Wow, how amazingly convenient it is for patriarchy to have such a concept of beauty, where the woman is physically unable to escape from her abusive husband or relatives. I think this consideration also supported this terrible tradition.
Most people who call themselves incels today tend to not exactly have the...best behaviour. If you're talking 'involuntarily celibate' incel, then there's a lot of those and it's incredibly normal to be an incel in society. However, if you mean 'incel' incel (i.e, your stereotypical Redditor neckbeard who calls women "females" and probably thinks they're subhuman), which is what most people mean when they say incel, then that's when people become disparaging.
The thing is that I've joined this forum in a large part due to perceiving people open to discuss suicide as relatively freer in their thoughts than the normies.
I never said I hated incels as in 'involuntarily celibate people'. If you mean the internet description of incels, then I do because their behaviour is disgraceful and lacks any self-awareness or tact towards people, and more often than not those types of incels are incredibly rude or derogatory towards minorities and women, which is unacceptable. It's not about taking a 'normie side', it's about having basic decency. If a 'normie side' is not doing any of the above, then I think most people would take that side because that sort of social behaviour just isn't permitted in society - it violates the social contract. If you violate that social contract, then society rejects you. There isn't anything else to be said about that.
People on this website give help to help people kill themselves. Won't normies consider it as "evil", or even more so? At least, incels don't kill anyone (aside from themselves, then it's a Venn diagram).
Life is not decent at all. Having basic decency is letting people talk about their issues - the foundation of this suicide forum as well. Isn't it hypocritical? That's all I'm asking. I would expect denigrated people to feel some commonality due to our shared tragic fate, but no, we hate each other like the Nazis and the tankies (yes, I'm NazBol as well, the extremes should band together, not squabble).
I agree with @FuneralCry being pro-mortalist, suicide is the sanest option there is - but society will lock you and lobotomise and rape you if you make an attempt and fail. YMMV, geography is different, of course.
No? Normies consider the concept of suicide and depression to be abhorrent. People can differentiate behaviours from the person though. I've yet to meet someone who hates someone else for being depressed, rather than hating that depression exists, after all.
I find the genetics argument to be poor. If an incel were genetically abominable, the body would spontaneously abort it. The fact that an incel can live in the first place is proof in and of itself that an incel isn't unfit for life.
And they do. That's why therapy exists...it's kind of there to let people talk about their issues. By talking about our issues, and expressing suicidality in those sorts of settings, we are exposing our behaviours, which are attacked through medicine and through cognitive therapy, rather than attacking and belittling the owner of those behaviours. Given that that (therapy) is a fundamental part of society, and that society is what makes up most of human life nowadays, life is decent. Unless you mean it in the sense that life is just suffering; in which case, that's a you-and-I thing. Most people aren't dealt a bad hand by life. We're just not most. The people who congregate here aren't necessarily denigrated - their behaviours are.
For those that suffer, it is. It's nothing short of irrational for someone of sound mind and of a happy life to perform such an action. There's no logic, no good reason behind it.
Then why is this forum despised and shunned? It may be semantics on my part - by "hating", I mean people will hate me if I ask the local drug store for nembutal, and if I happen to hang myself, a normie will try to resuscitate me, not tighten the noose.
Umm, what? Are you denying the existence of genetic diseases? Of malformed people? Unfit for life - does chronic pain count? Does unfuckability not?
No idea what therapy is. Not every country has it. Not every incel has the money to do it. If therapy solves the issue, why are we on this forum?
Life is horrible and consists of suffering, mostly at the hands of society. Society literally mutilates genitalia of people? And cuts off your feet in a war? Are we even talking about the same species? (Or do I need to spell out explicitly what I have in mind - FGM in Egypt, MGM in America, the war in the Ukraine.)
If you are locked in a prison-hospital and chemically lobotomised in a BDSM dungeon, would you care about such technicalities? Ridiculous.
Living is much more irrational than not living. Life is based on an irrational, prerational impulse. Human is a contradiction, [some of] our minds can internalise the absurdity of existence. Of course, I will give you that the act of suicide is irrational by virtue of happening during a lifetime, as anything else in life is.
Because of the behaviours this forum encourages. I don't think people would hate you if you asked for N either, or at least I have never met someone who has. Again, they're deterred more by those thoughts that plague the mind rather than the person which they occupy. The people will resuscitate you not out of hatred for you, but for a requirement for you to keep existing. They want people to live, not to feel bogged down and want to die due to their dark thoughts.
This isn't a denial of genetic diseases, nor of those who are malformed, or of those who experience chronic pain or "unfuckability". I look at this purely from a scientific perspective. The force of natural selection has not worked on your ancestry yet in such a way that would deny your existence. We know that because, well, you exist. As do all the people with the conditions mentioned above. Those people have been deemed by biology and by evolution to be fit enough to work as a human being. Let's take, for example, people afflicted by aneuploidy resulting in no X chromosome. You may ask, "How does their life go?" and the answer is that it doesn't. No X-deletion lives to birth. That is because natural selection has deemed instances of those zygotes (or fetuses, later on) to be incompatible with life. Their bodies don't function. At all. If they did, and if they could procreate in some way, then it's likely that there would be a few X-deletions running around on Earth. Not many, maybe in the double digits, but enough to say that, yes, they can be fit for life, at least from what can be determined from birth by the process. Whatever happens after is the organisms' own doing.
Yeah, it's horrible for some people. I'm not having my feet cut off or my genitalia mutilated. Neither are my friends or family or most of the people I know, if not all of them. Life can have varying levels of decency and 'enjoyability' for individuals in different areas, but this doesn't render it indecent for everyone. If I took a mean score of how much people enjoyed life, I'd be hard pressed to find it turn out to be negative. Hypothetically, of course; this wouldn't work in real life, but you get the idea.
Doesn't matter if you care about those technicalities or not. It's the truth. Those instances happened in past times because those behaviours tended to mold those people into people not deemed fit for society by governments. That's not to say they were hated - it's that they were seen as a burden, a spot which could be filled by someone without those behaviours.
I still don't see how living is irrational. Maybe it is for those who can guarantee their suffering is greater, but for anyone else, especially for those who enjoy life, to not live would be downright stupid.
That is tautological to hatred. They hate what I want for myself. If they disregard my choices that only concern myself, that it plain hatred of my person.
What about incubator babies? Or what about any medicine keeping humans alive? But this is sophistry - people with chronic diseases are "unfit for life" in an ethical sense, they suffer and don't function fully. Many are suicidal - effectively willing to do what Nature was supposed to.
The anti-natalist in the respective thread has counter-arguments on this front. I would indeed make a slight difference - most humans are fine, but genetically unfit ones have a higher chance of being suicidal and deserving to die.
But every life ends in death. One argument could be that any decision in life is inherently irrational, but given the overall picture, making death closer seems more reasonable than trying to make it more distant. Unless you base your rationality on in-life things such as your utility to the state/family.
This now comes down to how we determine what's a wish or desire of the person and what is controlled by negative thoughts like depression and suicidality that plague an otherwise healthy individual. How do you know that's not what your faulty brain chemistry desires, rather than what your correct, typical brain chemistry wants?
Difference between incubator babies and those rendered incapable of thriving in life (aka spontaneous abortions) is that an incubator baby is an accident caused by the parent's body basically just sending it out too early. It doesn't mean it's necessarily a faulty baby, and we know that because they don't die, and can reproduce, so long as the incubators keep them alive. The same goes for medicines keeping people alive; those people with a particular condition made it out of the womb, which indicates that the presence of their particular condition (if it's at birth; if it comes later on, like diabetes, then it's irrelevant to discussion) isn't inherently fatal or renders reproduction impossible.
Utility to the family is the whole point of life, as said above. It's recursive. You exist to propagate life which itself propagates itself. Every decision made after the point where you can no longer care for children could technically be seen as irrational, but nothing before. And even then, 'caring' for children is such a loose term, because it doesn't solely refer to biological children. Literally just caring and assisting in the growth of life is a rational behaviour that is effectively hard-coded into you. There's a very, very short window of time that irrational behaviours begin, and that would be only when you're practically on your deathbed. And by the way, none of that was said in a philosophical sense. That is the very basis of the meaning of life; it exists for itself to exist. That is the true meaning.
Because Incel takes lookism and runs with it, turning it into terrorism (incel ideology is recognized as a terrorist group as I've told you before) and just blaming (and hurting, murdering) women instead of beauty standards. We have to attack these ideals as a society, not just simply blame women.
Incels kill themselves, not women. This is so cringe-tier, it's ridiculous. As bad as strawmanning this forum as forcing people to die.
There's plenty of women who kill themselves and there's plenty of incels who don't. Ultimately that is a personal decision and you cannot make such a general statement which is just incorrect. It is not strawmanning, it is a fact. There's been so many incels who have attempted to murder and rape or HAVE murdered and raped women just for their hatred for women for not being able to have sex with them. You can tell me this is incorrect but you're going to have to come up with actual sources for your claims against me. I've done research, I've been on the forum, there's academic papers, I did a whole project about it.
Umm, it's you who's putting forward a positive claim. Where are your sources? The incels I've seen on that forum are just rotting away and coping with anime or whatever shit is popular among degenerate zoomers. Have you even taken a look?
First of all, I'm a mentalcel which has a weird position in the incel hierarchy - the bread and butter of blackpill is lookism, not autism.
True, also minors, trillions of kids. It horrifies me to talk to kids, I'm not a paedo OR a lolicon.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9780135/
That's a nice write-up, thanks! Although, 3 terrorists in a decade when mass shootings occur in America daily? Seems overblown.
What do you mean by "harmful"? Incels have already been harmed. Society is already sick.
