why are incels frowned/hated upon?
why are incels frowned/hated upon?
Obviously I can understand why mysoginists are hated upon, As their belief is all women are trash or men are superior etc. But why are incels also generally hated upon? They are lacking in a way that makes them unable to gey in a relationship, but that shouldn't necessarily mean they are mysoginists, right?
What am I missing here? I haven't ever had a relationship with a woman, but I don't hate all women either. I just consider myself unlucky. Does that make me an incel?
You're viewing part of a thread.
I can’t believe what I’m reading in this thread.
You are judging half of the population on their physical makeup.
This makes me sick.
Fuck trying to be better than those who have come before us. Fuck trying to build a better future.
I hope our paths never cross.
Hey buddy, I know you're done arguing with me because I'm on a higher horse than you or something, but I just thought you should know that 99% of all sexual assault cases in the US are perpetrated by men, and 91% of all of the victims are women.
Being offended by women's caution because you perceive it as a great social injustice about labeling all men bad based on their sex (which is not what it is), doesn't change the reality that men are nearly 100x more likely to be the ones committing those crimes.
No, half the population is being judged on their statistical likelihood to commit violence. Their physical makeup is only part of that. Most of it is a cultural entitlement, as evidenced by so many on here getting butthurt that people might be afraid of them because of their life experiences.
I agree with you. This sort of blatant bigotry has to be a right wing psyop to split the left or something. No way that "liberal" minded people could think it's rational to discriminate against half the population
Lmao
You’re really missing the point here and getting offended over reality for half the population.
Enough men are a danger to women and children that it forces women to be wary of all men. Which is the smart and right thing to do.
If you’re in a room with 100 people and you know 10 of them are extremely violent with extremely short fuses that can be triggered by anything from a casual look to an uninvited ‘hello’’, but you don’t know which 10 it is, how are you going to socially navigate that room? Are you going to pretend like everyone in that room is a friend and make strong eye contact with everyone saying hello? Or are you going to tread lightly?
That’s the reality women face with men every day.
I know plenty of people who make this same argument for why whites can't trust blacks. Those people are called racists. People who make the argument you're making are called sexists.
No you don’t. Because there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are less trustworthy than non-POC.
Just because an argument sounds similar does not make it the same.
there isn’t a preponderance of evidence than black people are more less trustworthy than non-POC.
That is true, but is not a universally held belief. Many strongly feel that black people are inherently dangerous and untrustworthy. Others feel the same about Muslims. Or Chinese. Or Russians. Or Jewish people. Or Gypsies.
People who feel that way about those groups are called bigots. You feel that way about men which means you are also a bigot. Not a difficult analysis.
Feelings & beliefs =/= statistics
What do FBI crime stats say about Black Americans?
Statistics are easily misconstrued, and often are
We aren’t talking belief here. What I am saying is based off of empirical evidence.
Why are you being so unapologetically obtuse?
You can use FBI crime statistics to make "empirical" arguments about black Americans. Yet I think we both recognize that would be fallacious
I’m gonna ask you again, why are you being unapologetically obtuse?
If you want to challenge the data I’m citing, do it rather than refusing to engage in good faith.
It isn't obtuse to state with moral clarity that it is always wrong to treat someone differently on the basis of their sex
When there’s a preponderance of empirical evidence that a certain group of people poses a larger risk to another group of people, it validates the decision to approach them with caution.
You’re arguing that women should just ignore the reality that they are likely to be assaulted (remember, 81%) and that the people most likely to assault them are men. It is reasonable and right for women to exercise caution and clarity when engaging with men for that reason. This isn’t hard, it requires a person to be willfully ignorant to disagree with it. Get your feelings out of this matter and look at the reality we live in.
^false equivalency. Sexists hate men (or women) on principle. That's not what this concept is. You'd know that if you paid attention just a little bit
Treating someone negatively or positively on the basis of their sex is sexism.
Applying a loose definition to a situation to fit your politics is dishonest
Treating someone differently on the basis of sex is sexism. Treating someone differently on the basis of race is racism. This isn't hard
Hey bro, care to have another pointless argument over on https://lemmy.world/post/12636728 about the exact situation this pointless argument was about?
Because guess what, the parent comment of this whole thread actually played out, went badly, and now it's national news.
You're right, this is neither. Wow that is easy