Incellular Posts

[Suicidebydeath]

Tbh l find the thrust of your argument to be that the people who are *really* insecure are those who find the misogyny within the repetitive incel rhetoric objectionable, this is one of those instances where the normally noble position of "maybe we could be a bit more tolerant?" fails principally because much of the output is something that really should not be indulged to even that degree, but again l suspect this depends on where our individual lines are drawn.

I agree. I think tolerating it just desensitizes all of us. If they can talk about their plight without taking subtle or not so subtle shots at another demographic that would be far more healthy. We wouldn't tolerate outright racism or similar, so there's no reason to tolerate outright misogyny.

I think we can agree that is also a very dangerous way to talk about women, and not something that should be given any traction.

 

[Julgran]

Both @Chinaski and @GenesAndEnvironment provide insightful points, I believe, but it would be useful if we could define what's allowed or not, because it seems like different members can feel offended by different things regarding this subject. If we shouldn't allow any discussion about this at all, it's not enough to define a rule that says that only topics like "Men or women, or X gender are the best, and every one else is bad" should be banned. Rather - if the whole subject whould be avoided - a rule has to spell that out as well.

 

[Bleak]

On a forum I used to post on, there was a no "who has it worse" policy. That seemed to cut down on a lot of the gender related vitriol. Most of these threads begin with some variation of "it's so hard for me as a low status man, women have it so easy" etc.

 

[Chinaski]

Both @Chinaski and @GenesAndEnvironment provide insightful points, I believe, but it would be useful if we could define what's allowed or not, because it seems like different members can feel offended by different things regarding this subject. If we shouldn't allow any discussion about this at all, it's not enough to define a rule that says that only topics like "Men or women, or X gender are the best, and every one else is bad" should be banned. Rather - if the whole subject whould be avoided - a rule has to spell that out as well.

This is fair in that there should not necessarily be a ban from posting on this basis. If for example an incel were to describe his suicidality in terms of the loneliness, rejection, their upset at the way they are perceived based on their appearance, this in itself is nothing anyone would object to, and many would sympathise with. The issue is that many of the incel threads are couched in angry rhetoric, a barely concealed fury at womankind for persecuting them by choosing not to have sex with them. There are many posts from lonely people, people who feel rejected, who feel lesser. Then there are threads dressed as this but centred around misogynistic language.

Often, if I'm honest, the ctb chat is secondary to the "how do l get laid" chat to the point where it actually would be better received on a website specifically for that. I've seen numerous posts by men on here exchanging advice and info on how to procure sex workers, this time next year it will need a megathread of its own.

 

[Julgran]

On a forum I used to post on, there was a no "who has it worse" policy. That seemed to cut down on a lot of the gender related vitriol. Most of these threads begin with some variation of "it's so hard for me as a low status man, women have it so easy" etc.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

I don't agree with anyone in your highly nuanced depiction of an incellular thread, guess #2 came close. I think the core "problem" here is that people write stupid things and the slightly more mindful/wise/mature people are whining about it. Now, as much as we can bash the immature, a better way is to lift those already capable of wisdom to where they are secure enough to be unbothered by those that they, now confidently, know are mistaken. Note, I am not talking about anything rule-breaking here, just this sort of bad thinking.

Idk, I'm not sure it's incumbent on those "capable of wisdom" to be unbothered by actual misogyny, even when it's delicately rebranded as "immaturity".

Both @Chinaski and @GenesAndEnvironment provide insightful points, I believe, but it would be useful if we could define what's allowed or not, because it seems like different members can feel offended by different things regarding this subject. If we shouldn't allow any discussion about this at all, it's not enough to define a rule that says that only topics like "Men or women, or X gender are the best, and every one else is bad" should be banned. Rather - if the whole subject whould be avoided - a rule has to spell that out as well.

I think it's important as well to bear in mind that is Sanctioned Suicide. There are obviously suicidal, and vulnerable people here. While some might ignore the odd comment, say because they've seen it before and it's nothing, there are other members that might be traumatised by them, for the exact same reasons and worse besides.

So taking the above three points, how much does it matter where our personal lines lay? I think the desensitization to these kinds of posts and the traction they gain from remaining unopposed might be a real issue. Especially the traction, because lets face it, these kind of posts aren't rational but they are very polarizing for some and it only takes a few people to make it suddenly seem ok to start harassing members.

 

[dustbiter]

originally opened this thread assuming the comments would be a nightmare to read, if thats any indication towards how bad it can be lolz :3

 

[Suicidebydeath]

This is fair in that there should not necessarily be a ban from posting on this basis. If for example an incel were to describe his suicidality in terms of the loneliness, rejection, their upset at the way they are perceived based on their appearance, this in itself is nothing anyone would object to, and many would sympathise with. The issue is that many of the incel threads are couched in angry rhetoric, a barely concealed fury at womankind for persecuting them by choosing not to have sex with them. There are many posts from lonely people, people who feel rejected, who feel lesser. Then there are threads dressed as this but centred around misogynistic language.

Often, if I'm honest, the ctb chat is secondary to the "how do l get laid" chat to the point where it actually would be better received on a website specifically for that. I've seen numerous posts by men on here exchanging advice and info on how to procure sex workers, this time next year it will need a megathread of its own.

Also very true! Also there being posts & comments that would be better received on another website. They are not necessarily suicidally-inclined posts and there are certainly other places where they could get the responses or proaction desired, and that is not on a forum full of vulnerable, suicidal people.

If they want to talk about how to get laid, then they can go to another website. One related to sex. There are a near-endless amount of subreddits that would serve those needs as well and I think one of the reasons we are here is because reddit stifles suicide discussion considerably. Not so for discussions and reddits about sex, there are thousands of places just on reddit alone one can talk about that.

It's the same for all of the awful rhetoric. They can take it to reddit, nobody is stopping them. They can even talk about it on there and still take a suicidal leaning or vent. There's no need for it here, this is Sanctioned Suicide. Not a "I hate women because they won't sleep with me" forum.

 

[Julgran]

On a forum I used to post on, there was a no "who has it worse" policy. That seemed to cut down on a lot of the gender related vitriol. Most of these threads begin with some variation of "it's so hard for me as a low status man, women have it so easy" etc.

This is fair in that there should not necessarily be a ban from posting on this basis. If for example an incel were to describe his suicidality in terms of the loneliness, rejection, their upset at the way they are perceived based on their appearance, this in itself is nothing anyone would object to, and many would sympathise with. The issue is that many of the incel threads are couched in angry rhetoric, a barely concealed fury at womankind for persecuting them by choosing not to have sex with them. There are many posts from lonely people, people who feel rejected, who feel lesser. Then there are threads dressed as this but centred around misogynistic language.

Often, if I'm honest, the ctb chat is secondary to the "how do l get laid" chat to the point where it actually would be better received on a website specifically for that. I've seen numerous posts by men on here exchanging advice and info on how to procure sex workers, this time next year it will need a megathread of its own.

Well made points, you two!

I would somewhat count myself as one such guy that you describe first, @Chinaski. I see how such a discussion can spin out of control really quickly - like this:

1. Me or someone else like me writes that they are suffering from loneliness, and tries to explain our reasoning.
2. The second person who replies says that he agrees.
3. The third person who replies says that he thinks that women are spoiled
4. The fourth person who replies says that women are something even worse

Conclusion: would it, then, not be best to define a rule that says that gender-specific subjects - such as how hard it is to date - are not allowed here, but that everyone is welcome to specifically talk about their feelings of loneliness, without expanding into the wider subject of dating and similar?

 

[Suicidebydeath]

I personally don't see there is any problem with 1. and 2. in your example.
3. and onward is where the no "who has it worse" policy would make a simple to enforce rule to prevent prejudices and prevent them spiralling.

The only problem I'm seeing is that people can experience trauma simply from being moderated, its always possible that someone was abused badly by the opposite gender and would feel invalidated. So something like reddits "ghost ban" should take effect on 3. With noone seeing the post and the poster not being the wiser either. That seems best for all concerned. We don't tolerate it for the sake of others and to prevent any sort of propagation, but we don't lay judgement either. Unless the post was actionable in the first place.


You could say that the mod could have some words with them and try to find the root of the issue, if they are pliable and the mod is sensitive and rational its possible that the poster will understand and make fewer similar posts in the future without having to change the way they feel. But that's not really the job of a mod. It's the job of a failing world-wide mental and social healthcare system.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Both @Chinaski and @GenesAndEnvironment provide insightful points, I believe, but it would be useful if we could define what's allowed or not, because it seems like different members can feel offended by different things regarding this subject. If we shouldn't allow any discussion about this at all, it's not enough to define a rule that says that only topics like "Men or women, or X gender are the best, and every one else is bad" should be banned. Rather - if the whole subject whould be avoided - a rule has to spell that out as well.

"Don't talk about anything that will trigger people", aren't we basically Reddit at that point? How the anti-choicers are reacting to SaSu is how some of SaSu is reacting to factually incorrect/emotional/immature incels. It just never works out well unless one "side" (one or two individuals) can open up, and the wiser/more mature people are often the only ones with this opportunity. Again, if this isn't possible then it is better to not engage (if you truly believe that people's feelings should be spared in online debate). But banning and/or snarky insults/superiority/vague pointers is easier, so I won't hold my breath.

I think it's important as well to bear in mind that is Sanctioned Suicide. There are obviously suicidal, and vulnerable people here. While some might ignore the odd comment, say because they've seen it before and it's nothing, there are other members that might be traumatised by them, for the exact same reasons.

If the point is to protect these infantile, helpless and "vulnerable" people, then lock them in a padded cell. Or lock everyone but them in prison. It's safe, right? No one gets hurt.

They already have two way ignore and the ability to walk away from the laptop. If this reasoning is accepted, then nothing that triggers people should be discussed. This should then include things that can make people jealous, things that can make people scared, and so on. Eventually leading to banning discussions of suicide methods (and at that point the only thing that separates this site from Reddit is the name).

 

[Julgran]

Again, if this isn't possible then it is better to not engage (if you truly believe that people's feelings should be spared in online debate).

I generally agree with what you are saying, and have said before, but is it really necessary to debate anyhing on this site? We are here because we don't feel quite right, so debates have a high risk of being taken as offensive - and this goes for any subject.

 

[Chinaski]

I think it's important as well to bear in mind that is Sanctioned Suicide. There are obviously suicidal, and vulnerable people here. While some might ignore the odd comment, say because they've seen it before and it's nothing, there are other members that might be traumatised by them, for the exact same reasons.

So taking the above three points, how much does it matter where our personal lines lay? I think the desensitization to these kinds of posts and the traction they gain from remaining unopposed might be a real issue. Especially the traction, because lets face it, these kind of posts uaren't rational but they are very polarizing for some and it only takes a few people to make it suddenly seem ok to start harassing members.

My own view re "personal lines" would normally be that if you think it's misogynistic then say so, there are ways of putting the alternative view forward in a diplomatic way which also challenges the op, and l would normally say that's the best way forward. In the same way if you saw racism, and it naturally crossed your line of acceptability, you'd surely meet it head on, and not pander to it.

The issue then sadly becomes like the scenario I've described above. It becomes a numbing experience, seeing another new incel thread saying the exact same thing and knowing exactly what rote-learned response you'll get if you interject. Normally the prevailing integrity of any online space is enough to ultimately shut out hateful rhetoric however my own experience of reporting the worst of it to mods (past not present) suggests this site has had a real blind spot regarding it, and the increasing volume of this content coupled with the echo-chamber facilitating block feature means it's probably here to stay and some concrete lines need drawing up.

"Don't talk about anything that will trigger people", aren't we basically Reddit at that point? How the anti-choicers are reacting to SaSu is how some of SaSu is reacting to factually incorrect/emotional/immature incels. It just never works out well unless one "side" (one or two individuals) can open up, and the wiser/more mature people are often the only ones with this opportunity. Again, if this isn't possible then it is better to not engage (if you truly believe that people's feelings should be spared in online debate). But banning and/or snarky insults/superiority/vague pointers is easier, so I won't hold my breath.


If the point is to protect these infantile, helpless and "vulnerable" people, then lock them in a padded cell. Or lock everyone but them in prison. It's safe, right? No one gets hurt.

They already have two way ignore and the ability to walk away from the laptop. If this reasoning is accepted, then nothing that triggers people should be discussed. This should then include things that can make people jealous, things that can make people scared, and so on. Eventually leading to banning discussions of suicide methods (and at that point the only thing that separates this site form Reddit is the name).

In fairness this isn't about people being "triggered", I'd normally not disagree with the crux of what you are saying regarding online conduct but to me this is about actual misogynistic content, it's absolutely correct that much of this is unacceptable and there are forums for that where they can dump it.

 

[Zotz101]

I feel really bad for people who are sex-obsessed, particularly incels. As someone who has been intimate in that way, I can sure say that it's not all that it's cracked up to be. I'd so much rather have an intimate and secure connection with a solid friend than someone to have consistent sex with.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

"Don't talk about anything that will trigger people"

If the point is to protect these infantile, helpless and "vulnerable" people, then lock them in a padded cell. Or lock everyone but them in prison. It's safe, right? No one gets hurt.

Nobody said anything that will trigger people, that's on you. The answer is in previous posts.

I feel like I don't even need to reply to the second thing quoted.

So lets say we agree to disagree and I think there is merit in protecting vulnerable, suicidal people on a suicide forum from people and posts that might end up harassing them and inciting them to kill themselves. (see post #75, which they already knew about)

You've seen the screenshots, harassment and daresay death/life ruination threats when you asked for evidence earlier so I assume that you didn't change your mind and suddenly think that its ok to do that to someone in the middle of a suicide attempt? Which is why the second part of your post feels very contrary to me. (see post #75)

Those screenshots are still sitting on my pc. (see post #75)

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

I generally agree with what you are saying, and have said before, but is it really necessary to debate anyhing on this site? We are here because we don't feel quite right, so debates have a high risk of being taken as offensive - and this goes for any subject.

It's a place where people write to each other. This entails both discussion and debate, as well as jokes and cyberhugs. I don't want to see this place turn into a kindergarten, hope this is just a vocal minority thingy. Really weird vibe to it: "oh no, please don't say 'fuck' or 'retarded', but feel free to write about suicide methods."

In fairness this isn't about people being "triggered", I'd normally not disagree with the crux of what you are saying regarding online conduct but to me this is about actual misogynistic content, it's absolutely correct that much of this is unacceptable and there are forums for that where they can dump it.

The waters are muddied. People will mention someone calling women "vapid" (failing to add that men are also vapid being the only problem, since misanthropy doesn't raise an eyebrow) and someone harassing/threatening a woman in the same sentence, and then make a suggestion for restriction of speech. We already have rules against the worst of what people are complaining about, this is about getting rid of one specific topic since, yes, it triggers some people. This entire thread is people being triggered or anticipating others being triggered and wanting to avoid it rather than transcend/engage in meaningful discussion.

Nobody said anything that will trigger people, that's on you. The answer is in previous posts.

It's an arbitrary pick, just whatever had the most momentum at the moment. Next thing could be banning discussing veganism or gory methods, heard some talk of religion and politics already being out, idk.

 

[Julgran]

It's a place where people write to each other. This entails both discussion and debate, as well as jokes and cyberhugs. I don't want to see this place turn into a kindergarten, hope this is just a vocal minority thingy. Really weird vibe to it: "oh no, please don't say "fuck" or "retarded", but feel free to write about suicide methods."

I see your point. The reason I suggested that we disallow the whole subject is because I don't even know if I myself have gone too far in my posts, since no one has pointed out any examples of bad or misogynistic posts.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

It's an arbitrary pick, just whatever had the most momentum at the moment. Next thing could be banning discussing veganism or gory methods, heard some talk of religion and politics

Then I completely disagree with you because I draw a definite distinction between those things and misogyny. I can't even quote what I want to say that has come under the umbrella of misogyny before and been posted multiple times on SaSu because it's very violent and would be moderated.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Then I completely disagree with you because I draw a definite distinction between those things and misogyny. I can't even quote what I want to say that has come under the umbrella of misogyny before and been posted multiple times on SaSu because it's very violent and would be moderated.

That was my point, we already have rules.

I see your point. The reason I suggested that we disallow the whole subject is because I don't even know if I myself have gone too far in my posts, since no one has pointed out any examples of bad or misogynistic posts.

A bit overkill, no? Just trust your own judgement and the mods will let you know if you did something against the rules.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

People will mention someone calling women "vapid" (failing to add that men are also vapid being the only problem, since misanthropy doesn't raise an eyebrow) and someone harassing/threatening a woman in the same sentence, and then make a suggestion for restriction of speech.

This feels like a strawman argument because those two things would be looked at and handled very differently by the people who actually matter, at least in terms of control of the site. The staff of the site.

 

[Chinaski]

It's a place where people write to each other. This entails both discussion and debate, as well as jokes and cyberhugs. I don't want to see this place turn into a kindergarten, hope this is just a vocal minority thingy. Really weird vibe to it: "oh no, please don't say 'fuck' or 'retarded', but feel free to write about suicide methods."

The waters are muddied. People will mention someone calling women "vapid" (failing to add that men are also vapid being the only problem, since misanthropy doesn't raise an eyebrow) and someone harassing/threatening a woman in the same sentence, and then make a suggestion for restriction of speech. We already have rules against the worst of what people are complaining about, this is about getting rid of one specific topic since, yes, it triggers some people. This entire thread is people being triggered or anticipating others being triggered and wanting to avoid it rather than transcend/engage in meaningful discussion.


It's an arbitrary pick, just whatever had the most momentum at the moment. Next thing could be banning discussing veganism or gory methods, heard some talk of religion and politics already being out, idk.

It's not about getting rid of the topic imo, it's about binning the hate-rhetoric it's couched in. If somebody who can't establish a loving relationship and has developed suicidal impulses as a result that is not going to be banned. People angrily complaining about the womenfolk responsible for their lack of sex, at great length and on a seemingly daily basis, is a different issue. There is a website specifically for that not a million miles away from here, l don't see many of us going there to complain about pro lifers or our individual aches and pains.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

That was my point, we already have rules.

Sorry, what was your point? (see post #59)

 

[Chinaski]

That was my point, we already have rules.

A bit overkill, no? Just trust your own judgement and the mods will let you know if you did something against the rules.

Regarding incel posts this has proven to be inaccurate imo, l have to be careful how this is phrased but again the red line regarding tolerance of this output for many users of this site has differed greatly from people who have been quite high up the moderator chain here.

 

[Suicidebydeath]

I see your point. The reason I suggested that we disallow the whole subject is because I don't even know if I myself have gone too far in my posts, since no one has pointed out any examples of bad or misogynistic posts.

I don't see it. It's another strawman. Nobody is saying that we censor fuck (or the r-word necessarily, that's not the crux of this topic, its considered sidelining when we're talking about something more important). Neither of those things lead down a path that make it seem ok to start harassing women in DMs and telling them to kill themselves because of creating a mini echo-chamber where it's ok to say whatever you want, no holds barred. We're talking about unfettered misogyny, there's a distinction between that and exclusive free speech, because one is far more dangerous. It's the topic of the OP.

Next thing you know someone will be saying, oh you can't talk about dangerous things on a suicide forum? It is just thinly veiled to look like a convincing argument on the surface, but if you look deeper then it doesn't make any sense and has ignored the points in previous posts.

 

[Julgran]

I don't see it. It's another strawman. Nobody is saying that we censor fuck or the r-word. Neither of those things lead down a path that make it seem ok to start harassing women in DMs and telling them to kill themselves because of creating a mini echo-chamber where it's ok to say whatever you want, no holds barred. We're talking about unfettered misogyny, there's a distinction between that and exclusive free speech, because one is far more dangerous. It's the topic of the OP.

I must be misunderstanding something. None of this should be tolerated, but are you making a difference somewhere in your statement? I just don't understand.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

It's not about getting rid of the topic imo, it's about binning the hate-rhetoric it's couched in. If somebody who can't establish a loving relationship and has developed suicidal impulses as a result that is not going to be banned. People angrily complaining about the womenfolk responsible for their lack of sex, at great length and on a seemingly daily basis, is a different issue. There is a website specifically for that not a million miles away from here, l don't see many of us going there to complain about pro lifers or our individual aches and pains.

So they're simply not similar enough to the majority of the forum, and should leave on that basis? Btw, no reason to expect those people to want to hang around with people advocating for literal violent crimes (often in jest, sometimes not) on the daily just because they hadn't calmly analyzed the emotional outlash of their DNA realizing their genes were going extinct.

Regarding incel posts this has proven to be inaccurate imo, l have to be careful how this is phrased but again the red line regarding tolerance of this output for many users of this site has differed greatly from people who have been quite high up the moderator chain here.

Well, maybe they're not actually breaking the rules as often as you think? I've made several incellular posts and they were never close to advocating for violence against women or harassing members. But several of them have been triggering.

 

[goldenvirginia]

I actually can't believe this is even being debated. Maybe that's the problem. Some people won't open their eyes and recognise misogyny even when it's blatantly obvious. Maybe it's time these guys were actually told, women don't owe men sex. If you aren't getting any, maybe it's time to take a long hard look at yourself.

 

[LonelyBrazilian]

Banning and reacting with violence against Incels or any other group of men or women who post things like that will never be the solution, it will only perpetuate the cycle of hate.
From my own experience, trying to listen and talk to this people can be a great human act, some just need to be listened to.

(But obviously, i know this sounds a bit utopian).

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Neither of those things lead down a path that make it seem ok to start harassing women in DMs and telling them to kill themselves

Neither does non-rule-breaking incellular posts. So now you want to ban things that might lead to people breaking the rules? Lol.

 

[Chinaski]

Well, maybe they're not actually breaking the rules as often as you think?

Or maybe the rules regarding misogynistic content are so lax they are practically non-existent and this website has had an absolutely blatant blind spot regarding it for very obvious reasons?