this is the drama reborn
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2023
Not the only reason. I also join for the raw edginess. But seriously, I as a homo don’t want to entertain a heterosexual.
Incel and Lonely Men Debate thread - Defend men giving up or tell them otherwise
- Thread starter AMHOLIO
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
Ass is ass. Take advantage of their desperation and enjoy yourself, it’s a hookup who cares?
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
Yeah, what kind of queer turns down a freebie?
At the risk of being too on-topic, over the last handful of pages a common theme is feeling hopeless or out of control of your circumstances. The incel gives up because he thinks he does not have the power to get a gf, due to a mix of personal lacking and societal issues. Every girl wants Chad, plus they're all whores on social media anyway, Western society is doomed, that type of thing. I don't have the answer, if I did I'd make millions selling books and pimping my YouTube channel, but you don't get moral victory points for giving up and blaming the world.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2022
Based faggot
this is the drama reborn
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2023
Me. I couldn’t date or fuck a guy because he couldn’t get a woman. My vanity wouldn’t allow for it. Seriously, I would go insane.
I do. Not every homosexual is a whore.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2019
Our very own @Lord of the Large Pants (can't quote or reply to the post for some reason) had his effort post quoted off-site in an article by Jim Goad: (Archive)
The article is mostly a reply to The Pandemic of Lonely Men Not Women's Problem (Archive).
A typical "why aren't men stepping up?" article. Not even good for a rage-read.
It's always shocking not only to see someone mention Kiwi Farms, but to do so without shitting on it or bringing up its "body-count".
The article is mostly a reply to The Pandemic of Lonely Men Not Women's Problem (Archive).
A typical "why aren't men stepping up?" article. Not even good for a rage-read.
- Joined
- May 9, 2017
Huh. Did not see that one coming.
- Joined
- May 5, 2022
The guy who wrote is of his own admission a felon (?) because of some woman deciding to ruin his life from what I read. I'm impressed he managed to not go down the Drexel "Burn it down gender war now" retardation.
I got a laugh from this article (a) before promptly realizing that:
1) These people are afforded the right to vote just as I am
2) This article will probably push people to becomes radical feminists and Eliot Roger type retards.
I'm pretty sure if a man was her neighbor and tried any of that I bolded they'd be arrested for some sort of attempted X felony or accused of it.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2016
Well that's entertaining. It does amuse me particularly that she says she's a single mother by choice, then immediately talks about her movement to 'promote a village model for child raising'. And the implication that her fault lies in not asking for help, as opposed to even assuming people should by default help her. Why is your neighbor part of your faggy 'village' anyway? Did you bring him cookies and introduce yourself when you moved in? Help him out in any way? Or does the village thing cut only one way?
At the risk of resembling the thread title, it seems like it's always liberal white women failing to understand trust and responsibility in societies. Soyboys too, for sure, but women seem to have a stronger expectation that the world is there to help them. Then in 10 years she's horrified to find out the next door neighbor who's been babysitting her son while she goes on tinder dates had been molesting the kid a ton, and her reaction will be to blame men, because she's the kind of woman who blogs online.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2019
110 percent, ensured. There's no reason for any man with self-preservation instincts remaining to do that in this age of zero-trust mercilessness.
- Joined
- May 5, 2022
You failed that test by saying Soyboys so yeah. I think the reasonable male could probably reach that conclusion.
Buyers "remorse".
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2020
Some long time ago, a bunch of teenagers on black-pilled lookism internet forums decided to invent the term "incel", which was meant to be shorthand for involuntary celibate. The term didn't make any sense in the first place; an oath to celibacy is voluntary by definition, but I guess "invirg" didn't sound as good. These people aren't to blame for the current problems with the term "incel" despite inventing it.
The term wasn't immediately disparaging. It implied somebody bears inherent qualities that hard-wall them out of a healthy sex life: being incredibly short, lacking aesthetic appeal, suffering some severe mental disorder, so on and so forth. The deepest, most primal part of your brain may agree with some of these assessments. Yet in a deranged sort of way, the label "incel" also meant formulating some sense of solidarity with other men. So long as the group kept an overall air of optimism (this is a tall order) then being an "incel" who talks with other "incels" will, at the very least, keep one from feeling completely isolated from society. I think that's good.
Fast forward several years, however, and the label "incel" is no longer something one assigns to themselves... but rather a label that is thrown around in an accusatory way. It is effectively the 2.0 of calling someone a virgin or insisting they never get laid. If this was the only thing the word was used for then nobody would care and I wouldn't be writing this, but it's significantly worse than a slight insult. "Incel" has also been coded to mean "budding terrorist" and other idiotic implications.
One visit to the Wikipedia article (and I could write another scathing essay on this website too; it's sensationalist, biased and often ridiculous) reaffirms my point. The very top of the article attributes these qualities to the term: hatred! Misogyny! Misanthropy! Self-pity and self-loathing! RACISM! A sense of entitlement! Endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people! The web page may as well play alarm_bells.wav when you visit it, this would be about as subtle as their current article. If something is "bad" then apparently all incels believe in it.
The article does have a few uses, however. It illustrates that every few years some young man, for whatever reason, goes off the deep-end and commits an atrocity in a public place. I could analyze a lot of these characters extensively; many of them aren't solely to blame for lashing out. (Nicholas Cruz's bully is one of the consistently vile human beings I've ever seen on film.) But to stay tethered to my initial point, the article demonstrates how our sensationalist media glues themselves to these "isolated, violent young men with guns" stories and begins to tack labels onto them, all in a very coordinated way that benefits themselves. "Incel" is one such label. Few of the men on this page call themselves "incel" ... it's implied by news coverage, then retroactively "confirmed" by poor researchers.
Why? I have a few theories. One: there's really no sympathy for a suffering or inadequate man. It's probably one of the most acceptable targets in the world. A man who has no play with ladies, especially, inspires revulsion in the opposite sex and derision from his peers. Nobody feels bad for piling on the mockery if a man doesn't have a sex life. Even arguing on behalf of such men (i.e. the thing I'm doing right now) is going to have a lot of people grinding their teeth, not reading my post, ignoring the fact I'm a woman and insisting the only reason I care is because "you're an incel, too!"
Despite comprising a majority of modern men (if you believe current studies on the topic) being sexless in western society has become a penultimate badge of shame. Why? I'm not really sure. All I understand is that — in our increasingly-touchy society where jest targeting specific groups is enough to get you fired, — the urge to mock others or feel superior to them hasn't gone away. If anything, it's become inflamed. The few "unprotected" or "acceptable" groups left now receive the entire brunt of that misanthropic urge. Such groups include odd men who don't (or can't) get laid.
Theory number two: the current erroneous definition of "incel" is so massive that you can effectively fall into it ... or more accurately, be pushed into it by others. And that's extremely useful for evil people.
In a completely anecdotal way, I have seen situations where someone who thinks differently, treads off the beaten path, argues contrary to the mainstream or otherwise doesn't jive with "everybody else" is accused of not just being weird, but is specifically accused being an "incel". Why? Probably laziness when it comes to insults. But also: because all of those insinuated evil qualities reinforced by poor writers at Wikipedia, the poor researchers they cite, and the awful journalists everywhere else tumble in immediately after. India has the dalit; western powers are working to create the incel.
The end result is this big, malignant circle where an embellished (if not largely-fabricated) narrative targeting roughly 60% of all young men is deployed whenever one of them steps out of line. The accusation takes no time at all to transition into confirmation. (What are they going to do, pull a woman out of their wallet and have her insist they're sexually-active?)
Then when the weaker or less mentally-stable specimens of our incel caste cave under the pressure, lash out and decide to hurt people... well, that's just another name to add to the "examples" that "prove" incels truly are the embodiment of everything evil in the world. Well done, Wikipedia! Great job, CNN! And nobody* will be interested in arguing the contrary, either, because stepping out of line runs the risk of you getting accused of being an "incel" next.
*Addendum: I've noticed some men may be willing to stick their neck out in addressing this issue (and risk inheriting dreaded "incel" label), but I've yet to see other women try it. I have a lot of negative things to say about my ever-agreeable peers (chiefly how too many of you benefit off this problem and have no interest in addressing it), but that particular rant would get me banned from this website. If any women have led sane research on the incel phenomenon, please recommend them to me.
Just to conclude my post, this rant isn't defending those who go out and decide to shoot people. Nobody endorses that kind of thing; you shouldn't harm innocent people because corrupt institutions and disgusting people go out of their way to erode society, all to benefit themselves.
What I am saying is that an innocuous, self-assigned label invented by depressed young men has been co-opted by the evil people mentioned above.
Those who embrace the label "incel" are weak. They have problems; ones that aren't easily-fixed. Some of those problems are inherited or otherwise out of their control. You know what isn't going to help them? A Gamergate-style complex of journalists, pay-for-play researchers & politicians, all of whom lick their chops and decide to corrupt internet slang into what amounts to a weapon, deploying it onto individuals (an ever-increasing amount) to invent a caste of untouchables who may serve as a scapegoat for bigger issues.
The term wasn't immediately disparaging. It implied somebody bears inherent qualities that hard-wall them out of a healthy sex life: being incredibly short, lacking aesthetic appeal, suffering some severe mental disorder, so on and so forth. The deepest, most primal part of your brain may agree with some of these assessments. Yet in a deranged sort of way, the label "incel" also meant formulating some sense of solidarity with other men. So long as the group kept an overall air of optimism (this is a tall order) then being an "incel" who talks with other "incels" will, at the very least, keep one from feeling completely isolated from society. I think that's good.
Fast forward several years, however, and the label "incel" is no longer something one assigns to themselves... but rather a label that is thrown around in an accusatory way. It is effectively the 2.0 of calling someone a virgin or insisting they never get laid. If this was the only thing the word was used for then nobody would care and I wouldn't be writing this, but it's significantly worse than a slight insult. "Incel" has also been coded to mean "budding terrorist" and other idiotic implications.
One visit to the Wikipedia article (and I could write another scathing essay on this website too; it's sensationalist, biased and often ridiculous) reaffirms my point. The very top of the article attributes these qualities to the term: hatred! Misogyny! Misanthropy! Self-pity and self-loathing! RACISM! A sense of entitlement! Endorsement of violence against women and sexually active people! The web page may as well play alarm_bells.wav when you visit it, this would be about as subtle as their current article. If something is "bad" then apparently all incels believe in it.
The article does have a few uses, however. It illustrates that every few years some young man, for whatever reason, goes off the deep-end and commits an atrocity in a public place. I could analyze a lot of these characters extensively; many of them aren't solely to blame for lashing out. (Nicholas Cruz's bully is one of the consistently vile human beings I've ever seen on film.) But to stay tethered to my initial point, the article demonstrates how our sensationalist media glues themselves to these "isolated, violent young men with guns" stories and begins to tack labels onto them, all in a very coordinated way that benefits themselves. "Incel" is one such label. Few of the men on this page call themselves "incel" ... it's implied by news coverage, then retroactively "confirmed" by poor researchers.
Why? I have a few theories. One: there's really no sympathy for a suffering or inadequate man. It's probably one of the most acceptable targets in the world. A man who has no play with ladies, especially, inspires revulsion in the opposite sex and derision from his peers. Nobody feels bad for piling on the mockery if a man doesn't have a sex life. Even arguing on behalf of such men (i.e. the thing I'm doing right now) is going to have a lot of people grinding their teeth, not reading my post, ignoring the fact I'm a woman and insisting the only reason I care is because "you're an incel, too!"
Despite comprising a majority of modern men (if you believe current studies on the topic) being sexless in western society has become a penultimate badge of shame. Why? I'm not really sure. All I understand is that — in our increasingly-touchy society where jest targeting specific groups is enough to get you fired, — the urge to mock others or feel superior to them hasn't gone away. If anything, it's become inflamed. The few "unprotected" or "acceptable" groups left now receive the entire brunt of that misanthropic urge. Such groups include odd men who don't (or can't) get laid.
Theory number two: the current erroneous definition of "incel" is so massive that you can effectively fall into it ... or more accurately, be pushed into it by others. And that's extremely useful for evil people.
In a completely anecdotal way, I have seen situations where someone who thinks differently, treads off the beaten path, argues contrary to the mainstream or otherwise doesn't jive with "everybody else" is accused of not just being weird, but is specifically accused being an "incel". Why? Probably laziness when it comes to insults. But also: because all of those insinuated evil qualities reinforced by poor writers at Wikipedia, the poor researchers they cite, and the awful journalists everywhere else tumble in immediately after. India has the dalit; western powers are working to create the incel.
The end result is this big, malignant circle where an embellished (if not largely-fabricated) narrative targeting roughly 60% of all young men is deployed whenever one of them steps out of line. The accusation takes no time at all to transition into confirmation. (What are they going to do, pull a woman out of their wallet and have her insist they're sexually-active?)
Then when the weaker or less mentally-stable specimens of our incel caste cave under the pressure, lash out and decide to hurt people... well, that's just another name to add to the "examples" that "prove" incels truly are the embodiment of everything evil in the world. Well done, Wikipedia! Great job, CNN! And nobody* will be interested in arguing the contrary, either, because stepping out of line runs the risk of you getting accused of being an "incel" next.
*Addendum: I've noticed some men may be willing to stick their neck out in addressing this issue (and risk inheriting dreaded "incel" label), but I've yet to see other women try it. I have a lot of negative things to say about my ever-agreeable peers (chiefly how too many of you benefit off this problem and have no interest in addressing it), but that particular rant would get me banned from this website. If any women have led sane research on the incel phenomenon, please recommend them to me.
Just to conclude my post, this rant isn't defending those who go out and decide to shoot people. Nobody endorses that kind of thing; you shouldn't harm innocent people because corrupt institutions and disgusting people go out of their way to erode society, all to benefit themselves.
What I am saying is that an innocuous, self-assigned label invented by depressed young men has been co-opted by the evil people mentioned above.
Those who embrace the label "incel" are weak. They have problems; ones that aren't easily-fixed. Some of those problems are inherited or otherwise out of their control. You know what isn't going to help them? A Gamergate-style complex of journalists, pay-for-play researchers & politicians, all of whom lick their chops and decide to corrupt internet slang into what amounts to a weapon, deploying it onto individuals (an ever-increasing amount) to invent a caste of untouchables who may serve as a scapegoat for bigger issues.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
The study cited in this article found that 60% of men between 18-29 are not currently in a committed relationship and also found around half of them do not want one. It also does not specifically look into sex. Those men could be having one night stands or have fwb type situations. I'm not really sure saying that it found the majority of young men are sexless is accurate.
MrJokerRager
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2019
Browsing /pol/ today and saw this parody site made.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2022
Come back, us incels have had out noses out in the cold for too long.
The mixture of jealously and loneliness together, those two very strong negative emotions, are what causes young sexless men to rage online. But it gets better, one day you will be old enough not to care anymore like me. Then you can become a MGTOW king. Be an arch wizard in your own wilderness tower.
The mixture of jealously and loneliness together, those two very strong negative emotions, are what causes young sexless men to rage online. But it gets better, one day you will be old enough not to care anymore like me. Then you can become a MGTOW king. Be an arch wizard in your own wilderness tower.
Otoya Yamaguchi
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2023
It seems like this thread is just women and/or retarded men not knowing anything about men or how the human mind works in general
A statement like this just reeks of someone who no sense of human interaction or social skills or anything
A statement like this just reeks of someone who no sense of human interaction or social skills or anything
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2019
I'm going to go out on a limb and say nobody posting on Kiwi Farms was captain of the football team in high school. I'm including me in that assessment.
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2022
If you're having one night stands and fwb, why buy what you get for free? There's really not a benefit. Especially since Valentine's Day is coming up...I knew guys who would just straight up dump whatever girl they were with before Christmas and then get back together in March.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2021
What do you think causes the rage?