Why I think people really hate incels.

Why I think most really hate incels, IN-voluntary CEL-ibates, that was the original definition that feminists have now perverted into ”rapist”, ”mass shooter”, etc, it became just another buzzword like pedo that they throw at anyone they don’t like, so I’m using original definition of ”someone who simply has a hard time getting laid”.

They will of course say they hate them because there have been some mass shooters amongst incels, coming from communities that discuss topics surrounding involuntary celibacy.

Ok, but that does not explain why they hate any and all incels, why they are foaming at the mouth and want to burn someone at the stake who is simply complaining about being lonely and sexually frustrated, perhaps pointing out some unsavory truths like looks mattering much more than everyone is willing to admit – they may still feel disgusted by these guys and strawman them by accusing them of feeling entitled to rape women immediately.

”You’re lonely? Fuck off rapist! You have no right to rape me! You’re delusional, you’re not lonely, the patriarchy rape culture just brainwashed you into believing you have a sex drive!”

So what explains this attitude then? If they generalize so much and throw all incels into one category, that suggests to me that there is probably more truth to what many incels are saying, how looks/attractiveness determine how you are treated in society than they would like to admit, halo effect is a real thing.

The halo effect (sometimes called the halo error) is the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, brand or product in one area to positively influence one’s opinion or feelings in other areas.^[1][2] Halo effect is “the name given to the phenomenon whereby evaluators tend to be influenced by their previous judgments of performance or personality.”^[3] The halo effect which is a cognitive bias can possibly prevent someone from accepting a person, a product or a brand based on the idea of an unfounded belief on what is good or bad.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

Because such generalizations (this one guy from your group is a rapist, therefore you’re all rapists!) generally happen when people are already disgusted with something and therefore cannot think clearly enough to distinguish anymore.

As in, one incel did x, we already hate incels because they are unattractive and disgusting, therefore we’re going to label all of them as rapists and mass shooters.

Even if an incel is hateful, how do they feel so sure to know what came first? It could be that he’s a hateful person by nature, it could also be though that he was actually a good guy first but bullied by society and then started insulting them as filthy cunts and sluts – they never entertain that possibility, I suspect because they already made a judgement – these people are unattractive, pathetic, gross, so fuck them.

And then second of all, the just world fallacy.

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that “people get what they deserve” – that actions will have morally fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, and/or order. It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers “deserve” it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

One disgusting fact about humanity is that they hate those that suffer and thus show them how unfair life is, can also be extended to other areas, like a homeless person, or anyone in misery.

We believe in Karma – assuming that the downtrodden of the world must deserve their fate
On a related note, so strong is our inherent need to believe in a just world, we seem to have an inbuilt tendency to perceive the vulnerable and suffering as to some extent deserving their fate (an unfortunate flip-side to the Karmic idea, propagated by most religions, that the cosmos rewards those who do good – a belief that emerges in children aged just four). The unfortunate consequences of our just-world beliefs were first demonstrated in now classic research by Melvin Lerner and Carolyn Simmons. In a version of the Milgram set-up, in which a female learner was punished with electric shocks for wrong answers, women participants subsequently rated her as less likeable and admirable when they heard that they would be seeing her suffer again, and especially if they felt powerless to minimise this suffering. Presumably derogating the woman made them feel less bad about her dismal fate. Since then, research has shown our willingness to blame the poor, rape victims, AIDS patients and others for their fate, so as to preserve our belief in a just world. By extension, the same or similar processes are likely responsible for our subconscious rose-tinted view of rich people.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/10/12/what-are-we-like-10-psychology-findings-that-reveal-the-worst-of-human-nature/

You see a homeless person and think ”what a piece of shit, he must be a child abuser!” because if he’s not, that would mean that bad things happen to good people, and you don’t want to live in a world where bad things happen to good people, so you pretend the good person is a bad person instead like the pathetic weasel you are, so you can sleep better at night, and spit on that homeless person.

Especially when they see that there is no easy fix to your problem they’ll hate you even more, because they want to feel like they can fix a problem, if they can’t, they instead opt for pretending that your problem is not a problem, if you keep saying it is, they will despise you for it, that’s how disingenuous homo sapiens are.

Another thing that I believe is related to this is also how human females often like to think of themselves as rewarding good behavior and punishing bad behavior, the delusion that they just want a male that treats them well, but in reality they may have much more unsavory preferences of being roughed up by some violent criminal, perhaps even hybristophilia in some cases – sometimes if an incel actually goes on a shooting spree he then finally gets fangirls that want his corpse cock once it’s too late.

Good video on this subject:

I mean, let’s be real, it’s not like you need to be nice and caring to get laid, actual serial rapists and killers frequently get tons of pussy thrown at them, this is a well known fact.

Richard ‘the Night Stalker’ Ramirez was a thief, rapist and serial killer who got a kick out of breaking into strangers’ homes and murdering them in the mid-1980s. He also worshipped Satan, so not the kind of guy you want to bring home to meet your parents.
Well, to most people he isn’t; Cindy Haden – a juror at his trial – somehow fell head over heels for him and bought him clothes and a Valentine’s present. I didn’t think Satanists celebrate Valentine’s Day but what the hell do I know?
Naturally Richard was convicted, but once in prison women from all over lined up to visit him. Guess they liked the whole bad boy thing – and they don’t come much badder than being a Satan worshipping mass murderer! Richard loved the attention and played them off against each other to make them jealous. He eventually married one of these super fans in a prison ceremony before dying of natural causes in 2013.
To many women, Ted Bundy’s chiselled features and charm overshadowed the fact that he brutally killed at least thirty women and was a known rapist and necrophile.
These confused fans worshipped the notorious serial killer and flocked to his trial. One of the women, Carol Anne Boone – or, as she prefers to be known, Head Crazy – even married Bundy during the trial and went on to have his kid.
It didn’t end with his trial. While Bundy was incarcerated, he received two hundred letters a day from his loco fan club – many of whom thought he was innocent. Even today, years after his execution, a new generation of followers is obsessed with him, perpetuating the Bundy legend.
http://www.planetdolan.com/10-serial-killers-with-obsessive-groupies/2/

They don’t like to believe this about themselves, so they go into full rationalization mode and start turning everything upside down. That guy that bought me a flower? Well, he is some entitled incel piece of shit who just wants to rape me, I know it! The unempathetic cocky arrogant bully I get fucked in every hole by=well he’s just confident, women really like confidence, blah blah blah.

Whatever they have to tell themselves to maintain the delusion that their perception of their sexual preferences is true and are not set out to reward those that have these character traits they claim to dislike.

How the antinatalist view influences other views of mine.

My view on procreation:

I think procreation is a harmful act, it forces an individual into a position of having to chase relief in order to avoid harm 24/7. You must eat to avoid the suffering of hunger, you must drink to avoid the suffering of thirst, you must shit to avoid the suffering of constipation, so on and so forth.

Put simply – you must chase relief or you are subjected to harm/suffering, you work to fulfill your desires or you end up unfulfilled.

Prior to procreating, the procreators have no guarantee that the sentient organism they create will be capable of obtaining relief, which desires it will have and if those will be fulfilled, so it is irresponsible, similar to making someone addicted to drugs, you must the pleasure/relief addict may not find pleasure/relief and ends up suffering horribly as a result of it.

Addicted to the pleasure/relief of movement/athletic performance, accidentally hit by a bus, crippled and suffering as a result of no longer achieving the same pleasure/relief. Addicted to pleasure/relief, not geting whatever they desire, ending up smoking to fill the void, getting lung cancer and failing to satisfy your addiction to air. Just some examples.

Picture this hypothetical scenario: I have a fountain spewing a liquid that contains any possible, imaginable desire. From simplistic desires like eating a certain meal to things that are hard to achieve (e.g. I want to have a completely different/modified body or turn into a different species of animal) to harmful things (e.g. wanting to torture/rape others).

I put that liquid in a syringe and inject people with it in their sleep, tomorrow the cripple wakes up and strongly desires to be a runner/athlete. If this is unethical, why is it not unethical to procreate in general? Similarly it is the creation of desire without guarantee of fulfillment, your child could very well be the cripple that wants to be the runner.

Even if one of the desire monsters created actually perfectly always fulfilled all its desires just in time – they still would not miss their fulfillment in life if they never came into life in the first place, which in my view makes potentially creating unhappiness not worthwhile.

As in – child A and child B both desire celebrating christmas and seeing santa and receiving lots of gifts. Child A manages to do so, child B dies of cancer. Considering that if we never gambled with the opportunity of creating either of them, child A would not be trapped in an unborn purgatory and miss their happy christmas adventure to any degree whatsoever, therefore I do not child B’s suffering can be justified, it is creating torture for someone to obtain pleasure that they would never be able to miss anyway.

How this also affects other views of mine as compared to the mainstream views:

The idea of gratitude towards parents for taking care of children:

Society generally takes the misguided view that somehow children are supposed to be grateful towards their parents for taking care of them, but obviously the parents are responsible for the existence of every need/want/desire the child is ever going to experience.

”But I fed you!”

Yes, after creating the child’s hunger. Had you aborted the child instead, the child would have never experienced hunger.

”But I put a roof over your head!”

After creating the child’s need to avoid freezing to death on the streets. Had you aborted the child instead, the child would have never experienced said need.

Let’s say I set your house on fire and extinguish (some of) it again, do you owe me gratitude?

And I’m not talking about accidentally setting it on fire, I’m talking about intentionally setting it on fire because I get off on coming to the rescue and playing fireman for everyone to see, I’m such a hero.

Is that a noble action? Incompletely fixing a problem you intentionally created? It’s better than not doing so for sure, but it seems like a reasonable expectation if you agree that you want to partake in creating a problem for someone.

That is what breeders are guilty of, they create needs in a non-sentient flesh pile when they could have aborted it, and then expect that the kid is grateful they incompletely managed to fulfill some of their needs. They pay off the debt they made, and now expect to be paid in return.

Suicide:

Mainstream society essentially uses circular reasoning to label anyone who wants to make use of the right to die as delusional and irrational.

You’re irrational because you want to end life, and you want to end life because you are irrational, this is about as idiotic as saying your tastebuds are deficient because you don’t enjoy x food, and the reason why you don’t enjoy x food is because your tastebuds are deficient, so you need to be fed that food to become healthy again – it’s just circular.

Even before knowing about antinatalism/promortalism, the common points made against suicide never made much sense to me, such as: ”but then you’re going to miss out on potential future happiness! What if something good happens???”

Who cares? You’re not going to be around to miss it.

If you think that the lack of future pleasure is problematic, even despite there being no one to miss or lament the absence of said pleasure because they’re dead, do you also think that inanimate objects like chairs not experiencing pleasure is a big problem? Do we need to come up with a solution to this, invent some kind of serum we can inject into inanimate objects to make them become conscious and experience pleasure?

The ”state” a dead person is in is the same ”state” a chair is in – it is utterly benign.

Do we need to create as many humans or animals as possible, as the planet allows, because otherwise there will be a lack of pleasure? Isn’t it enough to just prevent the suffering?

I want to point out that of course there are some delusional people who are misinformed about their circumstances (maybe they have a schizophrenic delusion, maybe they aren’t aware of things they could do for their health, etc) and that is why they would go for death, however, I don’t accept the idea that just choosing death itself is irrationality, I think this is a coping mechanism people employ to feel better about life – they convince themselves that life is fundamentally fair and good, so if someone kills themselves, they must convince themselves that that person is deluded, otherwise they have to admit life’s imperfection.

Also interesting question just on the side: if you are against euthanizing someone who is delusional and only wants to die because they think staying alive will result in them getting raped by a demon, would you also be for euthanizing someone who only wants to stay alive because they are delusional and think that refusing to continue living will result in them being raped by a demon in afterlife hell?

Killing and death in general, is death even a harm?:

I think even arguing that death is a harm is technically wrong, even if you are killed without agreeing to it, it is not the actual ”state” of being dead that is the problem.

The ”state” you are in when you are dead is the same you ”experienced” before you were born, so unless not being born is something we should think of as horribly harmful, I don’t see why being dead would be harmful to someone.

You could say ”they wish to be alive, that’s the difference”, but they don’t wish for that when they are dead. Wishing if anything is a harm, it implies frustration with a circumstance, you’re experiencing urges, being dead means being free from that.

You could argue there are practical factors that may make killing unethical in practice, but ultimately I fail to see why it would be unethical in principle.

You may traumatize family members and friends.
By legalizing murder, people would be scared before it even happens.
Perhaps you stop a productive person (like a scientist working on the cure for some disease) from reducing harm in the world.
Pain caused in the dying process.

So consider the red button thought experiment: you hit the red button and everyone immediately dies painlessly somehow under one second.

No families and friends traumatized.
No fears because no one will exist.
No need for the cure for any disease because diseases no longer have the ability to cause suffering.

So why not push it? In that case, you just solved all problems. Pleasure won’t exist anymore either, but again, is this problematic? Then why isn’t never being born a problem? Why isn’t my chair or a potato not experiencing an orgasm also a problem?

Animal experiments:

Without commenting on how necessary or unnecessary certain experiments for medical research are (I’m not an expert on that), even if you were to argue that it is absolutely necessary to perform an animal experiment to save lots of humans, it is only necessary because these humans exist in the first place, had they not been born there would be no problem.

If a mad scientist produced a new alien species in his laboratory and it turned out that it is quite beneficial to test on humans to predict how the aliens will be effected by the medicine/vaccines they need, the immediate question everyone would probably jump to would be ”why do these aliens have to exist in the first place?”.

I would argue (just as with any other species though whether it is humans or hyenas or aliens) that if this species never comes into existence, it would not miss life’s great pleasures, so it’s irrelevant, they don’t have to exist. So especially if their existence will necessitate so much suffering, it would be wise for the mad scientist not to breed these aliens.

The incel/male sexlessness problem:

When it comes to any man ever complaining about lack of sexual success, perhaps pointing out socially inappropriate truths like ”I’m rejected by shallow sluts because I’m a balding 5’4 midget” they often get shut down by feminists/female supremacists who immediately accuse them of supporting rape.

”YOU’RE NOT ENTITLED TO SEX!” the immediate instinctive response females have to seeing someone experience sexual frustration and loneliness, experiencing lots of suffering, negative sensation.

My take on this problem is that while we can say that you’re not entitled to rape anyone, I think you are entitled to use other outlets like prostitution and porn (that these puritan feminists who act this way are usually opposed to) and you are entitled not to crave sex/companionship in the first place.

Romantic/sexual desire, like any desire, is also just another effect of creating a desire machine. It is one of those desires where you may get lucky and always stave off suffering just in time, or you experience long bouts of suffering, the only responsible thing to do, again, is to just abort everything before it starts desiring, creating desires is irresponsible if you know that they can go unfulfilled.

You may not be entitled to rape anyone, but you certainly are entitled not to be subjected to this piss poor tormenting state of desperately craving companionship/sexual expression but not being able to experience it.

And here I differ from the feminists/female supremacists – we agree that rape is bad, but they don’t agree that sexlessness and loneliness can be torturous, and that it would be the responsible thing to do to stop breeding to prevent the chance of unfulfilled need/want/desire, they mostly think male loneliness is a joke and women have the right to play a gambling game with someone else’s welfare (i.e pro-choice).

Look at it this way: it’s one thing to say ”you’re not entitled to me funding your heroin addiction”, but if you’re some asshole who deliberately straps people to a table and injects them with heroin periodically until they become addicted to it, you’re a piece of shit.

If you are a breeder or you are ok with breeding (like feminists/female supremacists are, they think gambling with someone else’s life is a personal choice, they are pro-choice) and tell people ”you’re not entitled to have your desires fulfilled”, you ARE that asshole that injects people with heroin and then tells them they aren’t entitled to heroin, breeding is what resulted in the creation of the various desires that may torment someone, whether that is sexual, romantic or whatever other desire.

Crime and violence:

I apply the same prior reasoning in the case of crimes. Are some crimes pretty bad? Yes, but what is also bad is if the criminal didn’t commit the crime, they would be experiencing suffering, some kind of pleasure deficiency.

Had the desire machine never been created in the first place, it would not need to commit any crimes to feel better, the breeders gambled with that opportunity.

Serial killings are bad, but it would also be bad to be in the skin of someone who needs to commit rape and murder people in order to be able to bust a nut, and I think the best way to avoid someone ending up in a spot where they have a desire that torments them (but fulfilling it would include severely harming others) is to not bring anyone into existence, so in a sense I’m still pointing the finger at the breeders even when it comes to extreme crimes.

”You’re not entitled to sex, incel.”

”You’re not entitled to sex, deal with it.” is a common response feminists have when they are confronted with the problem of male sexlessness, sometimes referred to as involuntary celibacy, hence the word in(voluntary)cel(ibate).

Right away, I already think this is rather presumptious. Who said someone is entitled? I’m not denying there are of course incels who say they are entitled to sex no matter what, but to immediately accuse someone of entitlement simply because they are stating their dissatisfaction with a circumstance is the result of a flawed thought process.

”I’m sad I don’t have friends.”

AH SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO A HOLD A GUN TO PEOPLE’S HEADS AND FORCE THEM TO BE YOUR FRIENDS???

”I’m sad my mother died.”

AH SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HOLD A GUN TO RANDOM WOMEN’S HEADS AND FORCE THEM TO PRETEND TO BE YOUR MOMMY???

”I’m a cripple and I always wanted to be an athlete with real legs, this makes me sad.”

AH SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CUT EVERYONE’S LEGS OFF AND ATTACH THEM TO YOURSELF??? PIECE OF SHIT SCUM!!!

This is absurd, who said that if you voice your dissatisfaction as a way of relieving yourself, you must necessarily believe to be entitled to something?

Is this how to sensibly react to someone’s suffering? If someone is dissatisfied with x circumstance, we should immediately accuse them of being entitled pricks? Somehow ”I wanted to have lots of sex but I can’t because I’m ugly and/or socially disabled in some way” earns this type of scorn response in particular.

Likewise, if it is supposed to be advice, it is flawed – that also seems to be the perception of many of these ignorant feminists, that the suffering is caused by your sense of entitlement, rather than something deeper. So you just get rid of that sense of entitlement somehow and the problem is solved in their deluded minds.

It is a common form of gaslighting abuse feminists engage in towards sexually unsuccessful men, they deny the suffering caused by phenomena easily explained by evolution, and pretend that is is all just coming from some patriarchy rape culture conspiracy against them.

I think that not having sex causes men suffering because evolution simply favors what results in survival, so it made it so that men experience suffering when they don’t release their seed in a warm wet hole, because that is one of many ways to encourage that they will reproduce – to pretend that the suffering is caused just by some kind of social construct giving men a sense of entitlement is gaslighting abuse.

”You dumb incels only want sex because you see sex on the evil rape culture television everywhere, it’s not like sex is used in commercials because men are already naturally interested in sex, NO, men are only interested in sex because they have been indoctrinated by the evil rape culture television!”

Another crucial aspect to bring up here is the lie that they are only saying incels are not entitled to sex and their hypocrisy.

The lie (or delusion) is that many of these feminists are supposedly just saying you cannot take sex forcefully, i.e ”you’re not entitled to rape” pretty much – but that is not all they are saying.

Guess who the most incel-hating cunts are? The same ones who are also in principle opposed to prostitution, pornography or sex dolls.

So it is not just ”you can’t take sex forcefully”, it is also:

”Even if a woman agrees to let you stick it in for a certain price, it still isn’t ok because she wants money and not sex, so the sex is unwanted and unwanted sex is rape, so basically all work is slavery because the baker is only baking bread for money, not because they want to bake bread, so it is unwanted work, which is slavery, wah wah wah, I just want you to remain sexless for the rest of your life and suffer horrifically!!!”

and it is also:

”But pornography COULD be abusive, sometimes women are abused in that industry, so maybe you are watching a video in which someone was abused for free without contributing to the abuse because you watched it for free and they don’t even know you exist, so that must be banned, although even real life violence and gore videos of decapitations are perfectly legal if you’re only watching them for free, despite containing DEFINITE violence! We only care about censoring sex! Animated child porn=wrong because it’s child abuse but horror movie=acceptable!”

and it might also be:

”But what if you get used to fucking a sex doll and then your male pea brain can’t distinguish between the sex doll and a real woman anymore, so you go out and start sexually assaulting women because you think they’re sex dolls? Also, how old is your sex doll??? OMG I’m so disgusted right now, your sex doll looks like she’s still underage! Fucking child rapist you deserve to be castrated!!!!!!!!!!!!”

So these people have no right to claim it is just about incels not being allowed to force someone to have sex with them, they want in fact all sexual outlets to be banned.

Then their hypocrisy – sometimes they seem to think females are entitled to male attention but not the other way around.

If you tell them you can’t be friends with a girl anymore because it is tormenting to have her tits dangled in front of you and not being able to touch, they will accuse you of acting entitled for not being able to bear the friendship anymore, as if somehow the female in that situation is entitled to a male friend.

Another one would be you find out that your wife did some sex act you’re interested in (deepthroat, anal, fisting, etc) with someone in the past when she was still young and fresh, but not with you, so you divorce her to avoid that frustration/suffering of being the settled for second choice. Again, many here will say this is the man acting entitled, but why is the wife entitled to a marriage?

If you’re going with the ”you’re entitled to nothing in this life! NOTHING!” standard, why are women entitled to attention from men on the other hand? It goes both ways.