless sex. Which is it? Are men oppressed loveless souls who would have stable and loving relationships if not for slutty modern women, or are men savage beasts who need regular sex from hot ladies or they’ll explode with lust and rage. Can’t be both.