Don’t sell them short; incel lifestyle is about so much more than (no) sex. I’d challenge you to find any incel posts that exhibit empathy or even a reasonable understanding of human interaction.
The word “incel” colloquially covers quite a bit more territory than its acronym expansion implies, much like MAGA means quite a bit more than just a collective of individuals who want to see America succeed. But of course you know this, so why exactly are you asking?
But of course you know this, so why exactly are you asking?
No. I don’t. That’s why I’m asking.
I thought incel was an abbreviation for an involuntary celibate person, male or female, who genuinely can’t have sex for a plethora of potential reasons. Since the word “involuntary” is part of the abbreviation, to me, that means the person who’s celibate can’t help it.
For what it’s worth, I’m on the spectrum, and one aspect of my neuropathy is that I over-emphasize strict definitions of words etymologically and need to have strict meaning in communication. I perceive people using fluid or inaccurate definitions for words as a vehicle for hostile manipulation and malicious intent.
I am in therapy for this, but I’m skeptical CBT or drugs can rectify how I interpret linguistic nuance.
Incel as a term describes something much more specific than “virgin (but they don’t want to be).” That may be the literal meaning of the words, but like, we all know that the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is not democratic, people’s, or a republic.
Incel, the way it’s typically used, describes a particular type of person who’s embittered by their long-lasting virginity, and because of that, views most or all members of the opposite sex as lesser than them, believing that they’re in some way owed sex, and have been denied that ‘right.’
Every Man is an Island motherfuckers realizing that No Man is an Island.
Humans specifically only were successful because of pack hunting. We died quickly in nature as individuals. Anarcho-capitalism rejects this need for each other replaced with the unsound idea that each individual can handle everything on their own.
Works great until you break your fucking ankle and realize nobody decided being a doctor was important or the only person with medical skills has decided they don’t want to do business with you.
The ironic thing is that they because successful because of civilization and pack mentality, but are so conceited, they think all that infrastructure (public roads, doctors, restaurants, etc) exists simply because they exist. It’s weirdly how toddlers see the universe, and why tantrums between the two groups are so similar.
Nor weird at all. It requires a social and emotional maturation process to occur before an adult can appreciate the golden rule. When this developmental process fails you have a chronological adult who is developmentally immature. One of the technical names used to refer to this outcome is narcissism. Such people have prominent narcissistic traits.
Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
If one defines anarchism strictly as a type of government without a hierarchy, then anarcho-capitalism can exist with laws and government by one’s peers, who are societally and politically equal, save for temporary powers granted to them to legislate, enforce, and adjudicate the laws that are collectively agreed upon regarding private property and its ownership, protection, and distribution.
What a lot of these anarcho-capitalist chucklefucks actually advocate for is the corporate-might-makes-right-piracy under the guise of “rUgGeD iNdIvIdUaLiSm”.
They’re authoritarians who want the freedom to fuck anyone over with impunity “without the commies in government getting in the way”.
Rebranded libertarianism or not, my point is that what I’ve experienced when talking to self-described anarcho-capitalists is that they’re all wannabe dictators.
Capitalism (strictly defined as the private ownership of the means of production) can’t exist without the premise of private property being protected by laws that are collectively agreed upon, enforced, and adjudicated by peers within your community.
This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, “the will of the masses controls society” and not as in “you get to vote for genocidal liberal who will make us richer, or genocidal fascist who will make us richer”
This implies that any capitalist society is compatible with democracy, as in, “the will of the masses controls society”
Correct.
Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.
To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.
In the United States, we technically have a democratically-elected representative federal republic (on paper). This is one of many political systems where capitalism can exist, if we’re defining it strictly, as I’d mentioned above.
And to be absolutely clear:
If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.
I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.
Capitalism is an economic system, while democracy is a political system.
Economics is politics. The two are intertwined in every practical regard.
To repeat myself a bit, my argument is that capitalism can’t exist without collective agreements on legislation, enforcement, and adjudication, along with strong protections for an individual’s rights.
This is ahistorical. Colonialism does not require consensus or respect for individual rights and is a central feature of any capitalist system that is successful enough.
If you believe that supposed self-described “socialists”, “communists”, “leftists”, and other “cHaMpIoNs Of tHe PeOpLe” have never been or are incapable of being genocidal maniacs, please promptly fuck your own face with your tankie butt-plug and jump off the nearest cliff.
Oh yeah, socialists have done some horrible things. They pale in scale to the crimes of capitalism. The British empire, the nazi empire, the American empire. Socialism is a less violent system but that doesn’t mean that violence stops.
I will never entertain any authoritarian of whatever economic stripe or their apologists for even a nanosecond.
If you support capitalism you literally support an informal caste system where a small caste owns the collective accumlated fruits of labor of the whole human race stretching back to the start of agriculture, where any attempt to change the state of affairs that has any chance of success gets jakarta methoded. That is much more authoritarian than a red terror.
Add comment