Why the fuck are the glowies now going after incels?
(archive.is)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (52)
sorted by:
Otherwise, it's very easy to explain. I'm sure it's not going to come as as surprise to you that men are more interested in casual sex than women. This is for biological reasons, not because of eeeeevil society.
Be surprised or be not. I am not ignorant of biology. Not even close to. I am aware that I, being just shy of the top 80% will not reproduce. And that's OK. What is not OK is that I have to pay for the 20% Honestly, fuck them, and fuck the bitches that think that they have any worth because someone pumped their lad into them.
I honestly have to ask: Do you have any idea what it is like to be an ugly man. Can you imagine having no worth to anyone? Because you honestly don't sound like it.
If you have children of your own I have two thins to say to you: First of all: Make sure that they are your children. Second: Be glad. Most men in the western world will not be as lucky.
At least u/TheImpossible1 is aware that he won the genetical lottery.
What? How many prices are there. Along all of womanhood? 3% 10% 50%?
Why does it happen? I'm still waiting to get paid for my poor choices.
Okay. So we are on the same page after all. Incels don't deserve anything and women don't deserve anything either. Because no one deserves anything at all. Let's try it. I'm willing to bet thought that one side won't want to try it, because they are on the winning side of the game right now and stripping them of their entitlement will make a lot of them way more unhappy than they are right now. Also: The side that loses in that deal isn't the incels.
But tell me: If you care about society why would you accept single mothers that also aren't widows at all? Do you think all men that had a wife throughout all of history thought that they got the jackpot after all? I'll repeat: Being married to someone to love is like food in africa. Most people won't get it.
And how man of them get called out and ridiculed like incels are routinely? Thought so. Stop White-Knighting.
Because I'm not controlled by biology?
I am aware. Though i dare to be not completely convinced.
Reality is that most of mankind is controlled by biology, wven if they like to think they are not
Well, it helps when you have zero trust in them and therefore never want them in your house or alone with you.
I used to be, before Covid. I used to go through lists of precautions before meeting one that would make a pilot's pre-flight checks look rushed. But when the virus hit, I realized the feeling wasn't worth it. That the risk and reward was way out of control. Now that I can have people over again, I don't think it'll ever be one of them.
I'm with you there But I believe most people never arrive at that level of distrust. Not that i think you are wrong. If evereyone were like you we'd have a lot less problems. But i honestly needed a lot of time to realize that my happiness didn't depend on the aproval of women.
That was not your complaint, as I understood it. You wondered why it is that women get easier access to casual sex than men. That is easily explained. It's also incorrect to make predicitons about the future based on your present state, the top 80% not being stable, let alone easily determined. If you won the lottery tomorrow, e.g.
No two people have the same experiences. If you look at the most successful people in the world, they generally are not lookers. While I'd say that Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates have no worth to anyone, unfortunately, others disagree. I think you vastly overestimate the effect of being ugly or beautiful, at least for men. Maybe your perspective has been skewed by too much online dating. Because from what I have seen, ugly men (even when not crazily successful) do fine. Most men are so abominable that it's easy to get into the top 20% without even trying.
I don't mean to be condescending, but I will point you to biology again. Who were the men who managed to reproduce a lot in the past? Not those who were best-looking, but those who (1) had social status, either in the form of power or resources and (2) had physical strength. Today, these norms will be less applicable, but they are still applicable all the same, because 250,000 years of evolution is not erased overnight.
All I'll say that you shouldn't base your view of the world on phony 'studies' that can't be replicated, and in this case are actively contradicted by better studies.
Maybe 5%. And among men? Probably less. 3% or so.
Same for me. Then you should unite with others who have made choices, create a political lobby, and make sure you are rewarded for those poor choices.
No one deserves anything. I despise the Age of Entitlement. If you're a cripple and you can't make life work for you, then we will help you out, but if you are the author of your own misfortune, then it's on you.
I think single motherhood is very damaging to society. I do not think it should be accepted. I do think it's the inevitable outcome of a contraception society, quite ironically. Ideally, but I know it's utopian thinking, I'd like to see birth control banned and sexual mores return to the way they were in the 1950s.
I am not sure. This certainly was true for the upper classes, who got married as a sort of business or dynastic arrangement, but for many of the lower classes - people did get married for love. And even if you don't marry your love, you may grow to love your marital partner.
The hysteria around 'incels' is ridiculous. They're simultaneously supposed to be pathetic (which I think is true), and also a great threat and menace. One of these can be true, but not both. As for the blue-haired with 19 facial piercings, they're even more odious than the incels. They should be ridiculed, even if they're not.