Own Troll

In an idle way, I’m curious about what’s going on in that guy’s head. What could lead someone to argue in such a twisted way? I find it hard to discover, at least among the well-lit corridors of the human psyche. Any ideas, John?

Seems to me that he was trying to use the ridiculous argument of “by libtard standards, wimmins ought to take one for the team by redistributing sex before the incels get violent” to discredit the fairly standard notion of the redistribution of wealth as part of the modern state. Given that he’s part of the anarchocapitalist wingnut welfare brigade, that would be the typical model.

The problem of course, is that the distribution of sex is pretty much nothing like the distribution of money — even a confiscatory level of taxation for people for whom the marginal value of each additional dollar is zero doesn’t look anything like forcing women to have sex with angry and potentially violent misogynists.

Also, too, he’s a misogynist idiot who doesn’t understand humans. Which is unsurprising in a George Mason economist.

“He’s assuming this social justice thing is basically envy on the verge of eruption into outright violence.” I’m not assuming that at all! But people who seek social justice do in fact try to induce envy and they do like to remind people of the possibility of violence.

Robin Hanson is a Serious Thinker. We know this because he’s an Evolutionary Psychologist. EP must have something to it, because brains evolved, right? Only cranks and doctrinaire ideologues call it pseudoscience!

See http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2018/01/read-simler-hansons-elephant-brain/ for philosophy’s stamp of approval.

Next up: Bryan Case shows how education is almost nothing but virtue signalling!

Oh, I see Ian Maitland is spreading wisdom (huge penis!) over there too…
Talking about messed up men and messed up State visions: https://www.reddit.com/r/badeconomics/comments/8fbdka/sexual_market_value_in_the_planned_economy_of/

More interesting than bashing boring Republicans is the actual long history of left-wing and radical programs of free love and communal sex.

E Goldman:“If love does not know how to give and take without restrictions, it is not love, but a transaction that never fails to lay stress on a plus and a minus.”

Huxley:Lenina shook her head. ‘Somehow,’ she mused, ‘I hadn’t been feeling very keen on promiscuity lately. There are times when one doesn’t. Haven’t you found that too, Fanny?’

Fanny nodded her sympathy and understanding. ‘But one’s got to make the effort,’ she said sententiously, ‘one’s got to play the game. After all, every one belongs to every one else.’

‘Yes, every one belongs to every one else.’ Lenina repeated slowly and, sighing, was silent for a moment; then, taking Fanny’s hand, gave it a little squeeze. ‘You’re quite right, Fanny. As usual. I’ll make the effort.’

Hanson’s mistake was basing his argument on distributive justice rather than on equality and fairness. The incel argument, right-wing misogynists as they are, is that mating norms and practices show approved practices of discrimination that are deliberately obfuscated and denied, if not outright celebrated. We can’t refuse to serve breakfast to somebody with a different skin color or body shape, but we can refuse sex?
We need to revisit bodies-as-common versus neoliberal possessive individualism. The body as personal property to dispose of freely according to contract law in the meat market in service of status and competitive advantage…I can’t go on. The body as legal marketable property is probably the foundation of capitalism.

(My comment on this over at Lawyers Guns and Money)

Leaving aside the moral repugnance of Hanson’s argument, I just want to point out that Hanson is wrong about the underlying (Pareto) theory.

My assumption is that if women were asked to agree to living in a society in which Hanson’s “gentle, harmless” rape is legal, they would not consent. Then forcing them knowingly to live in such a society cannot be a Pareto-improving outcome.

Alternatively, assume that men know that such “gentle, harmless” rape is legal, but women have been denied the knowledge of this fact. Then that also cannot be a Pareto-improving outcome, because lack of knowledge of the kind of society one lives in has to reduce one’s utility.

So Hanson gets the theory wrong *on his own terms.* He has become a troll, and a not-very-bright troll. So any trolling he gets in return is a Pareto-improving outcome.

I don’t see where Hanson is bringing up the idea of rape or “forced” redistribution. When he uses the term “violence,” I assume he means the same forms of violence supposedly held out as a threat by those who favor income redistribution. As with the Toronto killer. I think he means to maintain his parallel.

Is it here? Sex could be directly redistributed… This is certainly the part that I don’t get – how could sex be directly redistributed? It can’t be….

Okay, in the second paragraph Hanson suggests that some who favor policies to decrease use an argument along the lines of “i

Okay, I just read the last link: troll is an understatement

And your wife didn’t remember this? So apropos
Scott Aaronson was an incel
https://crookedtimber.org/2015/02/15/male-nerds-and-feminism/

Depressing piece on the origins of the term ‘incel’ in North American radical gender theory:
https://www.elle.com/culture/news/amp34512/woman-who-started-incel-movement/

The “gentle, silent rape” post is one of the most disgusting, flawed and idiotic posts I have ever read.
A woman´s take: http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/04/no-particular-order

John instead of crawling the internet looking for posts about these weird fantasies why not just read the Gor chronicles? I think they’d be better written and more tasteful!

I am going to hazard a guess that this Hanson dude is a regular and perfect Ecole of gelmans law. Coincidence? I think not.

I understand it’s a losing battle to wonder is it not time to stop paying so much attention to the GMU moron brigade?

PS. If Hanson is simply arguing that we ought not appeal to envy to argue for equality, that seems correct. We should be able to draw attention to equality without appealing to envy.

On the other hand, it would not be fair to accuse a person of envy because that person is complaining about inequality. We ought to have (and be able to have) a reasoned (even if passionate) discussion about inequality without such discussions being motivated by envy nor being silenced by allegations of envy. Envy, its absence or presence, seems irrelevant to inequality.

Faustusnotes@ 28: I never imagined the Gor books being mentioned on CT. (I have been told, but never verified, that the author was some sort of humanities prof in the mid-West (USA)). In the past I worked as a book scout and sold Gor books to collectors. I always felt dirty buying them, wanting to tell the seller that I had no intention of reading them, only resale.

Hanson’s argument is nuts, yes. But let’s not pretend that this is a problem that progressives take seriously. On the contrary, progressive opinions on sexual inequality are marked by open contempt, which really is different from the progressive take on economic inequality: if you’re poor, there’s at least a possibility that it’s due to bad luck or outright oppression, but if you’re a romantic failure, it’s because you’re a cripple and/or a horrible person. Apart from advising men to stop feeling entitled to women— i.e., “accept your lot in life”— progressives don’t even have anything to say about the phenomenon that doesn’t concern the treatment of women.

For the record, I’ve only been in one romantic relationship, and that was fifteen years ago. I haven’t had sex in a decade. I’m pretty sure this state of affairs isn’t going to change. But my height and weight are both average, I have no physical deformities beyond mild near-sightedness, I don’t suffer from social anxiety (not more than normal, anyway), I’m not on the autistic spectrum, I don’t subscribe to any incel beliefs, and I hold a Master’s degree. (And I’m working on a PhD, and my advisor is one of the most prominent names in my field.)

However much I subscribe to leftist beliefs generally, these discussions always serve as an uncomfortable reminder that I’m not really welcome within the liberal community.

It really is time to ignore propertarians like Hanson. As I observed a while ago, just about everyone in the “libertarian” camp who is worth taking seriously has switched to the liberaltarianism of the Niskanen Center

https://niskanencenter.org/about/

Tineola

I haven’t had sex in a decade.

If by a decade you don’t mean any more than ten years, then at twelve years I’ve got you beat. And yet, unlike you, I don’t feel that progressives hold me in open contempt or think I’m a horrible person. So I feel impelled to ask where you’re getting that from.

You might take a look at the column by Dan Savage that was linked to above, in which you can read this:

I do, however, sympathize with the plight of people—men and women—who experience sexual deprivation and are miserable (but not hateful) as a result. Those of us in the advice racket offer lonely, inexperienced, and sexually deprived people support, pointers, and encouragement. But following the standard-issue advice doesn’t always alleviate their misery.

That’s not contempt.

valuing and respecting sex work, and sex workers

Note that the US has just passed SESTA which is explicitly designed to do the opposite – it will make sex work more dangerous and likely lower paid, while also expanding the definition of sex work to include anything which supports or promotes sex work (the US definition already counts porn etc as sex work). The nasty kick is that this also applies to anyone anywhere in the world that uses US-based companies like Visa or Google, even when their activities are explicitly legal where they are taking place. That’s via the “promote or encourage” vicarious liability language, combined with criminal penalties and jail terms for company executives and owners (but not shareholders AFAIK)

– or as a polite bouncer at a nightclub would say:

Sorry – but you can’t… what’s your name again? ”Hanson” – ahh – sorry you can’t get in Mr. Hanson.
(and hands him a printout of @37)

– and about
”Being on the left should mean not punching down, even just verbally. Leave that to the Republicans.”

but, but, but there are people who don’t get no sex -(or they do?) – all over the world -(even in some very ”romantic” countries like Italy and France) – but do we have to point to the fact – that it seems to be – that ”only in America” somebody goes out and kills people because of that?

I’m a bit perplexed by the complaints of the involuntarily celibate. I’ve been celibate for longer than I’m willing to admit, but it’s always been clear that I could change this with the necessary effort, which for whatever reason I’ve been unwilling or unmotivated to put forth.

Because it isn’t about sex, it’s about a sexual relationship with another person, which is for most of us a non-trivial proposition, entailing reciprocal obligations of affection. Giving another person control over one’s life is hazardous.

Perhaps the incel fantasy involves no-strings-attached sex, the casual hookups and one night stands that everyone else is supposed to be getting. I’m quite confident that these exist, but they’re not evenly distributed. Even there some effort and some expertise may be required.

For those unsatisfied by traditional DIY methods and daunted by the investment involved in a human relationship, technology offers a variety of increasingly attractive alternatives. Automation is rarely a fix for inequality of distribution, but it might neatly fit this niche.

John Holbo: “But, without condoning violence – or suggesting something insane like forcing women to be therapeutic objects on which angry men can vent resentment – one ought to be able to extend some genuine sympathy.”

I’m not at all sure progressives as a group lack empathy for lonely people. Some may; people are a mean bunch, and capable of much cruelty, but that’s hardly a progressive monopoly. Everyone ought to be better than they are, me included.

All mob violence – or the threat of such violence – has at its core some grievance, some root cause, that deserves our sympathy. Lynch mobs are motivated by fear of the other. Fear of the other is real fear, and surely we should have empathy for people who fear. But when a lynch mob is forming, is empathy for their fear the right response? How does one express that empathy while simultaneously opposing the lynching?

Tineola, I hardly think contempt for people who can’t get laid is a “progressive” thing – incels, PUAs et al are constantly going on about how feminists can’t get laid because they’re fat and hairy, and that’s why they’re feminists. Some PUAs insist that real men shouldn’t fuck feminists, in order to punish them for ruining gender relations (ha! Some punishment!)

If there is a progressive scorn for people who can’t get laid, it probably arises (I would guess) from the awareness that everyone wants sex, and many people (especially in younger generations) want pretty casual, relatively condition-free sex. So if you can’t tap into that worldview and you really want to, it seems like you might be doing something wrong. I think this is complicated in America by the common view that there is something wrong with people who visit sex workers, so if for example you prefer to focus on your job or your hobbies, but just want occasional uncomplicated sex, you can’t use the obvious option (especially since it’s illegal!) and so you have to either set aside time you don’t have/won’t commit to a process you find tedious, or go without.

But having said that, I’ve never got a sense that contempt for the unlaid is a progressive trait. Perhaps some evidence would be in order?

Nastywoman and Engels make a strong point that there is a very transactional sense to American sexual mores. I have never dated in America, but I have seen enough comedy, drama, advice columns etc. to get the strong impression that in America dating involves the man paying for everything until the woman puts out. That’s not a very nice way to approach a supposedly mutual arrangement, and it’s not how the rest of the developed world works, as far as I can tell. This is a recurring theme in e.g. Big Bang Theory. And recently we have this whole thing going on about how daddy will shoot anyone who fucks his daughter, and it seems fairly obvious that there is a strong view in America that women are property, and that women are gatekeepers to sex rather than willing participants in sex. This is the entire basis of the PUA worldview (which incels hate but accept as truth) – that you have to trick or impress your way into a woman’s pants, because she isn’t gonna give it up just because she really wants/needs a fuck. Of course PUAs and other MRAs think this is all feminism’s fault, which presumably means that they think back before the first bra was burnt women paid for their own dates, and sex was freely available to any man who asked politely. They’re stupid and nasty, and their view of sex is entirely transactional. It’s also deeply influenced by the same evolutionary psychology bullshit that this GMU prof is an adherent of.

I guess until America fixes that broader pattern of transactional sex and misogynist, traditional views of women’s attitude towards sex, these men aren’t going to go away. But like every other part of right wing thought in America, you can be sure they will only get more conspiratorial and violent.

@
‘wipe the cheeto dust off your chest and go to the gym, young man,’

– is/was the stereotypical ”old mans” advice – as some (younger) women’s advice -(concerning this discussion) could be:

Don’t f… try to politicize sex (too)

And your chances NOT to get laid grow disproportionally if on top of being a asocial a… hole you are also a asocial ”right-wing” a…hole” – and that’s what a lot of the so called ”incels” probably didn’t understand? – perhaps because of the complete misunderstanding about how their hero Trump got all this… ”sex”.

Well – he for sure in most cases just payed for it – and so – yes – there is need for empathy –
for a lot of empathy for the Poor -(who even can’t pay for sex – like Trump) – BUT somehow most inches don’t see it like that? – AND that has to be changed -(that they don’t see it like that) – and the only way to clear up the misunderstanding is to be brutally honest!

““But whatever it is the package that people want, we can and should ask how we might get more of it to them.” The package is: women packaged.”

I’m not going to read Hanson, but there is a leap from “sex should be redistributed” to “sex with women should be redistributed.” Somewhere in this reasoning there’s the assumption that, when sex is redistributed, it’s necessarily women being redistributed among men, and not also men being redistributed among women. In the quote I reproduced of Hanson, he clearly talks about people rather than men, so I presume it is someone else in Hanson. Can someone please confirm that it is Hanson who made this assumption?

Note on above: Of course, the Japanese farmer importing a Philippino wife means that some young man in Luzon loses out because he is not as rich or born in the right country just as the Japanese man lost to the richer more liberated American who probably outperformed some loser in Bakersfield.

If women ain’t goods, why do they keep getting captured by the men with capital?

Bob, why is everything you say on Asia and Japan always so wrong, and always presented with such forceful certainty that it’s right?

And why do you think sex selection in Asia is neoliberal feminisms fault?

Oh Bob. Your typical American “stealing” a Japanese woman is a low paid eikaiwa teacher, a reject from his own society who can only get laid I Japan (there’s a comic about this). And he doesn’t typically”take” the woman back to America but gets entangled in her family relationships and ends up stuck in Japan in a job he hates. I’m on my way to Shibuya now, I can say hi to a million of these dudes as soon as I get off the train. It’s not about capital at all, and there’s a very good chance the woman he “stole” is wealthier than him – better social connections, land to I herit, and a decent job with better future prospects than his dumb eikaiwa job.

Sheesh.

Nice try! What account of envy are you operating with here?

Mebbe this?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/economic-justice/#EquNoEnv

some (younger) women’s advice -(concerning this discussion) could be: Don’t f… try to politicize sex

Umm
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=the+personal+is+political

Hi John,
Commenters speculating and generalizing about the sex lives of folks they’ve never met whilst boasting of their own prowess? I never quite believed we’d have anyone comparing nookie notches at CT, but given the discourse participants I suppose it had to happen sometime. I’ve wondered why some folks live in Japan and now we have the answer straight from the horse’s err, mouth.

Utterly revolting, frankly. Please, no more male commenters boasting about their sexual conquests and adolescent fantasies. There are real live human beings involved, many of them – you know, females. Just a thought.

Hi John, I’ve no intention of reviewing any of the comments in that exchange, thanks all the same.

I thought the OP a bit ordinary, dare I say it, and if you’re keen to invite a discussion that involves ridiculing people for their ability to reproduce L2 sounds (I’m sure you’re not), you’ll allow the comments to stand.

The fact is that what Bob finds amusing is often a source of acute embarrassment. Part of my job is involves helping people improve their pronunciation skills. I’m inclined to give practically everyone the benefit of the doubt, but from my experience no adults would find any part of that exchange remotely amusing, unless one enjoys laughing at people struggling to communicate in a second language. Again, I’m certain you’re not.

I do not find humor based on ethnic behavior, or stereo-typing, remotely funny. Not sorry.

And just so we’re clear about who’s laughing at whom: http://www.charismaman.com/
The magazine is produced by westerners who have a good laugh at the expense of ‘dumb’ Asian women. “Charisma Man first appeared in the February 1998 issue of the ‘The Alien’ magazine, and immediately catapulted into legendary-status among readers in Japan’s expat/Gaijin world. The creator of the strip, Larry Rodney, teamed up with a graphic designer friend, Glen Schroeder, both from Canada, to produce the first year of outstanding strips. The strips continued through 2002 with Neil Garscadden doing the writing and Wayne Wilson providing the art work. At the end of 2002, a book containing all the original strips was published and quick sales further documented its appeal. ‘Charisma Man’ has now become common vernacular among ex-pats in Japan and other countries. This website provides all the info you need to keep up to date with all the latest Charisma Man developments.”

There are other expat-produced pieces of racist trash, but it’s not like those Asian women really understand how to recognize a real, cool westerner, so what’s the big deal?

Is it just me or us the number of Americans in Japan represented in CT comments remarkably high?

Matt@19:

I liked that Srinivasan piece, but I can’t say it stuck me as “sensitive” it was a little more like “so ‘ambivalent’ you can’t tell what she’s saying”.

There’s a long introduction about a homicidal misogynist nut-job adopted by the “incels”, but it isn’t clear what role that’s supposed to play. This is an important subject because nut-jobs? Maybe: these nut-jobs are *representative* of a wider problem (but: are all nut-jobs representative? Or are they just nut-jobs?).

I *think* what’s going on is Srinivasan would like to say things that she’s too smart to actually say, so there are funny gaps in the exposition– the impulse is something like “If only we could ban porn then the nutjobs would go away”.

So instead we get an interesting exposition about MacKinnon vs Willis…

There’s a funny point that it seems like Srinivasan keeps getting hung up on, which is something like aspects of human behavior are *either* fluid and changeable, or they’re completely fixed and must be treated as givens beyond discussion or criticism. That strikes me as a bit of a false dilemma.

http://obsidianrook.com/doomfiles/BEYOND_THE_BLUE.html

engel @ 82

The number of Americans in Japan represented on the Internet has been remarkably high since 1998, that I’ve noticed.

– and it’s weird?
I have a lot of empathy with US workers – whose jobs were given away by idiots who didn’t realize that they wrecked these workers egos like that and turned a lot of them into ”pain killer consuming wrecks” but somehow I have no empathy at all for some… Hanson dudes who have empathy for ”people who seek social justice do in fact try to induce envy and they do like to remind people of the possibility of violence.”

It’s really… weird?

@faustusnotes
But having said that, I’ve never got a sense that contempt for the unlaid is a progressive trait. Perhaps some evidence would be in order?

It’s actually probably mostly a reflection of how internet tribalism plays out in many forums. Progressives are people, and many people are cruel and petty to those they other. When incels get into flamewars, they do it with those they oppose politically or socially – and progressives fit on both counts. And when the participants in said flamewars refuse to debate on merits, or try to debate on merits but tire of talking to a wall, the flamewars revert to their default state: flaming ad hominems. Since we’re talking about people that are attacking other people they don’t know, that means attacking stereotypes. And with incels, or groups that typically present themselves as incel-supportive, that means calling them fat, pathetic, isolated, autistic virgins, because that’s what the prominent broad-brush personal stereotypes of those groups’ members tend to be. And if your only personal exposure to progressives is when they’re attacking you (or when your group is having a 2-minute hate over real or fabricated vitriol as a bonding exercise), you’re going to have a disproportionate proportion of evidence suggesting that progressives do in fact hold the (fairly mainstream) POV that virgins are contemptible as a core belief.

Ofc, as noted upthread, as a group they throw distaff variants of these same stereotypes back at the people they complain are treating them with cruel contempt, which really just underscores how deeply rooted some such stereotypes are across orthodox western society.

tl;dr: if you frequent forums where there is a sizeable incel presence*, especially if they’re at most a plurality and thus forced to engage with those they disagree with, it’s very understandable that incels have a sense that contempt for virgins is a progressive trait.

*I cannot understate the degree to which I don’t recommend doing so for its own sake – there’s generally a lot of truly vile toxicity even without a majority turning it into an echo chamber for their worldview.

“it’s very understandable that incels have a sense that contempt for virgins is a progressive trait.”

I have about as much direct experience with “incels” (that I know of) as some here have with “American dating,” but the anti-feminist who doesn’t like modern dating practices and views himself as a conservative goes way back on the Internet. This fact—that they’re essentially conservatives, not some weird new kind of rebel—might suggest that looking too closely is a waste of time. Much less trying to develop their point of view publicly for them, whether for your benefit (to understand them, in some spectatorial or social-work kind of way) or for theirs (to help their support groups work better or somehting).

It would also explain why they’re convinced the big divide is between them and “progressives”,

I finally have lost the battle with my curiosity, and would like to know whether this, from the beginning of the OP

If you think goods redistribution is a good idea (inequality = bad), you must be in favor of a bit of the old forced sexual redistribution. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.)

is something the poster or an acquaintance of his has heard. I can’t guarantee I have, but it sounds like something a couple of my HS teachers might have thought was clever (I managed to avoid that type in college, fortunately).

have a sense that contempt for virgins is a progressive trait

that means calling them fat, pathetic, isolated, autistic virgins

The problem is not only considering the above to be personal flaws, but considering their negations, thin admirable gregarious social considerate and sexually active, to ever be virtues or achievements. They are thus commodified.

Bourdieu, the father of incel Kabyle studies, is haunting this thread. The distinctions that serve inequality and power are those that are competitive to the privileged, that subset which should be discernable in any micro-setting. Ignoring or attempting to co-opt the abject (or abjection) is a weapon in the opportunistic internal competition.

There are degrees of privilege.

In this new neoliberal diverse workplace, the exploited creative class needs an abject class to hate and fear, stereotypes to compare, to quell labor unrest, just as in the Jim Crow South. The old candidates are inconvenient and inefficient.

“White men” doesn’t make it for this globalist, and with the understanding that the abject are often labelled diseased, I will improve “toxic masculinity” to the “global abjectly masculine”

Engels, neither pH nor I are American. I think I’ve told you I’m not American about fifty times now.

I think you are right about the other aspects of modern capitalism and it’s effects on the sexual behaviour of its subjects (?) But there are two big qualifiers: 1) only in North America do the alleged victims of this order murder women en masse (there is a famous University shooting in Canada that far predates the internet that had the same incel origins); and 2) those of us who can rise above our conservative Christian origins are genuinely sexually much freer now than we ever were in any other time in history, and this is 100% a good thing. It’s a wonderful thing and we should do all we can to preserve it. People like McManus who think this new order of free sex is some kind of capitalist commodification of our desires are so completely wrong it doesn’t bear consideration. We can fuck who we want when we want how we want without risk or consequences. Fucking great!

Trader Joe, I think you need to be careful about using trickle down theories in sex. That can go horribly wrong, just ask Trump.

I don’t get the impression that anyone has been bragging about their sexual “conquests” on here, but I’d like to point out the not-so-subtle subtext of ph’s complaints about this supposed belt notch bragging. He makes it pretty clear he thinks that if you have sex with lots of women you’re degrading them or treating them as not human. That is a common view of casual sex, but it’s a dirty and degraded view and it completely strips women of any agency. It’s also a core part of the MRA/incel worldview – that when you fuck a woman you degrade her, and thus by extension women who have had sex with lots of men are worthless. Hanson also clearly has that view – his post about cuckolding vs “gentle rape” (wtf) subscribes to the same idea incels and PUAs have that single mothers are the worst kind of woman. He’s an MRA.

Buried in among all of these complaints is the same idea that women should be the captive property of men and once they’re fucked they’re ruined. It’s disgusting, and somehow in America these ideas have become murderous.

fn @ 100

I think there is also an American type who, in an earlier time, would have remained a bachelor or might have found a woman through his church, who was raised (often by a mother who told him these things) to distrust women and to believe women, especially the “modern” type, are going to try to trick him in some way. To be clear, I’m speaking of Protestants. (Not making some jibe about celibate Catholic clergy, or Catholics pushing men supposedly to be celibate, in case someone thinks I’m obviously doing that.) Maybe that’s why it seems to be a specifically North American type, or maybe it’s the frontier heritage. That obviously creates some messed-up views about sex. The PUA attitude is pretty much guys doing to women what those men think “gold-diggers” are doing to men. What happens when you get them together, in the Internet-porn age, I don’t even.

ph@89. That’s a spectacularly badly written article, so your failure to comprehend it is understandable. But if you look closely, you’ll see that Democrats are favored in the millennial sample by 46 to 28 percent.

fivethirtyeight.com does better with this. They’ve got the Dems favored overall by 8% – a substantial lead in a democracy, and even in the US, that might be enough to gain control of one house of one branch of government.

@biance steele
As to the second question, is there a role for a kind of “missionary,” or “social work,” role, for normies among what you call “those people”? Or are they too reactive for that to work? Are there too many sociopaths and true trolls hidden among them?

I agree that outreach work seems like a futile – counterproductive, even – idea. There is a lot of it already, albeit mostly shallow and poorly executed. And the groups are generally resilient and resistant to it; they’ve seen it before, and they’ve coached themselves on how to counter or dismiss attempts to “reach” them. In my (peripheral) experience with these groups, there are bad faith actors who actively work to maintain a siege mentality in these communities – commissars or whips, if you will. This isn’t limited to these particular groups – you can see it in various online communities – but alt-right/MRA/PUA/incels/redpill/”cultural conservatism 2.0″ groups seem very consistent in this regard. If people want to get out of that groupthink, they need to do the initial work themselves, or they need individually and personally nudged out of it veeeeeeeery slowly (preferably offline, which the opt-out mentality of no small number of incels makes less likely). There’s enough defense mechanisms in place that this seems like a very good example of “you can’t be argued out of a position you weren’t argued into” – the only “outreach” that seems like it would be productive is to try to sabotage their evangelism and counter their pat narratives in mixed venues that they use for recruitment. This is something I do a bit of, because I happen to be a member of an online community that has come to act as such a breeding pool, and it frankly feels Sisyphean.

Your observation about this fitting into a specific Protestant mindset seems apt, btw. Not universal, ofc, but it feels like it’s a major thread within such groups.

Claimer or Disclaimer: I interacted with Robin many years ago on some ideas about quantum measurement. His idea wouldn’t work as formulated but it was original and has a family resemblance to a subsequent idea (by J. Mallah) that seems not quite as bad as all the other ones in this area.
Various semi-connected comments.

#13 is short but makes an extremely important point. It’s often been discussed (e.g. by Marvin Harris, IIRC) that the nominal outlawing of polygamy was the major historical instance of the use of force to try to make the distribution of sex less unequal.

#37 A reminder of why it’s worth slogging through this blog for an occasional nugget.

Although Robin’s latest post appears to be what John Holbo says it is, his older post about cuckoldry seems impossible to make sense of without the assumption that women don’t count for anything except use-value. Looking at it from an evolutionary viewpoint doesn’t begin to justify that moral assumption or provide a way to make sense of the argument without it. Looking at the range of attitudes in different cultures to both rape and (where this concept even applies, which is not everywhere) cuckoldry does not help Robin’s argument look any more sane or decent.

In fact, his whole abstract argument seems to ignore our long ancestry in hunter-gatherer groups that were highly egalitarian with regard to food and shelter and only moderately inegalitarian with regard to status and sex. Any attempt to recapture some of that feeling is just “envy”? And surely it’s only the lower classes who ever hint at the possibility of violence?

On the other hand, the arguments of some posters that unequal sex access is a particular artifact of some stage of capitalism seem like they could be refuted by a visit to almost any other primate group. The core claim that progressives are not immune to the gleeful mockery of sexual losers, just as the banker liberals are not immune to mocking economic losers, can easily be confirmed with a few minutes on any blog.

Despite the heroic efforts (#37) philosophy seems inadequate for addressing these basic questions about status, community, distribution of goods, etc. Sapolsky’s “Behave” might be good background to at least get the discussion focused on our peculiarly in-between species, moderately sexually dimorphic, unusually but not infinitely culturally adjustable, etc. We’re not close to being either “species beings” or autonomous homo economicus.

We can fuck who we want when we want how we want without risk or consequences.

To unpack just part of this horrible sentence, no “we” can’t, for a meaning of “we” that includes migrant workers who cross two continents for this lousy meatpacking job send their remittance and can be pretty much certain that they will never be able to afford a home and marriage that grants them relative honor in the origin town. Like I said, there may be a billion of them, more, and they are aware of the first world triumphalism, the celebration of empire financed and enobled on the backs of 3rd world transient labor. That you don’t even see them, or can pretend they don’t exist demonstrates their abjection.

I can’t imagine a woman ever making that statement, except in a kind of false bravado.

He makes it pretty clear he thinks that if you have sex with lots of women you’re degrading them or treating them as not human. That is a common view of casual sex, but it’s a dirty and degraded view and it completely strips women of any agency.

I don’t believe this myself but I’ve heard it before and it’s not true that it entails either partner has no ‘agency’. The claim is that both are consenting agents who are using the other as an object for physical self-gratification rather than relating to them as a person.

What can it mean except offering up women (voluntarily or involuntarily) to be beaten down in some allegedly therapeutic way by violent, angry men who feel deprived?

Why “beaten down” and “violent”? Dr. Hanson is already on record describing rape as a “gentle”, “silent” act.

Trader Joe@98

Hanson … assuming that the amount of sex in the world is finite and some people just aren’t getting their share.

IME one of the differences between the US and elsewhere is exactly that assumption. Down here in anglonesia it’s much more common for women to exercise their free will and independence by chasing sex in various ways. That doesn’t seem to be an option for women in the US, or at least not to the same extent.

If instead there was some sort of incentive to “grow the pie”

Also, outside the US money is not the only measure… and fierce competition not the only way to arrange public society. The zero-sum approach seems to pervade US public life and it’s nasty.

John Holbo@104 seems to imply Foot’s trolley problem is to be taken at face value. I think it is primarily meant to be a stumper for utilitarians, posing a moral problem utilitarianism can’t resolve. And I think Hanson’s little thought experiments are primarily meant to probe motivations in ethical arguments, not serious suggestions to solve real problems. If this seems far fetched, I can only point out Hanson himself says ” I do like to study what causes others to be so attracted” [to non-insurance based redistribution policies.]

John Holbo@103 rhetorically asks “Am I missing something?” after denying Mercier and Sperber mean what they say. (That is not quite the same as saying what they mean, to be sure.) Jonathan Haidt, who is respected here, says not: https://www.edge.org/conversation/hugo_mercier-the-argumentative-theory Mercier and Sperber do claim that confirmation bias, for instance, is an adaptive behavioral attribute, selected for by nature. It is not even clear that confirmation bias is useful in winning arguments, but if confirmation bias doesn’t lead—somehow—to more children (or children of close relatives,) then it is isn’t an evolutionary theory at all. It’s not clear at all how confirmation bias helps in anything but winning arguments. Nor is it clear at all how confirmation bias in individuals helps improve group reasoning, nor that group reasoning without confirmation bias wouldn’t be even more effective. To my eyes, it’s not even clear that System I and System II reasoning are truly different systems, rather than something like the difference between sight reading and phonics. Or between riding a bike after you’ve learned how, and actually learning.

Sophistic shenanigans like confirmation bias are primary, not secondary, which is why science needs the argumentative theory. It’s why human System II reasoning is so defective, except that it’s not defective in their theory. The best lawyers always find the truth in court by their logic, so groups use the best arguers to find the truth. And it’s people who misunderstand the nature of reason who are

Going to another short presentation, Mhttps://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/theargumentativetheoryofreasoning, Mercier himself concedes ” Our evolutionary account is much more in touch with the prevailing view of the evolution of human cognition. According to this view—alternatively named the social brain hypothesis, or the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis, among others—most of human cognition evolved to answer the demands of our social world,” i.e., getting one over. I think you are reading Mercier and Sperber as saying the power of group reasoning to find truth is adaptive.

Associated Press just now reporting that George Mason University, “Virginia’s largest public university granted the conservative Charles Koch Foundation a say in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for millions of dollars in donations, according to newly released documents. The release of donor agreements between George Mason University and the foundation follows years of denials by university administrators that Koch foundation donations inhibit academic freedom.”
https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889

…eyeing with bad intent…

Keep the Tull out of this, Bob.

And remarkably, very few of them go on mass killing sprees to avenge this offense

This is always a terrible argument whether it’s made about terrorism, crime, rioting, juvenile delinquency or whatever else.

Because of at least one generation of sex selection and poor treatment of women, the gender imbalance in East and South Asia is now around 20%.
That means there are at least a billion young men who will never have hetero life partners through no fault of their own. In addition, let’s call it a loss in relative male status and empowerment (and other reasons, outmarriage in Japan is radically gendered…J women marry Americans and emigrate, J men bring in Philippino wives)), there are probably another half billion men incelled by social change.

China’s notorious bachelor-surplus is around 30 million men — 0.03 billion — in a population of nearly 1.4 billion people. You appear to be far overestimating inceldom fated by demography.

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio the only country in the world that has a male sex imbalance ≥ 1.20 at birth is Liechtenstein. For whole-population statistics, those countries ≥ 1.20 are Maldives, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait. In the 15-24 age range Qatar, UAE, Maldives, Bahrain, Northern Mariana Islands, and Kuwait are ≥ 1.20. Add Palau and Saudi Arabia for ages 25-54.

John Holbo:

There is a way of stating their thesis, briefly, that makes it sound like they are saying the adaptive function of reason is to make us sophists. It is a tool of bamboozlement of our fellow humans. But that isn’t what they are saying.

See also Henry , who thought Mercier and Sperber were

…providing a compelling case that reasoning did not evolve as a capacity to figure out the world, so much as an argumentative capacity to generate convincing rationales for why the reasoner is right, and others are wrong.

I disagreed with this interpretation.

or, excessive salesmanship leaves most everyone worn out and ill-informed and that is obviously inefficient, but facilitates the dominance of a few who are willing to pay for it in order to secure said dominance.

On a personal point of order, the snark was aimed at Mercier and Sperber.

As for explaining how you’re wrong, again, for a start: If there is no differential reproduction that fixes a trait in a population, then you’re not talking about evolution. Vapor about evolution is just jargon, pseudoscience. It’s all just made up stuff, designed to support their favorite version of things as they are as things as evolution (aka “God”) designed them. In this case, apparently, Mercier and Sperber are keen to see the essence of society epitomized as an academic debate. Well, that’s certainly nicer than some other visions of the good society. Hasn’t a damn thing to do with any sort of social science.

You’re wrong in how you read Mercier and Sperber because you miss that they are saying reasoning powers evolved to make arguments, and that’s why cognitive biases are adaptive. But they do so without explaining how the traits are fixed in the population; without demonstrating how that kind of trait is adaptive; with considering whether reasoning in the sense of argument is a cultural development of language, rather than a new mental faculty; without demonstrating that cognitive biases in individuals are not maladaptive to individuals; without asking whether it is even reasonable to assume that God aka Natural Selection even had the power to perfect reasoning powers over the lifetime of the human species.

Also, Mercier and Sperber really are saying that reason itself is about persuading people of the truth and that individual cognitive biases are adaptive because they improve the final outcomes in the group. The smartest lawyers in the courtroom are better lawyers because they are biased for their case, and this naturally leads to the truth being found. That is nuts, which I hope is why you cannot accept this is what they are saying. And instead you think they are saying something a little less nuts, that is your reading.

And by the way, the example you offered in @135 is I think erroneously fixed on the Mercier and Sperber debate model. The guy reporting doesn’t make arguments, he says, one of you come see while the rest get ready. And the skeptic says, if you’re screwing with me, I get a nice piece of meat from your next kill. Then somebody goes to see. Or some such. Perhaps you would consider this social reasoning?

Mercier and Sperber really are saying that one of the villagers relying on their most recent experience of the other tribe, instead of their whole record, due to cognitive bias, to conclude they wouldn’t launch a sneak attack, isn’t suffering from defective reasoning powers. That instead, his commitment to a false position makes the debate more effective. Your version, even if I think it’s not quite wrong, is at least not nuts. It’s also not what Mercier and Sperber are arguing.

And then of course, there is reasoning about less objective matters. Arguments about the fairest division of the meat, about who is having sex with whom, about whether the shaman is capable of curing disease, about whether we should attack the other tribe first, about whether dreams tell us about life after death, or whether coming of age rights must be this way than that, or that this is good music and the other sounds aren’t, or that this is the way language is spoken and the other is some sort of childish error. It is not, not, not clear that Mercier and Sperber’s assumption that reasoning of their kind really is adaptive, for groups even, much less that individual cognitive biases make this kind of reasoning more effective. Which, after all, is exactly what they are saying.

Lastly, you are wrong because you accept uncritically Mercier and Sperber’s assumption that natural selection is all powerful and pervasive, and that therefore cognitive biases are adaptive.

I mean, the villagers’ failure in the boy who cried wolf is precisely a failure of induction: no wolf yesterday means no wolf tomoorow.

A black swan event!

But if you’re getting eaten by swans you’ve probably made some bad life choices along the way.

(apropos of nothing, can I just say as an australian that “normal” white swans freak me out when I see them in real life)

Again omega Centauri, what you say obviously suggests the requirement for women to do some kind of emotional and/or physical labour because a group of men won’t do the social/physical/emotional labour required to get what they want. If the problem is the incels’ why should women do the hard yards? Don’t they have to do enough emotional labour already?

And how do you know they’re saying eew? You only have the incels’word for it, and have you seen what they write? They don’t seem particularly reliable. Also not every man who gets eewed turns into an incel, so again why is it the girls’fault for eewing?

Collin Street: “A black swan event! ”

You mean something that occurs all the time and is completely unremarkable?

I would have thought that a daily cry of “the wolf, the wolf” with no wolf, followed by one day an actual wolf would be a white swan event – sure, they happen, but not round here. And only the queen is allowed to eat them :)

This obviously calls for a forced redistribution of proper swans shifted to the northern hemisphere and we get some white swans for a bit of variety. Black swans are stringy and tasteless.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66SQKEf7UIs

(Yet another perspective on the boy who cried wolf.)

I think the universal opinion is that Hanson is a creep. But a more interesting question, to my mind, is why envy is the bad bad emotion and greed is the good bad emotion among libertarians and conservatives.
Right away, it seems that this makes little sense. If you dub envy “aspiration”, hey presto, it becomes a virtue. The Horatio Alger striver, realizing that capitalism is the best of all systems and the thing to do is to swim upstream and rescue the bankers daughter, is mucho applauded – while the woke Horatio Alger union organizer or (heavens) community organizer who aspires to a more equal society by, say, limiting the amount of wealth possessed by the wealthy, using the democratic tools at hand, are falling for the bad bad emotion of envy.
This is a curious twist. Even more curious, though, is the economists blindness, on a massive, ideological scale, to the economics of envy in capitalism. Because for the neo-classical economist, one thing is clear: advertising is an epiphenomena that has no effect on the market.
This ludicrous position comes out of a deep, structural ludicrousness about preferences and the sovereign consumer. Advertising messes up the gig.
In any case, in the real world, unfortunately, it is not envy of the expropriators that rules, but envy as a driver of, for instance, creating fan bases for parity products. Wipe out envy and where is the housing market going to be? And how are we gonna sell pepsi, or SUVs?
Whenever you see an economist who is quite comfortable with greed and the most egregious forms of human exploitation suddenly become all Ten Commandments about greed, you have caught a glimpse of the ideology of the beast. The apologists of capitalism can’t help themselves.

One wonders if, when Robin Hanson
wrote “gentle, silent rape”, he kept his pants on.
Many people are not able
To put food on the table.

– and this:

“I think the case can be made that liberals should care about sexual inequality, as Hanson says.” –
doesn’t get out of my head – as I really don’t care about sexual inequality at all -(but a lot about all other kinds of inequality) – and I always suspected that I might not be ”a liberal” – and is – that I don’t care about sexual inequality – now – ”the proof of the pudding”?
-(or the straw which killed the camels back?)

And could there be this test – how to find out who’s a ”liberal” -(or not?) by asking her or him if she or he cares about sexual inequality?!

I really don’t care about sexual inequality at all -(but a lot about all other kinds of inequality)

Why?

there needs to be help and support for people experiencing it in order to cope, to gain perspective, to feel less alone, and to examine their own behaviours and assumptions to make positive changes in their lives that might make them more likely to find

You realise this exactly what right-wing Americans (and a lot of ‘liberals’) say about poverty

It’s unclear what those statistics are supposed to prove. 73% of German men up to age 93 were sexually active. Is that number high? Low? Compared to what?

Try reading the rest of the paragraph I quoted (or preferably the link)

@111.
”I’m not sure you’re even aware of how much bigotry and racism is loaded into your comment.”

I’m aware – as I’m aware that in the cartoons you referenced – we are supposed to laugh at
Canadian Geeks who suddenly think they are ”Charismaman” if they land in Asia – and only a very very twisted -(or ”Charismaman”) – can come to the conclusion that in the Cartoon the Cartoonists were laughing at some of my Asian sisters!

– and NO!
I didn’t ”explicitly connect my ‘problem’ (which is a 20-year plus marriage, wonderful children, and great family in Japan) to sex-tourism”.

I connected ”Charismaman” to some Swiss – who actually were no ‘sex tourists’ – as they ”seriously went to Thailand to find themselves ”wives” -(and most of them did) – and they realized – if they went to Thailand – their chances improved – not because Thai Women are ”dumb” or anything like that – but as the most overweighted -(and funniest) of the Swiss told me:

”In the Asian culture my stature is much more desirable than in Swiss culture” – which his wife -(I’m currently in contact with) – once laughingly confirmed when she told me:
”I always wanted to marry a Sumo Wrestler”.

– and sometimes I feel on here like Michelle Wolf must have felt after the Correspondence Dinner?

Aren’t I’m hired to induce some… comedy into ”the poor incels lives”?
And as these ”incels” -(and Mr. Hanson) are soooo funny themselves – shouldn’t they really get what they actually ask for – no – not sex – some type of… could we call it… ‘introspection’?

Or NOT?

engels 168, I don’t need to “try reading”, if I wish to read something I read it. And as you no doubt have noticed, since you have read my comment which you are responding to (you have read it haven’t you?), I did read the abstract of that study you referring and therefore I’m asking, what is it supposed to prove and why do you think it is pertinent to this discussion? You don’t have to answer that of course but if you think you have made a pertinent point by quoting that study, why not explain why you think so?

As a general point, if the issue is sexual “inequality” or sexual misery (a better term, I agree), why is it that almost all the debate revolves around the sexual dissatisfaction of men?

JH: “But I think it wouldn’t be strange to hint-hint that liberals, as a group, don’t care about the sexual misery of incels because I don’t think they especially do, as a group.”

Perhaps, but that’s a different claim than the claim that liberals don’t care about sexual inequality. People care about people who care about them, and they lack care for people who don’t care about them. It’s human nature, which can be overcome, of course, but must be taken into account. If you mean to say ‘liberals don’t care about people who advocate violence against women out of sexual frustration’, then you may be right, because liberals don’t care, by and large, about anyone who advocates violence against women, regardless of the reason. If, on the other hand, you mean to say that, presented with a sad, lonely, nonviolent person struggling with the feelings of rejection and lack of worth that come from prolonged sexual rejection, most liberals won’t have any emphathy for that person, then I think that’s utter nonsense; and I imagine you actually think so, too.

Nigel @ 167

I agree, and would add that the framing in the post suggests it’s an entirely reasonable expectation, one up solely to the willingness of individual women, who should decide whether they might choose to suffer more so that others suffer less.

This seems quite frequently to happen when goods are discussed as commodities that can be passed around without concern for the details, the well-being and overall life chances of the people involved. Distinguishing taxes and cash payments from freely-chosen individual sacrifice seems to be felt as irrelevant.

The only slightly good argument I’ve seen that takes this into account is the argument that some of these men are so violent no prostitute would cater to them at any price.

Ph, your outrage is connected. Nasty woman is giving her impression of the only part of the charismaman comic available online, and its 100% correct – that part is taking the piss out of white losers who come to japan and are suddenly popular,but white when know immediately that they aren’t. Whether or not it’s a piss take of Japanese women, it’s certainly true, and cuttingly so. Could it be that your outrage comes from another source. A white Canadian rocking up on Japanese shores to be an Eikaiwa teacher is suddenly super successful with the girls? Hmmm, cutting too close to the bone?

The comic is wrong, but not about the unwarranted popularity of the subjects. It’s wrong to assume the women they date are dumb rather than predatorial – they know these guys are losers and they’re looking for a man they can control, just as some men look for weak women. I once overheard an ex nova student tell her friend “if you want an easy man go to nova.” Just tonight I was discussing eikaiwa with a Chinese woman who worked as staff at a Chinese eikaiwa company and she was well aware that the teachers are losers who become princes when they land in China. But just like the comic, these dudes think they’re getting one over on the Japanese girls they date. I was here when nova collapsed and all the teachers were suddenly thrown onto the mercy of their Japanese partners, and it became very clear to everyone who was the boss. I can appreciate that the realities of this sexual politics offends some, but that doesn’t make it less true.

TM, Ph has made very clear in multiple comments that he thinks fucking casually is not treating people like human beings. It’s not women dirtying themselves that he is implying, but men degrading them by fucking them. That’s a strong and very misogynistic sexual politics.

If these dudes were genuinely concerned about sexual inequality there are other options that they could consider beyond forced redistribution or sex work. For example, polyamory where they become one of several men in the orbit of one strong woman. Unlike wealth inequality, sex inequality can genuinely be fixed by sharing, and everyone gets more of the thing at issue. Yet they don’t seem to like that idea. I wonder why…?

ph@157: The Reuters’ articles data show Democrats are vastly preferred among the particular subset of the electorate that you cite. Other data show that Democrats are preferred among the population at large. So there are two types of data that rebut you: The data that you cite, and the data that you don’t cite.

But okay, let’s enter your universe for awhile and say that good polling numbers are actually bad ones. What were the Democrats doing right two years ago that caused their polling numbers to be so much better back then?

who should decide whether they might choose to suffer more so that others suffer less.

Like I say, there is no outside of neoliberalism. Relegating this social obligation (if it is one) to the heroism of individual women, the devaluing of duty, honor, social claims on the individual is exactly the mess we are into. And the methodological individualism, the creating of heroes and villains, achievers and losers. I especially don’t want individual women sacrificing for the group.

My original Huxley quote was mostly to the point that calling Hanson out with rape and coercion is stupid and boring.

Like we haven’t paid any attention to the Facebook scandal.

You could, given the forces of gov’t and media, achieve indiscriminate sexual promiscuity by means of soft power, persuasion propaganda incentives peer pressure etc, in very short order. Then you have the incel standing naked at the edge of the orgy, and I have full confidence.

What else is boring? Handmaids Tale, that dour patriarchy. Whatever else, the foreseeable future will not be for ascetics. They get us with our virtues and affects, the dystopia will be a kind and generous block party.

TM: “As a general point, if the issue is sexual “inequality” or sexual misery (a better term, I agree), why is it that almost all the debate revolves around the sexual dissatisfaction of men?”

Because 1) it is largely sexually dissatisfied men who are framing the debate, and 2) it is some of those sexually dissatisfied men who are threatening violence as a result of their frustration, and 3) it is some of those threatening violence who are committing actual violence. That sort of thing tends to use up all the air.

bob,

You misread my comment. The problem is that people know “neoliberalism is bad” but also feel “unfairness is bad,” and moreover feel “normal politics is useless (and probably neoliberal),” and are left only with personal morality. And personal morality isn’t exactly a neoliberal invention. Your idea that personal sacrifice is a modern, individualistic invention is weird and very wrong.

I think you misread the Huxley, too. Obviously you never heard my mother telling teenage me why I have to wear “sufficient” makeup to a family gathering.

FN Unlike you I don’t classify folks as ‘winners’ and ‘losers.’ I’ve met a great many wonderful, successful people who travel the world working as English teachers. Some stay, many move on. You’re clearly hostile to a great many people I consider friends and quite willing to cast them in the worst possible light. My own friends are happily married, own homes, and have wonderful families in many cases. You travel in the fantasy world of kick-boxing, video games, and ‘never going a week’ without sex, so it’s pretty clear we’re living in entirely different worlds – you the glamorous ex-pat bon vivant, and me and my ‘loser’ friends and our families. You like to talk about your erections and what you do with them. I find such discussions infantile, at best.

You don’t strike me as a fool – just as a kind of overgrown, angry child who gets off punching and kicking things. I prefer ikebana and kimono. I very much hope you can find a good life partner and raise a family of your own. There’s a lot of good in you, I’m sure.

JH@162: “I think it would be indeed strange to hint-hint that liberals, as a group, don’t care about hunger. Because they really do quite a bit, as a group. But I think it wouldn’t be strange to hint-hint that liberals, as a group, don’t care about the sexual misery of incels because I don’t think they especially do, as a group.”

I’m pretty much on team TM here, been reading this on my phone for a while waiting to have time to wade in and hope it’s not too late.

I think we need to tease out some things very carefully here. The first thing I want to do is draw a very hard distinction between people who experience sexual misery/deficit (not nearly enough of the kind of sex or affection they desire), who could be described by the (lower case) phrase “involuntarily celibate”, and the people who have adopted the term “Incel” for themselves, who might also be considered “InvoluntarilyCelibate[tm]”

The former include a huge number of *women*, for starters, include large numbers of trans people, people with radical disfigurement, or disabled with loss of certain sexual function but not drive, none of whom, AFAICT are represented in more than a token way or at all, let alone widely, in the self-described “Incel” community.

I spent a good deal of my time in the 90s and early 00s on usenet as a regular in groups that often brushed with people that would come to form the MRA/PUA/Incel/redpill axis, though I never heard the terms Incel or redpill (as identity group markers) at the time, it seems to be new since I left. In many cases these were giant crosspost threads with large groups of these people. soc.men, soc.women and alt.feminism all had large groups of MRA/proto-MRA/PUA as regulars or regular trolls. My home group in this space, probably because of the somewhat misleading name — soc.singles — attracted mostly proto-PUAs as trolls though they were using the term “speed seduction” back then.

What we also saw in abundance were “nice guys”. Guys who were mostly white cis het middle class with all of the privileges therein who had trouble getting laid by who they wanted to get laid by, and noticed that at least some of the objects of their affection would befriend them (because they were NICE) and then lament to them about the ways their “jerk” boyfriends done them wrong.

Now, these “nice guys” could tend to be sorted into two main groups based on how they responded to both their reality and the subsequent conversation in the group around it. One of the classic paths was that of the “NiceGuy[tm]” for which the term was invented. I probably pulled it from an unconscious memory, but my recollection is that the first time I typed that back around 1993, I thought I was coining the term and was surprised to see it come into common usage thereafter. It’s more likely that I was simply an early adopter riding the wave without even realizing the seed had been planted, but there it is. Until someone shows me an earlier usage, I will assume that I should get the credit. :)

The “NiceGuy[tm]” is the clear prototype for the modern Incel. He — it really was always “he” — nice girls with trouble getting laid existed and engaged as well but rarely followed the analogous path, we’ll see why — would show clearly and soon in response to real engagement that his worldview was full of misogyny and hatred of women. That the main problem with the “jerks” in question is that they were more attractive for reasons the “NiceGuy[tm]” didn’t understand, and that the main driver of their desire was *not* love or genuine attraction/affection, but the desire to conquer, to notch the bedpost, to have something pretty on their arm. In short, for their own social status to rise by who gave them affection. Which is exactly why paying sex workers would not work for them, nor masturbation, nor many other potential partial remedies. The problem with lowering standards *wasn’t* that they couldn’t feel sexual desire for less conventionally attractive women than their goal-objects, but that anything less than relatively conventionally attractive young gender-conforming women did not meet their *social status* needs.

The hatred for women quickly surfaced when women engaged them seriously. They (and men also) would ask what they thought their friends found attractive in the jerks. We suggested they observe the “jerk’s” behaviors to see if some of them actually demonstrated more interest in the woman’s pleasure or person than the nice guy’s. We wondered aloud whether some of the “jerky” behaviors were simply typical cases of partner failure that Nice Guy and other perfectly reasonable people would probably do their SOs at some point in their lives for any of the various reasons (anger, blindness, depression, baggage) that we rarely treat people we like and love as consistently well as we would prefer to.
We questioned in some cases, whether NG had the very same kind of selection failure that the women he wanted did. “Yes, you’re right, keeping in mind we only have your side of the story, these particular women seem to be attracted to something that is correlated with really lousy behavior that is making them miserable. I know people like that, but they aren’t everybody. Could it be that you are suffering from a similar problem? Something about what attracts you to certain women is correlated with their having exactly this kind of selection problem?” And lots of other creative engagement designed to help them examine their lives and possibly improve their situation.

Why did we do this? Because most of us had been in their position at some point, or loved people who were, and we wanted to help! And also because of the second, much larger group of *actual* nice guys who had trouble with romance.

And a large number of people seemed amenable to this help, it made a difference and some of them ended up joining the group (raises hand). It was also not uncommon to meet partners on the group (including me and my spouse). In lots of other cases no progress seemed to be made, and they left and I have no idea whether some of them gained anything from the interaction.

Just this past weekend, I was at a gathering of people who but one were of this crew and we were reminiscing a bit and all remember Kenn Barry’s quip (he may have been quoting) “It takes a certain type of person to be sure at the age of 25 that no one will ever be love them.

But in some cases (the NiceGuy[tm]s), they became trolls. The misogyny showed up hard. The second any of their female identified interlocutors said things they didn’t like or agree with, hackles were raised, and soon actual hateful things were said. The NiceGuy[tm] label got applied, because the key feature of a [tm] NiceGuy as opposed to a regular one was the misogyny — the willingness to *blame* women for not being attracted to him, or for not taking the initiative to ask *them* out or make a pass at *them*. Note that one huge problem with many nice guys (tm or no) was a massive fear of rejection combined with a lack of understanding of how to escalate flirting gracefully until you effectively had your answer before ever having to ask directly. In the [tm] variant, often there was also a kind of massive sense of entitlement that experienced any failure to respond to flirting as a hurtful rejection.

I remember being struck that some of these “nice guys who couldn’t get laid” had plenty of stories about … wait for it … *getting laid*. I mean, I have experience here. I was a nice guy who couldn’t get laid for a while, and my memory of that did not include ever having sex with anyone else! Or even kissing or cuddling romantically. No conscious and consensual non-platonic/familial affection whatsoever. *Nothing* until I was in my early 20s, despite my first two college years being at a college with 65% women, some of whom I am still friends with, had huge crushes on and now know that they would absolutely have been interested. Yet somehow these guys who’d had multiple girlfriends and casual hookups thought of themselves as people who “couldn’t get laid” because it was only the *wrong people* who were attracted to them, or who they were brave enough to ask out.

But again, the crucial feature of the NiceGuy[tm] was putting *all* the blame for his problem on the women he wanted to fuck. And when one of these [tm] guys showed up, it was like a script. The women talking to him and the women in their lives soon enough became “bitches” and “whores” and other offensive caricatures. Pretty soon they were gone, leaving only their discussion descending into a flame-war, eventually capped by a long exit rant, generally including the obvious “No wonder you’re all still single.” The general response was some version of “Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out”.

It’s absolutely true that NiceGuy[tm]s (who often returned later as MRA/PUA trolls) did get mocked by us, once their general hatred of women and absolute unwillingness to consider their own behavior as part of their problem became clear. And being people, sometimes we jumped the gun and made assumptions too early.

And MRA trolls often got mocked as well, and it did sometimes happen that we mocked them as trolls living in their mom’s basement who couldn’t get laid, etc.

That said, while this group was essentially progressive, this form of mocking was clearly NOT. We used it, either intentionally or unconsciously, because it was culturally powerful, because it was going after these people (the MRAs and misogynist PUAs) on their own terms.

In fact, we often discussed the fact that one of the big problems for men of all sorts is this exact framework, where our self-worth as men is determined by who we fsck, and our social status determined by who were are seen/believed to be fscking. Not having the right sort of woman on your arm is a social status problem, and this is an essentially patriarchal worldview. So part of my own progression out of nice guy hell (I was past the worst by the time I found usenet, but not all the way out) involved *deconstructing* this very framework, with the help of some of the good progressive and feminist peoples of usenet and elsewhere.

Mocking men for not getting laid is an essentially patriarchal, right-winger thing to do. PUAs do it all the time! I first heard the term “Incel” when I blundered into the red pill universe a few years ago. I had NO IDEA at the time that it was a term anyone would use to self-identify. I thought it was a PUA/RP descriptor of guys who hadn’t learned the “right” strategies but simply accepted their ignominous fate.

I’ve been mocked for not getting laid, and it for sure wasn’t by progressives or feminists. In my observation, progressives and feminists largely restrict mocking of that sort to people who have already demonstrated active and willful misogyny. Misogynists, dude-bros, douchebags and other forms of primarily male and right-wing asshole use it willy-nilly. Sometimes in dozens-style bonding rituals with friends, frequently if not constantly to out-group people of perceived lower social status. When I was at a summer session for high schoolers at a local college, some asshole wrote “Virgin” across my dorm door. I don’t think they were being progressive. During my time as a nice guy who couldn’t get laid, I experienced a fair bit of mocking of my pitiful state, and NONE of it came from people who would identify as progressive or feminist.

So yes, I’m arguing hard with this bullshit that mocking people for sexual misery is somehow a thing that progressives do. Yes, of course we do it sometimes, because everybody does. The culture is saturated with this stuff — that framework is the whole reason that even a moderate sexual deficit feels like a life-threatening problem to otherwise relatively privileged young men like me at 19. Progressives and feminists do this mocking much less than other people, in my experience. The idea that this is a feature of progressives or feminists is a lie told by these self-identified Incels designed to place blame outside themselves.

Or in some cases it’s a self-selected experience: If you wander into a group of feminists or progressives and spout a bunch of misogynist nonsense, you are going to be mocked and progressives and feminists not generally being perfect avatars of their philosophy, sometimes that mocking will use patriarchal frameworks despite our overall best effort to smash the patriarchy. Internalized oppression is a thing. Using the tools of your enemy is also a thing. Things that get talked about in social justice movements sometimes. Occasionally.

John 178: The ice was thin and now you have wet feet. Be more careful next time.

mrmr 171: Representing Trump as having small genitals to mock him is questionable as political satire precisely because the artist lowers himself to the level of schoolboy bragging. Otoh nobody has accused Trump of not having an active and fairly diverse sex life.

engels 179: So you think the study disproves the claim that “those of us who can rise above our conservative Christian origins are genuinely sexually much freer now than we ever were in any other time in history”. I think the claim in that generality is almost certainly wrong; but – come on, a study that compares a small sample of German men at a temporal distance of 11 years and found a small drop in sexual activity is supposed to prove something profound about human history? Btw it doesn’t even say anything about the life satisfaction and sexual freedom of these men. Your apparent assumption that men not having sex are sexually unfree bears questioning.

How do you measure sexual freedom, anyway? I hope we can agree that freedom in the domain of human relations must NOT be modeled on the freedom to choose of consumer capitalism. We are free to court the affection, the love or the sex of other (adult) people but they are equally free to reject that courtship. Yet you seem to argue that sexual freedom equals access to partners.

pH you have spent your entire time on this blog defining winners and losers, and now you claim innocence? You really are a piece of work. But it’s nice to see you admit the reasons for your confected outrage at the comic.

Pack up, we’re done. Michael Sullivan@196 won the thread.

As for my own personal experience, the spread of people who would probably later form alt-right and MRA circles, MUCH MORE BROADLY than groups discussing gender issues, or politics, or whatever, was striking. I don’t know of any group in 1999* that didn’t have at least one designated spouter of proto-alt nonsense (often literally nonsense, in good proto-troll form), and often that person had his own apparently designated good-cop foil, so that the “dialectic” was maintained at a constant pace regardless of what else was happening in the newsgroup. Both those people were always men, of course.

* other than science and math groups that had a clear purpose and an easy way to weed them out

Whether they were coordinated in any way at all, they often liked to suggest they were, and it’s impossible to say whether they were trolling with that suggestion too.

And even in the math or engineering groups, there was often enough a guy who kept posting, for example, factually incorrect nonsense about postfix-increment and the ternary “?:” operator in C++, and another guy who engaged him, line by line by line, every single time.

As far as “misogyny” goes, after 2016 and being called misogynist for supporting Sanders (and his millions of young black women supporters) the word is irretrievably devalued and discredited, along with those who use it.

It’s always been defined instrumentally and conveniently anyway, and doesn’t make sense to me in a non-essential feminism, anymore than “atheism” is a meaningful concept.

Good night, John Holbo!

John :

Okay, if “liberals in your/my circle” (or even “the definition of liberal I’ve formed by induction over experience”) isn’t legitimate, how about “liberals defined top-down, so that elderly college professors and other professionals are held to be the paradigm case of the category, and everyone else either confirms to their expectations and demands, or fails somehow to be properly liberal”? Or you can replace the category with a different paradigm case if you want.

But if you have good reason to think maybe what you saw wasn’t “liberals liberaling”, why keep saying “liberals do this”? Unless you’re committed to some metaphysical definition of liberalism, or an equally metaphysical but post-linguistic commitment to using words as rigid designators?

It turns out that Talmudic sages discussed this some 1500 years ago and said that, no, women have no obligation to incels. Over to @drnelk on Twitter: The Talmud my students are studying addressed this topic of incels and experts demanding redistribution of sex, around 1500 years ago https://t.co/qVGjoVGnLd. (Sorry, Tweet contains an image; can’t just quote the text.) Also @drnelk comments that the belief that men could die of “lovesickness” was widespread in the ancient world: https://twitter.com/drnelk/status/991335030600470529.

It appears this is a very old and dark debate.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/andy-warhol-shot-valerie-solanas-1968-article-1.2235937

BTW, I know I didn’t post here for like forever, but I think it used to be I was on the whitelist at CT. I don’t recall ever posting anything that drew a mod warning, so I’m hoping I can get back on so my stuff doesn’t get stuck in the queue like happened when I posted in an older thread a couple weeks ago. Or maybe there is no whitelist anymore?

Of course liberals diss celibates.

The key to understanding a hegemony is to not dwell on coercion, discipline, violence but to examine carefully the mechanisms of positive reinforcement. When we have a party for our fellow marrieds-with-children (not me, volcel and childless by choice), the single woman feels excluded, and inviting her does not solve the problem. The party is the problem.

The way to determine if celibates are justified in feeling offended or abjected is to examine the society and ask if there are institutions and practices (or personal behavior) that favor and celebrate current form relationships, marriage, child raising and claim they are in some way “natural.”

This should be as obvious as a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest.

A hegemony only exists to the degree it benefits, in some way. Capitalism and Patriarchy persist partly, I think in the larger part, in providing goodies to those it oppresses, such they can legitimately imagine that revolution would cost them more than some fantasied reform, while they get to kvetch. Co-optation, cooperation, and complicity are the main subject of praxis (Marxists are famous for splitting and infighting to the point of violence, as were Black Nationalists, and I long for such seriousness in feminism) , and that American feminists have avoided and deny complicity shows that the program is entirely opportunist.

This call for blamers of course does not apply to American Racism, cause blacks don’t have a majority of the population, wealth, advanced degrees and an army of frightened male supporters.

Also too for bobm, need to dispute a few factual claims.

1. More women did not vote for Trump or Clinton (I see what you did there) than not. a majority of eligible women did not vote at all.

2. Ok this isn’t a factual claim I can truly dispute. It is just *possible* that you, BobM were called a misogynist by someone *merely* for your support of Bernie Sanders as a candidate. But it does strain credulity. As you note, many Sanders supporters were women. I have seen many people refer to some Sanders supporters as misogynist. That’s because there were some Sanders supporters who said a lot of misogynist things! About Clinton, about her supporters, about women in general. Who defended/derailed when Sanders stepped in it a few times and got called on it by people in his own coalition (and sometimes walked it back!). I can *well* imagine based on your comments here that you were one of these people, and probably got accused of misogynist statements, or even, GASP!, called *a* misogynist, as if they could see into your very soul and define your identity! It beggars belief that the only reason they had to do any of this is that you were a Sanders supporter.

Refocusing on Robin Hanson, the “gentle, silent rape” shit reveals it all: he´s not a serious scholar, nor a profound thinker -he shouldn´t be treated as such.
It´s important to keep in mind the implications of that terrible post: Hanson “thinks” that cuckoldry is worse than rape because he believes that women are inferior beings and should be treated as goods; thus, (in his confused mind) rape is a very diminished type of property vandalism (minor damage, if any, of private property, public male property or potential and future private property), but adultery/cuckoldry is in fact a form of major theft… That´s not bold Thinking. It´s not scientific. It´s not analytical. It´s shit. A particular combination of sexism, “men´s rights” and a form of libertarianism -with a touch of arrogance to the extreme.

Maybe it’s the beer talking but the more I read threads like this the more I am convinced that America is a uniquely screwed up country in almost every conceivable dimension and the rest of the world would do well to think twice before taking any aspect of its politics as a model for their own.

After 220 comments debating whether progressives mock the unlaid, maybe some evidence would be nice? I read wehuntedthemamoth which is surely the place this is most likely to happen and while it mocks incels it is typically sensitive to the plight of the unlaid. If it isn’t happening there where is it happening? And do we have a comparative analysis with conservative “thought”? No, so perhaps we can forget this bullshit and move on?

FN I’ve never employed the distinction ‘winners and losers’ here, or elsewhere. The only possible scenario I can imagine in doing so would be in a discussion of randomness, as in nature’s/life’s ‘winners and losers.’ Re: what you know about people with children, the answer is that you’re like a virgin trying to imagine what sexual intercourse might be like, only the gulf is far vaster. It’s more like me trying to imagine what it’s like for a woman/female conceiving a child, carrying the child to term, and then giving birth. If I claimed to ‘understand’ that, the only thing I’d be accomplishing is confirming that I don’t have a clue what I’m talking about. So, no you’re not remotely qualified on marriage and procreation.

Contra your imaginings, as other have noted, sexual dysfunction is normal within marriages at various times. Marriage does not, contra your beliefs, equal monogamy and never has except in some extremely strict religious sects.

Speaking for myself, I do not consider my wife to be any obligation to me whatsoever. She’s entirely free to do with her body exactly as she pleases. As is our daughter. There are, of course, health concerns associated with sexual behavior and that’s what sex is for us a health issue. The frequency of sexual partners by either gender increases the chances of STDs, which I hope you understand considering your boasts about your erections and lack of a steady partner. I came of age during the 70s-80s and know a number who died too young from AIDS. STDs are rife in Japan, if you didn’t know that already. But that’s really all moot.

Anyone who has had a child in hospital for any length of time understands that sex is the least important part of a marriage (even for stitches can be a crisis). And on the other end, we live with one of my wife’s parents who requires assistance, which families ordinarily provide. So, we have a multi-generational family unit in which the question of sex rightly recedes before far more important concerns – such as the growth, success, happiness, and health of all. It’s an ‘us’ environment in which the need for collective gain and benefit normally outweighs the preferences of any individual.

The notion that species long-term partnering is a function of some right-wing plot rather than evolution is utterly ridiculous. Pointing that out is not sneering at you as an individual. However, if you choose to declare that gravity is some kind of plot designed to humiliate you cause you keep falling flat on your face, don’t be too surprised if some question your ability to understand the most basic facts of life.

A long-term former colleague recently became a father for the first time at the age of 50 plus. Quote ‘the birth of my daughter gave me a new reason to want to live.” I have plenty of friends/family unmarried and married. It’s a matter of choice. The vast majority openly express the desire to be in a long-term committed relationship, gay or straight.

We’re designed to breed and succeed. Best of luck. I mean it.

Holbo, it’s because you think you are too clever by half, since you tend to be fairly clever. So, whenever you post something not quite as clever as you first thought, you have a very, very, very hard time admitting that you posted something hasty and unconsidered at best, outright wrong at worst. Then you try to nudge it towards correctness by saying along the lines of, oh fine, if it would make the commentariat of CT happy, I suppose I should have hedged this, qualified that, had these caveats, etc etc, but you should just assume I already thought of that and actually it’s you who are being unclever by not seeing that my seemingly wrong statement is, in fact, entirely consistent with your completely unnecessary criticisms, as you can see.

Or something like that.

So the incel theory is that Dan Savage isn’t a lefty. Anyways.

Here’s this lefty’s response to Tineola:

There are good therapists out there, and one of them can definitely help you. You’re right that if you’re average looking and reasonably socially adroit and you can’t get even mediocre sex, you’re doing something very wrong. It’s probably deep. Not every therapist is going to be right for you, so keep trying until you get one that is, and when things get better, they’ll get a lot better. You’ve tried feeling bad and not fixing things, and that doesn’t work, so it’s time to try doing the things that do work.

#SinglePayerNow #ButWithMentalHealth

When you wrote this

Well, I’m off to bed. Be kind to each other, if possible.

it occurred to me that in the context of this particular discussion a double entendre was suggested, but I restrained the impulse to draw attention to it. But then you followed up with this

Sorry for slowness of turn-on. I actually went to bed!

and my self-control has cracked.

Lobsterman

There are good therapists out there, and one of them can definitely help you.

On the face of it, that seems implausible to me. Do you have any evidence that this is actually one of the things that therapists do?

I think Robin Hanson is exactly right. If we can redistribute people’s money, why not their organs? Robin has two perfectly working kidneys, and, heck, his liver is in fine shape. I only need half his liver, and I’m sure I can find somebody who needs one of his kidneys. WHO IS HE to deprive us of these organs we need to live? It’s MUCH, MUCH more compelling a case, than incels, who merely lack for good sex with women they want to sleep with. We need Robin’s organs to LIVE. It is *immoral* for him to hoard these organs, when he really only needs a single kidney, and heck, his liver will regrow (well, maybe he’ll die during the operation, and heck, maybe he’ll catch a hospital-acquired illness, and heck, maybe his other kidney will fail, but those are as *nothing* compared to my need for his liver!)

I am not a crank. And you -can- subscribe to my newsletter.

I don’t know what’s going on with you ph but I didn’t say anything about your child rearing practices, the stage of your sex life or the nature of your family arrangements. So why the multi paragraph attack on me for saying all those things? I also haven’t said anything about my own sex life or partner numbers so why the unhealthy obsession with my “erections” (your words not mine)? You’re having an argument with someone in your head because literally nothing you wrote in your detailed rebuttal directly addressed at me has anything to do with anything I have said on here. Are you okay?

Do you have any evidence that this is actually one of the things that therapists do?’

‘I am lonely, isolated and filled with sexual frustration leading to outbursts of potentially violent anger and resentment. Please help me find a way to deal with these feelings and move on to a point where I can start to form casual and/or serious relationships.’ Seems covered by the therapy remit to me.

But the critique is entirely unfair because this mocking comes from a patriarchal place

Why would that make it unfair? Like “it’s unfair to criticise our revolutionary leadership for venality because that venality ‘comes from a capitalist place’” doesn’t sound terribly convincing to me…

FWIW, Ross Douthat on Hanson (& Amia Srinivasan, “Does Anyone Have the Right To Sex?”):

A number of the critics I saw engaging with Srinivasan’s essay tended to respond the way a normal center-left writer like Weissman engaged with Hanson’s thought experiment — by commenting on its weirdness or ideological extremity rather than engaging fully with its substance. But to me, reading Hanson and Srinivasan together offers a good case study in how intellectual eccentrics — like socialists and populists in politics — can surface issues and problems that lurk beneath the surface of more mainstream debates.

By this I mean that as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life, and its pursuit would be entirely characteristic of a recurring pattern in liberal societies.

Nigel

Yes, that is covered by the therapy remit, but that is not this. You have described somebody who has feelings of loneliness and isolation with the potential for outbursts of violent anger and resentment (and that’s somebody whose problems absolutely from part of the therapy remit, because those problems are the person’s feelings), but none of that is part of Tineola’s self-description. The problem described in Tineola’s words isn’t Tineola’s feelings, it’s just this: ‘I haven’t had sex in a decade. I’m pretty sure this state of affairs isn’t going to change.’ If you presented to a therapist with that description of your problem, do you think the therapist would think the problem, as described, falls within the therapy remit? I repeat, it seems implausible to me, on the face of it, that a therapist would consider it part of the therapy remit to get you laid. Yet if that’s not the meaning of Lobsterman’s response (again I quote exact words: ‘There are good therapists out there, and one of them can definitely help you. You’re right that if you’re average looking and reasonably socially adroit and you can’t get even mediocre sex, you’re doing something very wrong.’), then how is the meaning of Lobsterman’s response different from that?

[P]rogressive opinions on sexual inequality are marked by open contempt, which really is different from the progressive take on economic inequality.

Others have already discussed the truth of the “marked by open contempt” part, but I want to add an obvious point about the second part (the “really different from economic equality” part). Perhaps it is too obvious for anyone to have remarked on it, but the inequalities left-oriented policies deal with tend to be either social in nature in that they require the existence of a fully fledged society to make sense to begin with (inequalities of wealth, income or political power would be paradigmatic in that respect) or, barring that, to be at least incidentally social in the sense that they are pertinent either to a characteristic we consider a pre-condition for a given social life (public education in a democracy for instance) or to a public good with huge externalities (health, law enforcement…) and usually both.

Inequalities that are inherently personal (or even intra-personal), like the amount of love you received from your siblings or the relative skills of your left and right hand, and which relate to something with no obvious externalities either negative or positive do not fit in this framework, so it is not surprising that they are not treated in the same way (or at all) by the socialist movement or the left broadly construed. The amount of affection and sexual satisfaction a given individual receives seems to me exactly of that personal-with-no-obvious-externality kind.

Sebastian H So the complaint is something like “your critique doesn’t care about us”

Just to clarify, do you think that this point of view is legitimate, or are you just reporting it? Because the psychologically or socially normal reaction to a critique that doesn’t apply to you is indifference, not resentment, and certainly not homicidal rage (the evolutionist critique of creationist thought doesn’t care about arithmetic geometry, and yet you don’t see me writing that evolutionary biologists have open contempt towards arithmetic geometers). That such a resentment is already quite discernible even in the saner part of their intellectual universe (both Scott A.’s blogs back in the days, for instance) is strange, to say the least, and leads to the suspicion that what they are really angry at is the critique, not the fact that it doesn’t apply to their suffering.

And you -can- subscribe to my newsletter.

The people’s newsletter, comrade!

Lobsterman@242:
Well, yes. If we’re not trying to be generous to a diplomatic fault, the only thing that should be needed to dispel the notion that Clinton supporters freely attacked Sanders supporters as misogynists without just cause would be a passing mention of the ubiquitous “Bernie Bro” trope, which more than a few centerist liberal Clinton fans are still tarring any presumed male with should the subject of 2016 arise (yes, even as they ignore the female supporters’ very existence). This is hardly surprising, as gender was both sword and shield to Clinton in that election, many centerist liberals are primarily identitarian in their political style (which ofc leads to the virtue signalling you note), and centerist liberals also have a long history of treating leftists as outgroup acceptable targets just as much as any radical rightwinger would be. Michael Sullivan is falling into a comfortable mental trap by assuming that any Clinton supporters must necessarily have been fair and impartial in their criticisms, even as he further assumes that any Sanders supporters must have at some time been engaged in misogyny meriting their mistreatment. It’s category errors just as much as the incel accusation of progressive cruelty, and worse, it mistakes political jockeying and factional infighting for selfless character assessment.

@ lets never ever forget about –
FaceMash – a software set up as a type of “hot or not”.
The website allowed visitors to compare two female student pictures side-by-side and let them decide who was hot or not.

And while writing the software, Mark Zuckerberg wrote the following blog entries:

I’m a little intoxicated, not gonna lie. So what if it’s not even 10 pm and it’s a Tuesday night? What? The Kirkland dormitory facebook is open on my desktop and some of these people have pretty horrendiedous facebook pics. I almost want to put some of these faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.”

– and sooo – in order to let this ”incel’s” –
as isn’t he ”the most famous ”incel” of them all –
(wet?) dream come true – let’s have f…book do what f… book initially was set up for – put some of these (incel’s) faces next to pictures of some farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.”?

Or wait? –
Please NOT – that really, really would be cruel and NOT really ”human”?

@J-D:

“I’m pretty sure this state of affairs isn’t going to change.” OP believes that he or she is incapable of change that will allow him or her to successfully pursue his or her goals. OP has not tried change supported by the best tools, or OP would not believe this, because, at the end of the day, it’s just very possible to get access to passable sex with people of roughly equal attractiveness to you.

Holbo 239: I would be much more sympathetic, and would gladly accept your apology, if you could for once just refrain from wanting to have the last word. Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses is not a joke. I find it amazing that somebody with a professorship in philosophy (1) doesn’t realize when it’s better to be silent, and (2) pretends to not understand why making public claims about the unknowable inner life of other people is both rude and epistemologically impermissible. The sad spectacle you are offering here doesn’t affect me in the sense you self-importantly imagine; it just makes you appear pitiable. So why not just stop?

Z-

“Because the psychologically or socially normal reaction to a critique that doesn’t apply to you is indifference, not resentment, and certainly not homicidal rage”

For the record I’m just reporting not agreeing with it. But I feel like you’ve changed topics in your rewording. I said “your critique doesn’t care about us” which you changed to “doesn’t apply to us”. Those aren’t equivalent statements at all. I think the incel complaint is that it SHOULD care about us but DOESN’T. You are interpreting it as “doesn’t have anything to do with us”.

Again I’m trying to put myself in their shoes, so I might be failing to describe it properly. But the sense I’m getting is something along the lines of “feminism wants to rewrite the rules about sexual relations, and in doing so writes us out of their story”.

The non-incel but still Scott A, involuntarily celibate, side isn’t so much defending patriarchy (which also writes them off) as pointing out that the brand new world that feminism claims to want to create writes them off.

So “your critique doesn’t care about us” is VERY different from “your critique is orthogonal to us”.

‘Yes, that is covered by the therapy remit, but that is not this’

Oh. Fair enough. I must have lost the thread of the comments there. Sorry.

“Hanson didn’t know that there’s an entire rightwing subculture of self-decribed incels (the involuntarily celibate) who make the argument quite solemnly that they have a right to the attention of women, and if that attention is denied, the right to take it by force?”

Of course he knows it. Why do you think he’s bothering with all this?

“Know your audience!”

He does.

Glen Tomkins:

Hanson didn’t know that there’s an entire rightwing subculture of self-decribed incels (the involuntarily celibate) who make the argument quite solemnly that they have a right to the attention of women, and if that attention is denied, the right to take it by force?

Quite likely many do think that way, however, according to at least one incel, “…for him and many others, to be an incel is to seek the camaraderie of a group of male peers who provide an outlet where, for once, they can honestly talk about the increasing fragmentation, disconnection, alienation and ostracization they feel in an always-online world in which, as far as they can see, they are not welcome or wanted.” I don’t know if only this one Incel is not such a bad guy, and all the rest are horrible misogynists, or if all but a very few are, or what. I suspect nobody else commenting here does either.

Michael Sullivan:

I remember being struck that some of these “nice guys who couldn’t get laid” had plenty of stories about … wait for it … *getting laid*.

As the same article points out, that guy (“Jack Peterson”) was nearly frozen out of the Incels because somebody thought he was out of line in mentioning his one (awful) sexual experience.

Michael Sullivan:

But the critique is entirely unfair because this mocking comes from a patriarchal place. It is absolute not a *feature* of progressive or feminist culture.

Not everyone gets that the hilarity of bathing in or drinking male tears, or killing all men, is you know, totally ironic. Plus, the only possible explanation for male nerd sexual problems is too much of a sense of entitlement, as noted by many feminist commentators discussed here.

But what about the women:

Chip Daniels: “Consider, for example, the plight of middle aged women in the dating world…And remarkably, very few of them go on mass killing sprees to avenge this offense.” Michael Sullivan: “The former include a huge number of *women*, for starters, include large numbers of trans people, people with radical disfigurement, or disabled with loss of certain sexual function but not drive, none of whom, AFAICT are represented in more than a token way or at all, let alone widely, in the self-described “Incel” community.” nastywoman: “Not really – as really boiling it down is: Why do so few women have sex with a… holes?” TM: “As a general point, if the issue is sexual “inequality” or sexual misery (a better term, I agree), why is it that almost all the debate revolves around the sexual dissatisfaction of men?”

While the number of spree killers claiming sexual resentment as a motivation is unfortunately more than zero, it’s not exactly a large number. Do you blame all Muslims for jihadi terror attacks? Wasn’t there just wide agreement on the horrible bigotry of Sam Harris et al for criticizing Islam as an ideology?

It’s hard to get a handle on whether really “almost all the debate…revolves around the sexual dissatisfaction of men”, but search engine results are one sort of indicator of what’s regarded as the most interesting to the most people, and in duckduckgo’s results for “sexual satisfaction”, the top twenty results seem to be mostly gender-neutral, with four clearly about women’s satisfaction, and one about men’s. So society’s focus in this area, at least on that limited evidence, is not exactly zeroed in on men.

(Possibly related: according to one study, “A woman’s sexual satisfaction does not require high levels of sexual desire–and in fact, does not require sexual activity at all…”)

So these guys’ problems are discountable because, what about the women. (Or by analogy with the common dismissal in the other direction, What about the wimmenz?) And anyway, they’re all entitled assholes. The symmetry is pleasing: practically the defining complaint of this group is that they feel that the world thinks they don’t matter, and now along come a few members of the world to wholeheartedly confirm that they don’t.

In general, the rhetorical scheme used by the woke continues to be: pick the most awful thing some member of a group has done, or the worst statement made by any member, or the worst possible motivation or attitude, and ascribe it to all members of the group. Hence, all Bernie supporters are “BernieBros”. Hence, that elaborately constructed strawmonster, the “NiceGuy(tm)”, so easy to spot in the wild, because the “sense of entitlement” that defines him requires no external evidence, only imputation. Hence, gamergate, the amorphous twitter hashtag reified as elaborate conspiracy. And once a group comprises only monsters, shitting on them is just fine: define “up” as you please, and then punch up. And apparently all Incels are “up”.

Sebastian H, tanks for your careful reading, answers and explanation (as always) For the record I’m just reporting not agreeing with it.

OK.

“feminism wants to rewrite the rules about sexual relations, and in doing so writes us out of their story” […] So “your critique doesn’t care about us” is VERY different from “your critique is orthogonal to us”..

Feminism presumably wants to advance the cause of women. The question of involuntarily celibate men seems indeed quite orthogonal to that aim. So I think I understand what you say they believe but if they do indeed believe that, they appear to be wrong, and when I see many people all wrong in the same direction, I start wondering if something else couldn’t be at play. When all these wrong people appear to share many identical social characteristic (starting with their geographical location) that should be uncorrelated to the mistake, I go beyond starting to wonder.

About the other topic

This isn’t right at all. A huge part of the progressive program is noticing that some people got lucky with things like wealth, IQ, or well connected parents, and that a just society may involve redistributing away some of those gains

Getting lucky with wealth and connected parents is meaningless except within a larger social context. I don’t think any political movement proposes to redistribute IQ points (indeed, I have a hard time even imagining what this could mean). Redistributing the gains a higher IQ may provide, as you write, is indeed a conceivable social program, but these gains again presuppose a larger social context. So I don’t see where you disagree with my main point (recall that I made this point only to express my opinion that Tineola’s observation that sexual inequality is not considered in the same way as economic inequality is perhaps not so surprising) , which is that social movements* on the left tend to deal with inequalities that are deeply embedded within a specific social context (and which are thus amenable to social programs). Some of the root causes of structural involuntary celibacy (or loneliness) might be so embedded, some of the consequences of involuntary celibacy or loneliness might be so embedded, but the fact of involuntary celibacy or loneliness in itself doesn’t strike me to be so in our currently existing society. At least not anymore that the inequality in the amount of love people receive from their siblings, and that is also not the object of any left social movement I know of. To the surprise of no one, I think.

*One may reason philosophically about it, of course, but that is a different thing, and not what Tineola said, it seems to me.

Hanson’s argument, I think, points up a huge failing of libertarian reasoning in areas of identity. There is all this talk of “free choice” and “market decision making.” But in the end, one ends up putting a person’s ability to buy another yacht on the same level as their ability to feed their family or, simply, remain unmolested.

It is perhaps worth observing that this is largely the argument of privileged white men, who have never gone hungry a day in their life, and one can argue the morality of this until the cows come home, hopefully unraped, but it is also perhaps worth observing that this is a failure of economic theory as well as a denial of human individuality. Libertarian economists claim that monetary rewards are sufficient to all human needs and that an unmanaged economy will suffice to satisfy all human needs, yet one needs only to observe Melania Trump interacting with her husband to see that this is not so at the personal level, and the vast numbers of people starving in our world, to realize that it is not so at the macroeconomic level.

There are basic mathematical flaws in the linear equilibrium models that libertarian economists advocate. First, they fall apart when dealing with needs that sustain life and personal integrity; no useful matrix of weights can be constructed when some of the elements of the matrix are infinite or undefined. Second, once one grants mathematics that accommodates infinities and undefined values, equilibrium no longer reliably emerges from the models.

I would say this was worked out during the Enlightenment, and libertarians are desperately desperately trying to ignore many of those conclusions.

In discussing the actuality of sexual intercourse as commodity, consider polyandrous cultures, which do shut many cis heterosexual young men away from any sexual intercourse beyond that of the hiring of prostitutes, if even that.

Finally, on the left, liberation from patriarchal sexual mores has long been supported both as a way to liberate women and improve the sex lives of all. If we are to judge by the experience of the past 50 years, this is a partial success, but there has been a price. First, this liberation has also provided a rationale for many sorts of abusers. Second, this makes unaccustomed demands on men, some of whom (incels being extreme examples) resent this very much. (“What? You mean I have to treat women decently? No way, man!”)

A huge part of the progressive program is noticing that some people got lucky with things like wealth, IQ, or well connected parents, and that a just society may involve redistributing away some of those gains

Sebastian is correct. See 3.4ff here
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/

Why on earth do you assume that manospherians/incels are after ‘justice?’

They think they are, certainly. The question, “is what I want ‘just’?” is almost impossible not to beg, for reasons I’ve talked about at fair length.

– and in conclusion – I also think it’s a… trick – exactly the type of trick John Holbo described:

”There I was, just trying to troll a guy about how it’s his own damn fault that he’s getting trolled for being in favor of rape, because he was just trying to troll leftists for how they should be in favor of rape”.

– and even some women (”progressives”?) – are falling for it like some ”Maggie Habermann” of the NYT who suddenly looks like she is in favor of liars because she was trolling somebody who was just trolling the worst liars about their lies.

‘Hence, gamergate, the amorphous twitter hashtag reified as elaborate conspiracy.’

Is Gamergate being rewritten as something that was not utterly monstrous now, while suddenly we’re talking about the redistribution if sex as if it weren’t rape? How the hell does this crap keep slithering out if its shit-smeared holes? Is it because concerned people are concerned that the ‘woke’ are being unfair to Gamergate and Incels?

I just took a look at Robin Hanson’s page and the comments. Wow. Much debate by men about whether they’d rather be raped or be a cuckold. Not seeing any discussion about his post being a metaphor for taxation. Worth a look if you have a strong stomach.

I’m going to explain why I’m being such a jerk. It’s because Hanson is trying to pull a stunt, and because it looks to me as if he might succeed.

Since he couches his argument, or set of demands, in the same terms people tend to use when they’re talking about justice, you think he’s talking about justice, but he’s not. He’s using justice-talk to introduce a vein of thinking totally unconnected with justice. Consequently, nobody who keeps talking about justice, or addressing the question of justice, is going to come out ahead in this discussion, because it’s a discussion about things which have nothing to do with justice. (Mr. Hanson knows that very well, IMO.)

Suppose you’re talking hobbies with some guy who’s devoted to bottle caps, while your own thing is matchbox cars. You may know everything there is to know about matchbox cars, you may be encyclopedic on the subject, you may have the best collection of matchbox cars ever, and you may have reams of information about your matchbox cars at your fingers’ ends. All of this will avail you nothing against your opponent, the bottle-cap fancier, as long he allows you to believe you’re participating in a conversation about matchbox cars while he makes sure the actual discussion stays focussed on bottle caps. As long as the discussion is focussed on bottle caps, he’s going to prevail, because he knows more about bottle caps than you do. You may make great point after great point about matchbox cars, and still lose, because matchbox cars aren’t what the two of you are discussing. You may wonder why you keep getting worsted; if you do, it’s because you’re mistaken about which topic is being addressed. You think it’s matchbox cars, and your opponent, for reasons of his own, permits you to believe so, but all the while you’re actually talking about bottle caps, the topic on which he’s the expert.

(Forgive me if all this is evident to everybody here, except me.)

“You’d never stand for such weak evidence goods in a scholarly article, why traffic in them here?”

I reiterate the question I’ve already implicitly asked, which is: is this truly a scholarly discussion?

At this point in the thread, I think what is called for is some old fashioned, off-the-point, pedantry!

Raven Onthill @288 wrote:

In discussing the actuality of sexual intercourse as commodity, consider polyandrous polygynous [FTFY] cultures, which do shut many cis heterosexual young men away from any sexual intercourse beyond that of the hiring of prostitutes, if even that.

From that always reliable online resource, wikipedia:

Polyandry (/ˈpÉ’liˌændri, ËŒpÉ’liˈæn-/; from Greek: πολυ- poly-, “many” and ἀνήρ anÄ“r, “man”) is a form of polygamy in which a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time.

Polygyny (/pəˈlɪdʒɪniː/; from Neoclassical Greek πολυγυνία from πολύ- poly- “many”, and γυνή gyne “woman” or “wife”[1]) is the most common and accepted form of polygamy, entailing the marriage of a man with several women.

My only other comment on this thread is “My god, what a car wreck, and like an actual one, I have been unable not to watch.” JH, are you in competition with BW for provoking the longest, angriest comment thread on Crooked Timber? At this point, you’ve outpaced her here but not here (Confession: I haven’t reread these to check them for anger, but I recall one a few years back that went way off the rails, and suspect it was at least one of these two).

“The question, ‘is what I want ‘just’?’ is almost impossible not to beg, for reasons I’ve talked about at fair length.”

I spent years lurking in these guys’ forums. It’s only been about maybe 18 months or so since I definitively quit. In my experience, ‘is what I want just’ would be a super-hard question for manospherians of any stripe to beg, since it’s a question they almost never ask.

– and now to something completely different
(exclusively for my friend ph)

De makers wilden met deze introductie tot hun beste werk oorspronkelijk de buitenlandse markt veroveren, vooral de Verenigde Staten, maar vanwege een verkeerde marketingstrategie sloeg de film niet aan. In Engeland, waar de liefhebbers de sketches in feite al kenden van op de televisie, werd de film wel een succes. Toch is de film altijd de minst bekende en bijgevolg ook de minst populaire Pythonfilm gebleven. Voor de liefhebbers, die de beste sketches meestal al kennen uit de tv-serie, voegt And Now for Something Completely Different weinig toe, behalve als een stuk curiosa. Er zijn maar zeer minimale variaties en slechts enkele nieuwe grappen.

And Now for Something Completely Different is pas sinds de jaren negentig enkele keren op de Nederlandse televisie vertoond (met vertalende ondertitels van dichter Hans Kloos).

@315
”Then a whole crowd of woke ladies and blokes, also some here at CT, take his argument at face value, panic and assume that the insane bleeding-heart men huggers are about to legally force them to have sex with smelly neckbeards any minute now.”

a few corrections:

1. I am NOT a ”woke lady’
2. I haven’t read a single comment form ”a woke lady” on CT
3. I wrote that I don’t take Hansons argument at face value and that I thought it was a ”joke”
4. I never ”panic” – and I know very well that nobody – NOBODY can force me to have sex with ”Zuck”.

and no to the the ”funny” part:
”Overall, the landscape looks quite Boschian”

Not really – as we have found out that only somewhere – far far away on an island called America – incels are out to kill people – and so that ”is roughly NOT representative of the ‘sexual marketplace’ of prospective erotic partners –
and doesn’t at all
”constitutes in itself a powerful argument for celibacy. :)

and Right! –

The incels should read it and CHANGE and NOT ”console themselves that they aren’t really missing out on anything;”
as – how true – how true – if they don’t –
”this might actually be NOT a rare case of an internet debate that successfully solves, once and for all, the original problem that provoked it”.

bekabot@308:
I spent years lurking in these guys’ forums. It’s only been about maybe 18 months or so since I definitively quit. In my experience, ‘is what I want just’ would be a super-hard question for manospherians of any stripe to beg, since it’s a question they almost never ask.

I’ve never had the least interest in lurking on a forum in the manosphere proper; I’ve only seen colonies, enclaves, and embassies in venues with mixed demographics. In these places, they frequently refer to equality and fairness (though still not justice, except as formulaic contempt for SJWs). I’m not 100% convinced it’s sincere interest rather than rhetorical framing, though.

Hi Tineola! That was totally me, no question. There aren’t very many Belle Warings at all (there was one who was a poet, but she died, and I have never encountered another), and even fewer with 9,000+ pins on Pinterest. Must be like 11,000 now. I wanted to say that your situation sounds awful and I feel a great deal of sympathy; I’m sorry. I can only imagine I would be extremely unhappy and would not want to be told, say, to go to the gym when lack of such was so clearly not the problem. I think progressives as individuals tend to be sympathetic to individuals but not to sexually deprived and miserable people broadly conceived. This is because in so far as there’s any organized group of people claiming to be sexually deprived and miserable en masse it’s incels, and as you know, there’s a curdled hatred for women there that makes people in this position seem very unsympathetic if you are a feminist who checks it out. So if this means there’s no real, ongoing sympathy I wouldn’t be surprised, and you’re probably correct. I still think the flak coming from the right is way worse. I torture myself with PUA/MRA blogs, so.

My basic problem is that I am unable to regard being attracted to people as ethical. I can’t talk about it. Even getting a statement as anodyne as “I think X is attractive” out of me would require something akin to a police interrogation (“Confess! CONFESS!”).

Therapy, though a frequent, is not always a good recommendation, but this is an issue on which I think therapy might actually help. Because you must know at some level it’s ethical to be attracted to other people, even as you feel strongly on another, gut level that it’s not. You don’t, I imagine, judge people in happy relationships because they are attracted to one another. There’s no shame in the mental-health game; I am a mentally ill person and have been in the actual psych ward before several times. It’s not really my fault so I don’t need to feel embarrassed about it (although I guess I do anyway, somewhat, but I’m telling you so you know this isn’t bullshit). So I’m not just blithely casting recommendations about. Sometimes you just need help. Baci!

I like satire. Sure as hell easier than metaphysics.

Is there much work out there on the metaphysics of satire? Might be a professional opportunity.

bianca steele @ 319: that reminds me that I meant to thank you and nastywoman for staying with it so persistently.

Among other barriers, I’ve never taken a philosophy course, and though I always enjoy JH’s threads, they tend to get away from anything that I have time/patience to follow. I’ve had some medical appointments this week, so I tried copying the thread into a Word document so I could read it in waiting rooms. In the tiniest font I could tolerate, with half-inch margins all around, it was 50+ pages. And that was on Tuesday morning.

While I’m doing appreciation, a thank-you also to Z for @266.

Hooray. I apparently invented luck inequality. Where are my scholarly citations?

Why doesn’t Chris Bertram ever cite me?

Luck egalitarians have argued that people should be rendered equal with respect to their unchosen circumstances but that inequalities that result from choices people freely are ok. All of these are arguments within the egalitarian camp.
So it is frustrating to read a paper in Nature, written by some psychologists from the Pinker/Haidt school of public pontificating that claims that people don’t care about equality but about “fairness”, where the inequalities that people tolerate turn out to be (a) inequalities in money and (b) inequalities that result from choices people make. Nobody working in poltical philosophy thinks that inequalities in money matter fundamentally, and lots of people think that the value of equality, properly understood, not only allows but requires differences in outcome that result from choice.

Crooked Timber Link from 2017

Or maybe Harry, Crooked Timber Link from 2004

Or a bunch of people in the comments, Crooked Timber Link from 2009.

Or Chris Bertam on GA Cohen (who also should be citing me) Another Crooked Timber Link from 2009

Or Chris again here in a really well thought out piece from 2006.

It is almost like I correctly identified a major strain of thought in the progressive debate about inequality. But hey, it is Sebastian so it is probably safe to mock him about it.

I apologize for thinking that a major topic of discussion nearly every year for the entire history of this website might be important.

I usually agree with Foundling but have to strongly draftee with this:

We can feed, clothe, treat and educate a person, but once these minimal requirements are met, they are mostly on their own and the task of achieving happiness is mostly theirs.

Not only is it hard to defend in principle imo (see the philosophers I liked above) but it’s not an accurate description of left-wing policy or campaigning on eg gender equality or disability rights.

bianca steele@319:
Mmph. I understand your point, obviously, but the manosphere as the term is used is distinct enough that it warrants special mention. These are places where women aren’t merely patronized or ignored; they’re flat-out unwelcome as anything but agency-free objects (e.g. the popular rallying cry “tits or GTFO”) or dead-horse strawfeminazis to beat into abject, abased submission. Well, unless they’re cut from the same cloth as the One True Feminist, Christina Hoff Sommers. These are places where the standard subject of discussion is man’s unequivocal oppression at the hands of the controlling feminazi/cuck matriarchy, and how to fight back against it. These are places where misogyny doesn’t merely invariably intrude; it instead echoes in an endless, unchallenged, all-consuming cacophony. So I do think it’s worth making a distinction.

bekabot@325:
I probably should have used the term rhetorical cudgel instead of rhetorical framing. Fairness or equality as a concept is IME typically introduced as a means of delegitimizing efforts at such by ideological enemies – e.g. “you can’t really be interested in gender equality, because you don’t prioritize men’s problems to the same degree as you do women’s problems – and if you DO give them equal footing… well, you should be giving them more because we are really oppressed while women live lives of unacknowledged privilege…” Et cetera ad nauseam. So yes, I unfortunately know exactly the sort of thing you’re talking about without going through the unpleasantness of verifying in the manosphere proper.

Sebastian, it wasn’t luck that saw me born poor. It was a systematic process over many years designed to make sure my parents stayed poor. My partner wasn’t unlucky to be born a woman and paid less than a man. She was born a woman, and when she tried to negotiate her salary she was flatly refused and given less than the lower qualified man who started at the same time as her. It’s not luck that makes my friend experience greater housing discrimination than me: it’s because Japanese landlords discriminate against his nationality more than mine.

Inequality is not about luck, it’s about social choices made by rich people with power. Which is why it’s bullshit to compare it to something that is actually luck, like whether you have a pretty face. Especially since all the things that incels and Robin Hanson think are holding them back from getting laid – their supposed ugliness, their alleged lack of money – are not a barrier for those of us who treat women with respect and speak to them like human beings. And even more so since unlike education places at the top schools and jobs at the top banks and luxury yachts, sex is not a scarce resource or something you need to compete with others to steal from them. That hot girl you want can choose to have sex with you as well as someone else, if she wants, and choosing to fuck you wont deny him anything. We can all grow the pie by a mere act of desire. Sex is a post scarcity economy already and has been a long time, and anyone can participate in it if they want to and if they treat the other participants with respect and dignity.

+1 to JanieM’s therapy comments, which reflect my own experience

I don’t disagree with that distinction john but I don’t think that’s luck. Luck is things that happen by chance. Discrimination is things that happen by other people’s decisions. We use “lucky” in the sense that we weren’t discriminated against (“I was lucky to find a landlord who didn’t discriminate against me”) to mean that we are happy we found someone who doesn’t discriminate, that from our perspective it’s a chance game. But that doesn’t mean that the discrimination is actually occurring by chance. We aren’t preventing chance events when we pass laws to prevent discrimination. We aren’t increasing my luck (“wow! I’m so lucky I have never been discriminated against!”) Were stopping people from acting where otherwise they would act. So there’s no luck involved.

My experience with therapists has been otherwise. And varied. I mean, I actually did Freudian analysis for a year, three hours a week, which was baller. I lay on a couch and couldn’t see her as she sat at the head of it, just like a New Yorker cartoon. She was not very free with the advice or commentary (obviously) but did offer helpful insights, and even suggestions at times. But that was a weird thing to do and not common. A good CBT therapist will a) be able to deal with resistant patients b) offer genuinely helpful advice on how to deal with thought structures that are hurting you. They often use exposure therapy to reduce the emotional salience of harmful thoughts, and it actually does work. Maybe the first person you find isn’t great, but it’s worth trying again. I have one guy right now who’s awesome.

True JD but I don’t know how else to say it. I’ve been around nerds and kickboxers my whole life and in three countries it’s been rare to find people who can’t get laid if they try. Usually the reason they aren’t getting laid is they don’t want to. I hink these incels are a really exceptional group and we a) shouldn’t take them at their word about their problems (as Michael Sullivan says above, chances are they can get laid but refuse tot ake the chance with the girls who are offering) and b) if they are telling the truth should think there really is a reason and it’s a good one.

I’ve met quite a few men who aren’t into casual sex or just aren’t that into sex. But admitting so is difficult. I’ve never met anyone who really cared about sex who couldn’t get it. In my experience nerds were just as likely to get laid as kickboxers, who are orders of magnitude better looking and usually much more socially relaxed. I won’t comment on tineolas situation because to do so about a stranger on the internet is pointless and weird, but that’s my experience of life and I think my experience is diverse enough and long enough to listen to. Of course there are exceptions to every generalisation but that’s my experience.

John I don’t know how to say this on a way that is clear but I’ll try. If you are born into a poor working family in my father’s generation then growing up poor is not “luck” it’s basically guaranteed, as is being born poor if you’re his children (i.e. me). It is not luck any more than the sun rising is luck. When people like Sebastian talk about it as if it’s luck they do so because they want us to suspend action, or they want to make it seem like taking money from the rich just to address bad luck is mean or unfair. It’s not. Rich people made my family poor and did everything they could to make sure I would be poor too. The Australian government did it’s best to make sure my situation didn’t affect my future but that wasn’t luck either.

Being born poor is “sux to be you” bad luck, not the bad luck of a car crash. I sincerely doubt any theorists of “luck inequality” were born poor and so I doubt they understand this.

We don’t act against inequality to redistribute luck. We act against inequality to stop rich people fucking poor people’s lives up.

Really have a hard time understanding why anyone would claim sex, or lack of sex, isn’t ‘social in nature’ btw…

If you are born into a poor working family in my father’s generation then growing up poor is not “luck” it’s basically guaranteed, as is being born poor if you’re his children (i.e. me).

You are begging the question. Once you remove the variable of the circumstances of your birth — “If you are born into a poor working family …” — then yes, that variable is no longer being examined and cannot be attributed to luck. It’s assumed in your formulation.

You anticipate my objection by trying to distinguish two types of bad luck:

Being born poor is “sux to be you” bad luck, not the bad luck of a car crash.

But that doesn’t work. It is socially determined that some people are going to be hit by cars, just as it is socially determined that some people will be born poor. But the circumstances of your birth are entirely a matter of luck.

(I mean, unless you behaved badly in a past life. Then it’s your fault.)

I had various issues with Amia Srinivasan’s essay but it’s miles ahead of the level of discussion in this thread. Everybody should read it.

I would say, perhaps contra-Z, that the left’s prioritization of “meta”-personal inequality and injustice (economic poverty, pollution, etc…) is pragmatic, not doctrinaire.

To take an analogy, I think that Tineola has written something like “I have remarked that professional athletes have a very different take on injuries and on winning Olympic medals” and I would say “well, yes, because there are huge differences between the two that athletes tend to consider quite significant and that I feel a bit ashamed to be spelling out, so they tend to dislike the former and like the latter” and Sebastian H and John Holbo would be writing “This isn’t right at all. Fairly well-known athletes won medals in 1968 and they looked quite sad, and it ruined their career.” Well, yes.

The depressed, the anxious, the formerly-bullied, and the NEET seem to be significantly over-represented among the involuntarily celibate. A lot of those problems appear to be overlapping, according to my anthropological field studies in forum-lurking.

In my early 20s I had a friend and roommate who had been bullied from ages 11 to 17. He could not form romantic relationships. He was extremely shy, and he discounted positive signals as probably just being a setup to humiliate him again. “It’s just in your head,” “confidence is attractive” — advice both true and useless. He wasn’t physically ugly or bad at personal hygiene. If he could have his body piloted around by a confident and socially adept person for a month, the remotely piloted body could get dates and erotic encounters. But he couldn’t.

I’ve confessed here before that I was an elementary school bully (verbal/social, not physical) and that it took me years after to understand and regret my own behavior. I saw someone who was excluded and I had fun making it worse. What a horrible little shit I was to to her.

To riff on FN, this isn’t just luck. Fellow students see someone they can bully and do it because it is fun for them. Adults who should stop it let it happen for years. These things snowball. A kid says or does something to mark themselves as different and vulnerable, someone confidently cruel takes advantage of it, and if adults don’t intervene it becomes that much easier for it to happen repeatedly. The effects don’t stop as soon as the ill treatment does.

Have you ever met a person with a chronic medical problem who turns to nonsense like homeopathic medicine because they still feel miserable after years of attempted interventions from certified doctors? That comes to mind when I see capital-I Incels turn to nonsense manospheric cures for their misery. I think that a lot of those miserable adulthoods were preventable, had the circumstances of their earlier lives promoted social flourishing. People who are comfortable in body don’t gravitate to homeopathic cures. There’s nothing to cure in the first place. People who are comfortable socially and romantically don’t join incel forums.

Actually when I wrote “if you treat people with respect and dignity “ it did occur to me that lots of men can get laid without that condition – the denomination “fuckboi” was developed to describe them – and I thought I was adding a qualifier to appease the uptight Americans who think casual sex is terrible, but apparently I was misread as making a moral judgment. My Bad! So let’s put aside even that level of basic moral conditioning. The stats tell us that most people can get laid and form monogamous partnerships. In my experience most people can get laid with more than one person in their life and if they don’t it’s because they don’t want to. This isn’t a callous statement (per orange watch) or a moral judgement- as far as I can see it’s as close to a statement of fact as you can hope to get. And I think you have two choices here: you can accept that incels are unusual and have turned real problems in a basic social process into a source of hate and terror; or you can pretend there’s nothing wrong with them and we shouldn’t think they’re making any mistakes, in which case presumably there isn’t something wrong with the social process that should be fixed. The latter situation puts you firmly in Hanson’s orbit, especially if you notice that they’re all men and so perhaps the problem is with women denying them something that they can’t get through no fault of their own. I’d rather not go there and fortunately I don’t have to because experience tells me that they’re unusual and the problem is not with the women who won’t fuck them.

Now a lesson in reading comprehension for orange watch. Saying “I like sex” is not the same as saying “I get laid a lot”, and what I wrote could equally be said by someone who has not ever had one partner. So accusing someone of bragging about their conquests based on that thin evidence is a bit pissy. However, it’s also an interesting example of slut shaming, and interesting that the two people who raised it are both trump fluffers. In a conversation about who can get laid and who can’t your own personal experience is surely relevant. Tineolas comment has been treated carefully and respectfully but even the suspicion of the opposite is sneered at and derided. Why is this? If I were someone who was “good at” getting laid presumably my experience would be relevant? But the mere sniff of a suspicion that I might be a slut has the heckles up doesn’t it? You should think about that.

Next lesson in reading comprehension: i “smoothly adopted the language of chads/stacys” so I could discuss incel theory and its flaws. This is a pretty basic process, not an act of callousness or adoption of a bullying tone. I’m not going to put a million qualifiers on everything I say just so that I can make clear to everyone my precise moral judgment of f every rarified term in a very rarified sphere of weird alternative thought, especially when I’m writing on a phone. But this objection from you,too, is not a real objection – it’s just another transparent attempt to find something to sneer about.

Faustusnotes

The stats tell us that most people can get laid and form monogamous partnerships.

It’s not clear to me what kind of statistics you have in mind; and I’d be prepared to bet that it’s not clear to you either. I think you’re bluffing, and I call your bluff. You think there are reliable sources of statistical information that reveal how many people could have sex if they wanted to? I doubt that. I expect there are reliable statistics on how many people are legally married; probably slightly less reliable statistics on how many people are in monogamous partnerships not legally certified; and I bet those statistics show there are plenty of people who aren’t, many of whom never have been. Of course you can assert that those people could marry (or remarry) if they wanted to, but what kind of statistics do you suppose could exist to back that up?

In my experience most people can get laid with more than one person in their life and if they don’t it’s because they don’t want to. This isn’t a callous statement (per orange watch) or a moral judgement- as far as I can see it’s as close to a statement of fact as you can hope to get.

But the statement is one which begins with the phrase ‘In my experience’, so the only facts it is a statement about are the facts of your experience! You’re making an assertion about the sexual histories of the people you know; even if that assertion is true (and how sure can you be that people have fully confided in you? and what is the actual number of people whose sexual histories you think you are familiar with?), it’s a hopelessly inadequate basis for broader generalisations. What makes you think that, if there are people among your acquaintance who want sex but aren’t getting it, they would tell you about it? and what makes you think that if there aren’t any such people among your acquaintance, there can’t be any outside your acquaintance (or that there can’t be enough to be worth considering)? From what you say, it can be presumed that your acquaintance does not include any Elliot Rodgers or Alek Minassians; that is obviously a wholly inadequate basis for concluding that such people don’t exist. Likewise, even if you are correct in supposing that there are in your acquaintance no people like the ones Dan Savage describes, who are not hate-filled misogynists but who are not getting the sex they want, that’s obviously a wholly inadequate basis for concluding that Dan Savage is lying about how many of those letters he’s getting or that the people who write the letters aren’t telling the truth.

And I think you have two choices here: you can accept that incels are unusual and have turned real problems in a basic social process into a source of hate and terror; or you can pretend there’s nothing wrong with them and we shouldn’t think they’re making any mistakes, in which case presumably there isn’t something wrong with the social process that should be fixed.

On the one hand, it’s my opinion that the self-defined incels like Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian are a small and wildly unrepresentative subset of the category of people who want sex and aren’t getting it, and that their diagnosis of a problem, and their proposed remedies, are erroneous (to the point of delusion) and malignant. On the other hand, it’s my opinion that of course there are problems with social processes, and what’s more there always will be, no matter how much social processes change, but it’s not at all clear how much (if anything) could be done by deliberate intervention in social processes to relieve the unhappiness of people who want sex and aren’t getting it. Dan Savage thinks maybe there are some kinds of social change which might have some benefit in this respect; I don’t know. What is clear to me, however, is that there’s no justification for directing your contempt at the large category of people who want sex and aren’t getting it just because it includes one small subset intoxicated with hate. When Tineola first wrote about experiencing this contempt, I asked about it because (as I observed) I’ve never felt it being directed at me (although I didn’t use that as a basis for a generalisation that it doesn’t exist, because that’s the kind of generalisation from personal experience I try to avoid); now I’m not so sure I can say that.

Faustusnotes it is odd that you are willing to suggest people are lying about not having sexual but that they aren’t lying about having sex. I’m not the most perceptive person in the universe, but I’m rejatively confident I’ve encountered lies both directions.

@373
”I’ve decided to impose a 1-ed-sheeran-video-link per thread limit.”

Us ”progressives” can live with that – but perhaps it still should be mentioned – that the story of Ed Sheeran – a once ”bullied incel” – could be very helpful to answer the question of somebody like @371 – about:
What’s your solution?

And also answer the question if – indeed – ”willful ignorance is typical among progressives” – as discussed here – and phrased by @369.

It’s probably one of the most exploited stereotypes in US (Teen) culture to play with the pain of the suffering ”Nerd” – ”Geek” or ”incel” – and also how easily such ”pain” can be ”healed” by having sex with a ”beautiful exchange student” -(who sees in ”the Nerd” or ”Geek” some kind of ”Charismaman”) or – as a hilarious alternative – using an American Pie to have sex.

And – all of these… ”solutions” – as ”ridiculous” – ”funny” or ”stupid” – or even ”degrading” – they are – are widely known – and especially by the so called ”incels” – as the ”incels” base mat of their knowledge about (the other) sex on those stereotypes.

BUT here’s the thing –
as ”a (hopeful?) progressive” myself I always would suggest an Ed Sheeran type of ”solving the problem” -(and not doing ”the bad stuff” – also Ed Sheeran once toyed with in some of his lyrics) – and so if I would suggest an ”American Pie” – (or doing a Nerd or Geek who isn’t an a…hole) – its NOT out of ”willful ignorance typical among progressives” – it’s because WE – nearly – every young American – know so much about this… ”problem”!

– and reading this thread I thought a few times how sad that we don’t discuss exclusively ”Ginger Incels” – as it is currently known how many ”Ginger Incels” -(in America) Ed Sheeran has helped to ”get laid” –
(and I really hate that ”expression” as the Hawaiian word ”Nookie” sounds so much… ”cuter”) –
and as there are Ed Sheeran Look-Alikes now everywhere – who offer themselves -(in Ermangelung des Originals) we perhaps should end this discussion with a critical look at how it all started – with Zuck and his idea that the ”Nerds” at Harvard deserve as much attention – from the ”female” Harvard students as all these ”Winklevoss Rowers”.

And I heard it actually worked pretty well for a while – and I heard from much older friends that some years ago – it was very ”fashionable” in the homeland to present proudly some ”nerdy” boyfriends – who might have been lousy in ”nookie” but where excellent in ”start-ups” – and that always works for a while – but now we have found out that it didn’t work long enough for the current ”incels” -(with the exception of some red haired ones?)

Thread still open? Came across this quote in a Pavlina Tcherneva article this morning showing why JG better than BIG and MY is a capitalist running dog.

“Amartya Sen also taught us that what matters is not just freedom, but substantive freedom. That is, policy has to 1) recognize what individuals themselves want and value; 2) it must provide these opportunities; and 3) it must remove obstacles from taking advantage of these opportunities.”

Now let’s apply this to Incels. They want oh be nice a named supermodel. What do we want to do about that? Let’s look at 2 and 3.

1) First it is not their fault. At all. Period. No more than poverty and wanting the nice house with picket fence and two cars in the garage is the fault of the poor. Social values are not examined on the individual level. No more psychology and personal history.
So Take Incels as far out of the discussion as possible, and ask why they can’t gt the supermodel.

2) So what sociaaized values keep Incels from getting the supermodel? What new social values would not legalize assault, but would make the supermodel jump the Incel’s bones? Soft power and re-education stuff, of course, we all know that a person always can resist the power of the hegemony. Agency after all.*

3) Like, maybe our society values individual wealth, personal appearance, and physical appearance a little too much? Should people become billionaires and very desired just because they are handsome? I though progressives and feminists were against judging people by appearance.

*Frederick Lordon, Willing Slaves of Capital, Deleuze and Spinoza, I pretty much deny agency and consent all together. In a rape culture, it is all rape all the time and most of the time people are in denial, as in capitalism. My money is earned, I work hard says both the slave and the overseer.

Robert Mueller questions the former president:
https://amgreatness.com/2018/05/04/what-if-mueller-questioned-barack-obama/

Most read at RCP – probably worth ignoring.

Wow, I think in my infinite ignorance, can connect some threads. What was the thread about language as instrumental rhetoric, Merriam and Sperber or whatever? Just skimmed it.

I was never the initiator, and “saw rape culture in her eyes” can be taken as you will.

But as soon as I was able to understand it, seduction (and persuasion, argument, logic) has appalled and terrified me.

I can make him do X? I can talk him into X, make him want X? By use of language, entirely socialized language, history and hegemony speaking through me, with the advantages social capital I have been given in terms of gender, skin color, intelligence, education, attractive body, acquired skills, and conformity to prevailing mores. And talking him into X is ok because of my good intentions kind heart and way cool friends?

I like saw the Hegel/Sartre thing and history and society in bed with me and decided to sleep alone.

Curse your damnnable perspicacity, Faustusnotes! Yes, it’s true— I’m an undercover agent sent from Wizardchan on a Secret Troll Mission, here to sow confusion and discord among the libcucks by getting them to argue about stuff in the comments section of a blog post! And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for you! And those meddling kids! And their dog!

YOU MAY HAVE WON THIS ROUND, FRIGID SLUTBITCHES, BUT I’LL BE BACK! I’LL BE BAAAACK!!

Given all this, I feel compelled to clarify the sentiment behind my original post.

John argued that Hanson’s argument stumbles when he suggests that sexual redistribution must be accomplished by force. It does. There’s no terribly good reason why we can’t approach the issue in some other good way.

However, the tone of his argument suggested that Hanson had ignored some substantial body of progressive thought on the topic. I read it and thought, “Oh, come on, John! You know as well as I do that progressives aren’t really interested in this sexual redistribution idea— they view the Great Unlaid as assholes and losers, just like everyone else! Sure, progressives might work to destigmatize sex work, but they’d do it for the sex workers themselves; you’ll never see feminists saying that we ought to treat sex workers better because they can provide sex to the otherwise undesirable!” This is the one part of his argument in which Hanson gets somewhere near a legitimate point: the way progressives aggressively seek moral failings in the involuntarily celibate, or argue that anyone can get as much emotional intimacy as they want if they really want it, or claim that nobody’s really involuntarily celibate, does sometimes resemble the way right-wingers treat the insolvs. (Admittedly, the parallel is weakened by the fact that you never see minimum-wage temp workers go on shooting rampages at investment firms. I considered mentioning the right-wing focus on criminal deadbeats, but decided that this was definitely overtaxing the analogy.)

Anyway, I wrote that, and then added a sort of coda along the lines of “By the way, I’m technically involuntarily celibate, and I’m not an asshole or a loser, and I feel really unwelcome when everyone implicitly assumes that I am.” I didn’t intend to draw any kind of comparison between progressives and the manosphere; in fact, that didn’t occur to me at all, and if it had, I wouldn’t have used the phrase “marked by”— I meant “marked by, in comparison to other progressive commentary” rather than “marked by, in comparison to conservative commentary.” I hope this clears things up a bit.

Z, you presumably dispute John’s contention that progressives could, or should, endorse ideas like Fourier’s or sentiments like Savage’s. What you’ve written doesn’t seem to have a lot to do with what I’ve written, except insofar as you assert that progressives simply have nothing to do with sexual misery, a claim which is clearly distinct from “sexually miserable people are assholes or losers.”

bob, what the hell are you talking about? Are you trying to analogize your problems with mine? If that’s the case, what you’ve written is deeply insulting; I’m not a “volcel” fishing for a supermodel, I’m just… lonely, in a “my life would be a lot less awful if I were in a long-term, loving relationship with someone” kind of way.

Colin Street he says he’s worried that people might be lying,

I said nothing of the sort: I made no statement about my own beliefs.

Go and check.

[your reading comprehension skills are pretty mediocre. This is not an insurmountable problem, but the person who has to surmount it is you. We can’t help you much beyond pointing it out; the actual fix has to come from you. And it is something you really have to try and fix, because it causes problems for others, and not doing what you reasonably can to avoid causing problems for others and expecting them to tidy up after you is, you know, pig fucking selfish. The ability to avoid problems varies between people, obviously: what’s important is that you try.]

Basic point was I don’t understand why anyone would say sex is not ‘social in nature’, even relatively speaking. It seems not only to necessarily involve other people but also to be strongly shaped by norms and informal sanctions if not coercive laws determined by one’s social group or society as whole. To put it bluntly: the fact someone who wants to can’t get laid is entirely due to the decisions of other people. I’m all for avoiding ‘word games’ but maybe you should reconsider whether ‘social in nature’ is really what you mean?

@386
”and I’m not an asshole”

Then we are NOT talking about you.

”and I feel really unwelcome when everyone implicitly assumes that I am.”

You should not ”assume” that as we were talking about Hanson and a bunch of… no… let’s not call them ”losers” – let’s use a word ”Right Wingers like to use – a bunch of ”terrible haters” who are even willing to kill!!

– or – perhaps we finally should quote – the ”worlds currently most famous philosopher”?

1.“Be nice to everyone, always smile, and appreciate things because it could all be gone tomorrow.”
or
2. “It’s ok to be not ok.”
or
3. “If love what you can’t have, then you have to love what you’ve got”
or
4. “Pain is only relevant if it still hurts.”
or my favorite one:
5
“If I ever have any back-up dancers, I want the penguins from Madagascar.”

and avoiding ‘word games’ but maybe you should reconsider whether ‘social in nature’ is really what you mean?

Okay

social adjective so·cial \ ˈsō-shəl \ 4 a : tending to form cooperative and interdependent relationships with others
Infants can become social beings only through interaction with others. —Gerald R. Leslie and Sheila K. Korman
b : living and breeding in more or less organized communities especially for the purposes of cooperation and mutual benefit : not solitary

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social

I guess on a deeper level the point is that sex in our society generally takes place between partners with genders and genders are socially constructed.

… eh. Quick reading, my apologies, Sebastian. Missed a “he”.

It’s too late to write a corrected post in my local time, though, but I want to acknowledge my misreading.

[you still appear to be in error, btw.]

397: This whole discussion is circling issues of embodiment and self-definition. The libertarian belief that one’s property is to be treated ethically as identical to one’s body, is ethically scandalous

Right, but the inverse is also not very sub voce, that my body is my property with associated rights like privacy and importantly to the question here, there are no prior (to individual rights) positive (“must do X”) social or community claims on the body. Like a draft. Vagrancy? Tattoos.

Or what they are, how they are legitimated etc. Gotta re-read Cohen on self-ownership. And MacPherson. If self-control over my body is not a liberal-legal property right or limited by the social political (the majority cannot vote force-pregnancy) then is it some kind of transcendentally founded Idea?

On a continuum, I think socialists are in opposition to libertarians and neoliberals in recognizing dominance of the social and demos and legitimating coercive demands on bodies. Mao pajamas.

The challenge is creating a new “communities that can command and coerce” that is not tied to the traditional structures of patriarchy and power.

Not informed consent, cause persuasion is a delusion. Submission to desiring-machines. Lukacs was right to stick with the Party. Oh, quck foolishness, western Marxism is based on the idea that class consciousness is emergent, that CC is the self-recognition of the proletariat as collective agent of history.

Since that decade, Marxians have been engrossed with the idea that Vanguardism and leadership are not only counterproductive, but ontologically impossible. In other words, persuasion fails* and is immoral in the attempt, a technology of capitalism. But the illusion, which is the illusion of rational choice, individual rights, public discourse, the stock market, everything, this mystification, the reifiction drives the machine.

See Aachen and Bartels, Democracy for Realists

@396+398+399
”Okay”

”social” – concerning ”the issue at hand” – the most fitting definition is in the Oxford dictionary and it says:

”2 Needing companionship and therefore best suited to living in communities.
‘we are social beings as well as individuals’’

And as hinted before – being a ”social being” = a fearless fighter against (economic) inequality!

Concerning being an ”individual” NOT sharing any toothbrush and… ”sex” –
and about this ”Roosh-dude” who really seems to think -(like you?) that all of these Danish girls didn’t go for his… his… okay let’s firstly call it ”Pick-Up” because all of these Danish girls are born into this ”great social-democratic” society where they are not dependent on some BIG American Charismaman –

Well –
I was born into a very similar (social-democratic) society in Germany – and from the perspective of a very dumb young American there might be a tiny – tiny bit of truth – that WE (Danish and German and a lot of other European Women) have a certain ”confidence” which is partly based on the ”social security” we enjoy from birth –
BUT the real ”deal” –
the real… thing is that we might be able to identify a… holes right away –
-(especially some ”American Ones”)

Sebastian, I don’t assume self reported incels (of the real non misogynist kind) are lying about how unhappy it makes them. I’m assuming that most people – including most people on this thread – lie about how much sex they’re having and in particular with how many partners they are having/ have had sex. I don’t assume that people who admit to being incels (who aren’t lying) are lying about how unhappy this makes them. my cynicism about others statements extends only to the truth of their sex lives.

To back this up I give the example of sexual health research, where people often dispute the validity of self report, and where it is generally accepted that people understate their risky behaviour (which is basically what were talking about here). For example there’s a suspicion that most “hetsrosexual” new HIV cases in Japanese men are actually acquired through sex with men, for a while American researchers believed hep C could be sexually transmitted because injecting drug users were lying about their behaviour, we have special strategies for dealing with men who are straight but have sex with men, and with young people who won’t admit or accept that their behaviour is risky. more anecdotally I give the example of this thread which is all about how easy it is to get laid but not a single person has talked about how easy they find it or how much they do it, and admissions that even could possibly suggest some familiarity with the world of casual sex are heavily policed. There’s no chance anyone on here is going to admit to an affair – it’s much more socially acceptable to fake a barren sex life.

In Japan and Korea an excellent example.ple of this can be observed in the way women hide their casual sex partners. They lie about it to other women and then say they wouldn’t tell the truth because none of their friends do “that sort of thing” so they couldn’t possibly tell them. But if you’re hiding it from your friends, why assume they aren’t hiding it from you too? This kind of behaviour rests on the assumption that what you’re doing is unusual, which arises from the conviction that it’s bad and thus noone else is doing it.

The only people who you should think are exaggerating the scale of their sexual activity are PUAs. And why would we care what thdy are doing anyway?

Peter T:

…Similarly, who are these “progressives” who are disdaining the celibate personally?

(Besides faustusnotes and nastywoman, you mean?) It’s a fair point: there’s nothing about progressive views, as such, that demands disdain for the celibate, and no clear evidence about this regarding progressives as a group. It would be wrong to ascribe to all progressives the highly visible mean-spirited views of *some* progressives without clear evidence. And the same clarity about the distinction between a group and the individuals in it should extend to all groups, right?

It may be of some interest that Scott Aaronson has posted about Hanson and his column.

Faustusnotes

Evidence that people give false or incomplete or misleading answers in response to being asked questions about their sexual activity is not the kind of evidence you need to establish conclusions about unprompted volunteered information about sexual activity. I expect that if I asked all the people I know about their sexual activity any information I got would be unreliable (and I’d lose friends and gain enemies); but that would be no reason to doubt any unprompted confidences (if I ever received any).

And, I’ll note that you’ve successfully diverted away from my substantive question which was why Faustusnotes thinks we should just assume that self reported involuntarily celibate people are lying about how unhappy it makes them.

Your question had an answer given to you before it was even asked, like I said. Here’s the question you asked that we can call “initial”:
Faustusnotes it is odd that you are willing to suggest people are lying about not having sexual but that they aren’t lying about having sex.

[… this is of course not the same question as you cite above! This is the sort of thing that’s lead me to conclude you’re… not very good at argument? keeping track of your own position, what you’re arguing for or against, is a key part of making sure that the arguments you have lead to meaningful conclusions: no “win” or “lose” if you don’t know what you’re fighting for or over]

[if you’re not following: your initial question was about “lying about sex”, your new question is about “lying about unhappiness”.]

So. Setting aside that you’ve changed your position without evidently realising — we’ll stick with your original question — the post you are responding to contained the following comments:
Now we get into your complex discussion of whether I don’t know people aren’t having sex. But here’s the thing, it’s really easy to tell people are having sex: they have partners, or have had partners, and we typically learn this information early on in knowing people. Often they have children, a sure sign they have or have had sex. Furthermore, it’s usually safe to assume when discussing sex that people are getting more than they let on, not less, because it’s a topic clothed in shame and we don’t openly confess to doing it. If you doubt that, witness what happened when I reveal I like sex on this very thread: my revelation that I like regular sex was turned into an accusation that I’m a slut, and that I’m bragging about all my conquests. In general we don’t ask people how much sex they’re getting and usually anyway they lie about the amount they’re getting. The one forum where that is likely not true is when talking to PUAs, who have strong social incentives to exaggerate. This is an important thing to remember about the incels – the forum they operate in does not encourage revealing that you’re shagging a becky, does it?

The bolded parts are given as reasons in support of faustusnote’s conclusions. They are an answer to your question, a question that when they were written you had not yet asked. The question you asked was answered.

Now, you may not be satisfied with the answer you have. You may not agree with the answer you have: that’s fine. But, it’s one of the rules of the way discussions flow: essentially, a question, once answered, cannot [usefully, and thus politely] be asked again.

because – ”it’s none of your business”?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=the+personal+is+political

@416
and as I asked before – is that really a quote from the 70th?

and what did I read at Wikipedia:
”The personal is political, also termed The private is political, is a political argument used as a rallying slogan of student movement and second-wave feminism from the late 1960s. It underscored the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures. In the context of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 1970s, it was a challenge to the nuclear family and family values.[1] The phrase has been repeatedly described as a defining characterization of second-wave feminism, radical feminism, women’s studies, or feminism in general.[2][3] It differentiated the second-wave feminism of the 1960s and 1970s from the early feminism of the 1920s, which was concerned with achieving the right to vote for women”.

Wow – it is a quote from a time I wasn’t even… existing yet? – and I know some friends of my parents who have told me that they were living in ”Kommunen” at that time.
-(and some even shared their toothbrush?!)

BUT that was – how many years ago? and if -(also Wikipedia) writes:
”Writing in 2006, Hanisch observed, “Like most of the theory created by the Pro-Woman Line radical feminists, these ideas have been revised or ripped off or even stood on their head and used against their original, radical intent.”[7]”- and so – perhaps as it is 2018 – some stuff happened since ”the personal is political” and it is possible that it actually might be the other way around? like… like
”the personal is the political” – but still NOT concerning ME using my own and absolutely not ”social” or ”socialized” private toothbrush?

Even if somebody from the 20th might have a very hard time to understand that?
-(did they even use toothbrushes at that time?)

Bah. This isn’t being taken seriously. Like capitalism, you have move outside and against to even see it.

Why was 8 year old me told to brush my teeth wear clean clothes and stand straight? Yes, men care about uniforms in competitive environments (oh wait…they all are), but for the most part are famously loose in judging how other men dress.

Boys dress nice to show they care what women think of them, to show that women are attractive enough that men will change their behavior to gain favor. Its a form of flattery and courting.

I woke up every morning o my life knowing that what was important every moment of every day in my most minor and trivial actions was what women think of me, and what mattered was that they think I like them. It still matters here in this comment section.

Scott Aaronson linked above tried to prove his service at one point saying 1st rule: Women must not be touched without consent. What about criminals and handcuffs? Well, that’s different.

Maybe “bad” or accused women can be touched? Jesus.

The entire discourse is sick and corrupt, after the third wave feminists have rushed back to the plantation because the high wages and equal opportunity created opportunities to be well-paid overseers.

Trump and Sanders were about new different some good and some bad ideas. They were productive. Clinton wanted to build n Obama’s successes. She was reproductive.

And so it goes.

Kindness is a form of flattery. Politeness. The usual rules of discourse. Honneth’s recognition shit.

I guess to eat I have to live in the farmyard and not be aggressively hostile or destructive, but apparently that’s not enough. That lasted about a decade, until I could no longer stand the constant approval and flattery I had to perform for a world I despised.

Faustusnotes has said so many goofy things it’s hard to pick out just one or two. So first a quick point:

371 In fact the prevalence of childlessness is so rare in adults that conservatives routinely feel comfortable mocking any woman who is, and know that they will never experience significant consequences for doing so, because almost no one knows a childless woman over 40, and therefore won’t care.

I know several childless women over 40. I would say that almost everyone knows several, and would actually be surprised if a single person reading this doesn’t know at least 5, maybe 10, unless the total number of women over 40 they know happens to be unusually small. Furthermore how and when and why do conservatives mock childless women? Women used to be called “old maids” and “spinsters” but by society in general, or so I thought.

334 Especially since all the things that incels and Robin Hanson think are holding them back from getting laid – their supposed ugliness, their alleged lack of money – are not a barrier for those of us who treat women with respect and speak to them like human beings.

371 Now, I have nowhere here said I don’t think genuine incels exist, and I have expressed sympathy for them, but I have made it clear that the vast majority of people can get laid if they want. I think that means people who can’t get laid (the ones who aren’t lying about it) until later in life are extremely unusual, and we should accept that. That probably means they’re doing something wrong, which I think you also accept since you are sympathetic to the idea that they would go to Dan Savage for “help” with their “problem”. But my first thought is that they don’t care that much about getting laid, but feel a great deal of social pressure to do so, since that’s what’s normal in our society.

I see Faustusnotes as basically saying “they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps,” a type of argument that, for good reason, we don’t make about people’s economic woes.

Of course it is true that poor people could, if they just worked harder and smarter, escape poverty, and many in fact do just that. But it still remains true that we are all born with certain endowments, and it’s a lot easier to be successful economically if you were “lucky” in the circumstances of your birth, in various ways (parental wealth, race, education, etc).

Just as different people experience greater and lesser success (however defined) in their “economic” lives, it’s also true that different people experience greater and lesser success (however defined) in their “romantic” lives.

As an aside, I would say that some people who are utterly miserable “romantically” are actually having lots of sex, and some people who not unhappy in this area have little or no sex. (People are weird, and diverse). So there’s no perfect positive correlation between sexual frequency and sexual satisfaction.

But there are obviously many men and women who go without sex (see link in 106) and are without partners, and who would be happier if things were otherwise. Who can deny that? Yes, they can always go to the gym and get out there and meet people and all that, but they don’t.

Who is to say that, just as there are factors beyond individual control that affect their chances of economic success, there aren’t similar (and possibly overlapping) factors that affect their chances of romantic success also?

I have a couple of friends – very single, ever since I’ve known them, who I think I know well enough to have a small amount of insight into their situation, who I think would be (and would have been) happier if they had found partners, but they never did. One is very sensitive about his appearance, the other is of a very taciturn (but artistic and creative) disposition. Both of them I (and others who know them) think came from family backgrounds that were not super-advantageous in terms of their early socialization vis-à-vis adolescence and females, but maybe this is iffy. I think Faustusnotes is right that throughout their lives, they “could have gotten laid” but they just didn’t. Bu I think it’s presumptuous (at the least) to suggest “they don’t care that much” or “they’re doing something wrong.” They are who they are.

Consider for a moment common left-wing blog themes like “many poor people vote against their interest” and “large swathes of the white population are irredeemably racist.” Our society is so f’d up that these things are true – that mass ignorance and perverse behavior are commonplace – but it’s impossible that a man or woman who doesn’t get laid has only him or her self to blame? There’s no social element that bears even a smidgen of blame?

I’m actually skeptical of the two claims in the previous paragraph – I think voting against interest and racism are way over-emphasized in left-wing discourse, which to me is overly given to “people who don’t think like (socially upper middle class) me are given to moral and cognitive defects” type thinking. But the idea that the deck is to some degree stacked against some people – poor people, minorities, women, and so on – that one I do agree with. I think the deck is stacked against people in various and varyingly subtle ways – saying that people are to blame for their problems is not that insightful. Not that we often aren’t, just that any issue worth discussing is going to be way, way too complicated to be reduced to just that.

371 That hot girl you want can choose to have sex with you as well as someone else, if she wants, and choosing to fuck you wont deny him anything. We can all grow the pie by a mere act of desire. Sex is a post scarcity economy already and has been a long time, and anyone can participate in it if they want to and if they treat the other participants with respect and dignity. [Emphasis mine].

My final note is that this observation has been contradicted, authoritatively and comprehensively – at least in my view – by the complex set of moral and ethical arguments known as “Rodney Dangerfield’s act.” I told my doctor my wife tested positive for a venereal disease … he gave himself a shot!

In 2016 to 2017, there were 5% of adults in England who reported feeling lonely “often” or “always”.
Younger adults aged 16 to 24 years reported feeling lonely more often than those in older age groups.
Women reported feeling lonely more often than men.
Those single or widowed were at particular risk of experiencing loneliness more often.
People in poor health or who have conditions they describe as “limiting” were also at particular risk of feeling lonely more often.
Renters reported feeling lonely more often than homeowners.
People who feel that they belong less strongly to their neighbourhood reported feeling lonely more often.
People who have little trust of others in their local area reported feeling lonely more often.

Three profiles of people at particular risk from loneliness were identified:

Widowed older homeowners living alone with long-term health conditions.
Unmarried, middle-agers with long-term health conditions.
Younger renters with little trust and sense of belonging to their area.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/lonelinesswhatcharacteristicsandcircumstancesareassociatedwithfeelinglonely/2018-04-10

Now back to your regularly scheduled moralising/psychologising…

anon/portly, childlessness among American women aged 40-44% is about 15% and higher among the highly educated. If you don’t hang around PhDs, it’s lower.

As an example of the way conservatives mock childless women, consider the way the previous female PM of Australia was routinely smeared for having no children, and her general femininity called into question because of it (e.g. she had a “barren” kitchen).

I decided to actually check the statistics on sexlessness, and found this analysis of survey data which finds 8.2% prevalence of sexlessness in the past 5 years in an adult sample. In people aged under 45 it’s about 3.5%, and past year sexlessness <8%. The study doesn't give a figure for continually sexless but I think anyone with a rudimentary grasp of probability theory can see that it must be very low. The study also seems to show no relationship between sexlessness and general happiness.

There is a link to another 2002 study (of the same data set?) which seems to find about 5.5% of American men aged 24-45 have never had sex (are still virgins), but it also finds this significantly associated with religious observance and not consuming alcohol – i.e. these dudes are volcels.

Like I said, being an incel is extremely rare and not likely to be representative of a broad social problem. We should not compare incels to insolvs, because economic inequality is widespread and poverty common.

Lastly, about the "respect and dignity" thing, I clarified later that I added that as a sop to the slut-shamers on here, and in practice people don't even have to do that to get laid. As you say!

@424
anon/portly has said so many goofy things -(about Faustnotes ”many goofy things) – it’s hard to pick out just one or two. So first a quick point:

”saying that people are to blame for their problems is not that insightful” – while (kind of?) blaming Faustnotes for his problems explaining an issue which is ”way, way too complicated to be reduced to just that” – as we ALL? seem to have found out by now – that this… this ”sex thing” – seems to be a very ”subjective” – ”private” and ”personal” thing?

And sorry Mr. Holbo if I have to bring up Ed Sheeran – again! – but I have such a lot of friends lately – who are so… absolutely ”into” Ed Sheeran that the boyfriend of one of my friends -(she ”liebt ihn”) – bought a ”ginger” wig and surprised her the last time they got ready for… ”nookie” –
And they had ”the best time” together – BUT not in the way – anon/portly and Faustnotes exchanged some serious (personal) experiences with (the other?) sex – BUT more in a very… ”funny and emotional way” – more comparable to somebody creating very erratic dance moves for ”Shape of You”.

And so my final note (not only to anons/portly’s @424 ”final note”) – is that ”the complex set of moral and ethical arguments known as ”MY (ME) act” – that y’all really – really should watch the tutorial how ”to move” to ”the Shape of You”!

Stopping by and seconding Orange Watch @ 427. I’d add that in nominally progressive forums like this one, it seems increasingly common for MRAs and similar to profess support for feminist causes but when a woman engages them on the topic, to subtly shift discussion to something like “now that we agree I’m a good guy and care about your issues, obviously your issues don’t need to be discussed anymore, and I’m going to. pressure you to come out one of MRAs’ pet issues now.” It’s a bit more subtle than “I agree taxation and redistribution would be nice things to have, but that means you’re going to sleep with me or any classmate of my choosing, right”, but hey it’s not the 1980s anymore.

They’re not above citing Faludi as support for the argument either, claiming the backlash as not merely obvious but only just and fair.

@
”Nobody owes anybody else love, sex or friendship”.

with the exception of US President – he does -(please NOT sex – and perhaps NOT love) but perhaps… ”friendship” for the American people?

childlessness among American women aged 40-44% is about 15%

You write this as if it contradicts my point, but it contradicts your point, doesn’t it? Roughly 1 in 7 women you meet over 40 will be childless, so saying “almost no one knows a childless women over 40” can’t be right. Right?

I decided to actually check the statistics on sexlessness, and found this analysis of survey data which finds 8.2% prevalence of sexlessness in the past 5 years in an adult sample. In people aged under 45 it’s about 3.5%….

Quick note: it’s not 8.2%, it’s 13.6% – they say it plainly in the text and you can calculate it from the top line of Table 1. I didn’t find where you got that 8.2% number. (For males only I don’t see if or where they give it but it’s 8.7%). I didn’t see that 3.5% number either but for people 25-34 it was 3.4% and for people 35-44 it was 4.2%. (I calculated these numbers myself from table 1, which means they could be in error).

Of course as they say it’s based on self-report data, which doesn’t mean it’s not roughly accurate.

Like I said, being an incel is extremely rare and not likely to be representative of a broad social problem.

From the cited study: Sexual inactivity is there by not necessarily a short-term interruption of sex, but often represents a long-lasting lifestyle in a non-negligible percentage of American adults.

Well, I would like to avoid using the term “incel” altogether, as it seems only to conflate “not having sex” with “affiliation with a fringe/crackpot group of young males defined more by ideology than romantic status.” (I think Sebastian made this point already). Also I think “non-negligible” is a much better term than “extremely rare” to describe the percentages we’re looking at, whatever subset of the population is under discussion.

We should not compare incels to insolvs, because economic inequality is widespread and poverty common.

Does that mean the romantic inequality and romantic “poverty” (however defined) are uncommon? I guess in any case they’re not really “problems” in the same sense, but to some extent I think society does have an obligation, if not to promote certain types of relationships, at least to avoid promoting policies that increase things like family dysfunction. Of course like maybe some of the other commenters the only concrete thing I can think of is to reduce economic inequality and poverty, assuming that this will in turn improve things on the “relationship” front as well.

Nobody owes anybody else love, sex or friendship.

No, and nobody owes anyone else fulfillment through their work, happiness or a long life. Society as a whole does owe everyone the material conditions (things like free education, free health care including mental health care, economic security,the material bases for dignified social participation, eg not being forced to live in one’s parents’ home an adult, freedom from bullying, undeserved stigma and other psychologically toxic social pressures) that enable them an decent prospect of flourishing in those ways, and where it fails to provide them, compensation for the failures that predictably result. America clearly fails huge numbers of people in this regard and I’ve seen no serious argument on this thread that the ‘incels’ aren’t among them, their bigotry and misdiagnoses of the sources of their misery notwithstanding.

FN@428:
I decided to actually check the statistics on sexlessness, and found this analysis of survey data which finds 8.2% prevalence of sexlessness in the past 5 years in an adult sample. In people aged under 45 it’s about 3.5%, and past year sexlessness <8%.
[…]
Like I said, being an incel is extremely rare and not likely to be representative of a broad social problem.

Indeed, such a minute percentage of the population deserves no consideration and can be dismissed as beneath our notice by simple reference to rarity. So let’s see, since the percentage of the population that is sexless is 2-3x more prevalent than the percentage of the population that identifies as LGBT – or 10-15x more prevalent than trans alone – we’ll be ignoring their concerns now too? And the ~1% that is Muslim and ~2% that is Jewish – insignificant populations whose cannot have their particular problems noted, especially since any social problems they have will only affect some even smaller number of their number, as anyone with a rudimentary grasp of probability theory can see. Et cetera ad naseuam.

Which is to say, we rightly pay attention to the concerns of groups significantly less common than the numbers you dismiss as vanishingly small. You’ll have to do more than simply point to numbers to justify your callousness – not that even smaller numbers would justify it to anyone but a bully looking to have their target declared an acceptable one.

J-D would you say the same dismissive thing if I first said “transgender people are rare” and then after push back against my position checked the statistics and found transgender people are rare? No, you wouldn’t. Don’t play such silly games. We all know the truth of these matters, and it’s only when the truth is in dispute and we need to confirm it that we sadly have to dig up statistics.

Also I really don’t understand why people think that me showing incels are rare is the same as saying we shouldn’t care about their issues. I’m showing this simply to defend my point that they’re rare. I separately don’t think their issues are relevant to redistributive justice, and I would think that even if they were common.

What I am saying is that their relative scarcity – apparently much less than 5.5% of the adult male population – should be taken as possible evidence that they are doing something wrong, because they are in a rare group of people who seem to be unable to successfully achieve a basic part of modern adult social life. We might say the same thing about that small proportion of people who have never had a friend, or literate people who have never read a novel (I met one of these once!) or Japanese adults who have never heard an akb song.

So let’s consider an alternative situation where incels are common for identifiable reasons – eg the Bob McManus fever dream of a billion fewer girls. Should we force other women to fuck them? No we shouldn’t. Argument over.

I… really don’t get why there’s difficulty here.

People who are poor, socially marginalised and treated unfairly by society face genuine problems that should be addressed.

People who are poor, socially &c and think their problems are best fixed by killing all the jews… are all the above and also people whose policy conclusions should be… rejected.

@438
Very, VERY much agreed:

”Society as a whole does owe everyone the material conditions (things like free education, free health care including mental health care, economic security,the material bases for dignified social participation, eg not being forced to live in one’s parents’ home an adult, freedom from bullying, undeserved stigma and other psychologically toxic social pressures)

But:
”Nobody owes anybody else love, sex or friendship”.

And that America clearly fails huge numbers of people in both regards makes no serious argument on this thread that I should ”do” Trump.

and@all

Y’all shall not trying to troll leftists for how they should be in favor of doing Trump -(or comparable ”incels”)

As –
”People are messed up, man.)”

a lot of people who die in car accidents die because they were drunk pedestrians

That wasn’t the question: is the fact only a few people die in road accidents evidence those that did did something wrong?

Nastywoman, for the avoidance I don’t think you should ‘do’ Trump.

It seems to me that what is at issue, or should be at issue in this subthread about whether the left somehow fails the sexually miserable, is whether sexual misery is a societal problem that can be solved or alleviated by public policy. As JH states @132: “Widespread sexual misery is a serious problem and public policy could, to some degree, address it.”

AND whether the left fails to support these public policy measures. Because what else could be meant by the charge that leftists are failing the incels? One can argue that the right is failing the poor because they oppose redistributive policies that would alleviate poverty, and because they actively promote policies that hurt the poor and are even designed to hurt the poor. So what are the analogous policies that could help the sexual poor but that we on the left are opposing? As far as I can see, nobody has answered that question, even after JH @132 explicitly invited commenters to propose plausible public policy solutions.

Isn’t that weird.

Gack, I wouldn’t say that 8% is so rare that we shouldn’t spend any time thinking about it. I would have actually guessed that the percentage was much lower.

Also, your numbers make no sense. Sexlessness among men 24-45 in the last 5 years can’t be 3.5% AND 24-45 year old virgins (no sex their entire lives) be about 5.5%. Virgins should represent the absolute floor of ‘no sex in the last 5 years’. I understand that they are separate studies, but that should lead to some concern. (Is it possibly no sex within the last 5 years EXCLUDING virgins?).

“but it also finds this significantly associated with religious observance and not consuming alcohol – i.e. these dudes are volcels. ”

Ugh, this is not well supported at all. Being religiously observant might mean that you want to put off sex until marriage AND be totally unable to find someone willing to marry you. Furthermore you may be confusing cause and effect. What if some of these ‘unlovable’ are drawn to religion BECAUSE they can’t find loving human contact elsewhere?

But in any case we think that the social problems of trans people are worth dealing with, and they represent approximately 0.1% of the population. The idea that 5-8% of the population is rare enough not to bother with is completely out of step with modern progressive thought.

And look at your perspective from the flip side. We are talking about what? 2 or 3 acts of incel violence out of a base which includes 5-8% of the population. Why don’t you therefore say THAT “is extremely rare and not likely to be representative of a broad social problem”?

In summary, 5-8% of the population is plenty, and you don’t seem to take your idea about what counts as an important rate seriously anyway.

engels 450: Traffic accidents is a problem that we try to avoid or reduce by public policy, including car and road safety measures, alcohol restrictions, etc. The traffic fatality rate has declined as a result although it isn’t likely to reach zero any time soon, in part because even the most well-meaning public policy can’t prevent some individuals from engaging in dangerous or stupid behavior. I think that is the point faustusnotes was making. Fn certainly hasn’t suggested that anybody “deserves to be killed” for being drunk, as you maliciously imply. Rather he suggests that it’s difficult to prevent some people from engaging in behavior that might cause them harm.

Now engels since you are the one who broight up the comparison with traffic accidents: If sexual misery is an issue that, like traffic accidents, requires a public policy response, what would that response be? What do you suggest should society do about it? I’m sure you have some ideas, why don’t you share them?

Sebastian the studies are from different time periods. The 5.5% comes from 10 years earlier I think, could have changed a lot.

We deal with the social problems trans people experience because they’re clearly social problems arising from social actions – discrimination, violence etc. Trans people can’t find work for example. Can incels not find work because of their blue balls? Are they at risk of anti virgin violence? No. This analogy is frankly ridiculous.

I made the point far above that most of Hanson’s proposed policy responses to this supposed problem (by which he is trying to gotcha the left) are not sexually redistributive. Things like a sex worker stipend or training in getting laid are financially redistributive. Only one (sexual slavery) was sexually redistributive. This points to a general assumption underlying this discussion- that incels are incels because they’re too poor to be part of the dating game. I don’t see any evidence of that but if we suppose it for the sake of argument then it should be obvious that the left doesn’t have to do anything special about incels because our general social justice policies will fix the problem. if the problem is partly discrimination – against non white people or people with disabilities for example – then our social justice policies and efforts to increase diversity in representation will help to solve those problems too. Which again brings us back to some hardcore of the unlaid who are unlaid despite having no apparent social or economic reason. Are we yet ready to conclude that these people may simply be doing something wrong? Because it seems that the only political solution to their problems is sexual slavery, which we have I hope agreed is off the table. At some point you have to accept some people are doing it wrong.

For example today’s guardian has a letter from a woman whose new boyfriend took his condom off secretly during sex. Apparently this is A Thing. She probably won’t see that guy again and he is probably wondering why he can never keep a girl past the third date. The reason is obvious though: dude’s a fuckhead. He has no respect for female agency. No doubt this manifests in other ways during his dating life. The behaviour of some Bernie Bros and pro Putin leftists notwithstanding, the left is not a sheltered workshop for fuckheads. We don’t owe this proto rapist any help. If he can’t get intimacy because he keeps disrespecting every woman he fucks then he belongs in that last 1%.

TM says noone here has made any policy recommendations but he/she is wrong – I have. Far above I recommended greater inclusion of people with disabilities. I criticized an American dating culture that makes it hard for poor men and recommended a root and branch extermination of America’s hypocritical religious extremism. I don’t think I was alone in calling for the legalisation and destigmatisation of sex work. These are all mainstream parts of non American leftism. There really is nothing to see here. The left has solutions to the problems of the unlaid, and there is no reason for us to fuss about it.

What the America left doesn’t have a solution for is radical incel terrorism. And whatever that solution might be, sympathy is not going to be part of it, and neither is pity sex.

Lobsterman

Is it difficult to grasp the difference between

In all of the cases where people want sexual partners but don’t have them, it is because they are doing something wrong; there are approaches people can take which ensure that they will find sexual partners if they want them

and

In some of the cases where people want sexual partners don’t have them, it is because they are doing something wrong; there are approaches people can take which will improve the chances that they will find sexual partners if they want them

The difference seems clear to me; I am confident the first is false and equally confident the second is true.

It seems to me that when you are challenged for asserting the first, you respond by suggesting that you are only asserting the second, but then add something which suggest that actually you are asserting the first; and the same seems to be true of Faustusnotes.

Also, it is unhelpful and vexatious to suggest (as both you and Faustusnotes appear to do) that you could offer useful advice and then not actually offer any of it.

Robin Hanson never replied to Holbo at 91, right? Did Hanson reply elsewhere? (I scanned the comments at Hanson’s blog and didn’t see anything but I admit that I couldn’t stomach a careful read of all of the comments since his April 26 post.)

The traffic fatality rate has declined as a result although it isn’t likely to reach zero any time soon, in part because even the most well-meaning public policy can’t prevent some individuals from engaging in dangerous or stupid behaviour.

I’m not denying individual behaviour needs to change; I’m denying the inference that the individuals in question are necessarily the unlaid. As a leftist this is a principle I apply to disadvantage generally (eg unemployment, poverty, sickness. loneliness, unhappiness, etc). Srinivasan’s essay provides for an argument for one approach, that the majority have a ‘duty to transfigure our desires’ to be more accommodating towards the marginalised. I’d personally put the emphasis more on material factors that underpin a more-a-less explicit societal culture of extreme individualism, competitiveness, punitiveness and social darwinism (which is clearly visible in many of the comments here).

today’s guardian has a letter from a woman whose new boyfriend took his condom off secretly during sex. Apparently this is A Thing. She probably won’t see that guy again and he is probably wondering why he can never keep a girl past the third date. The reason is obvious though: dude’s a fuckhead

Whatever he probably is, he’s definitely not an ‘incel’.

– and perhaps that’s why this whole (Klassenkampf)discussion is so… so silly?
-(if it is true that generally ”the poor have more ”sex” than the rich?)

…A comparative sociological study of East and West Germans conducted after reunification in 1990 found that Eastern women had twice as many orgasms as Western women…
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/12/opinion/why-women-had-better-sex-under-socialism.html

engels the dissent article you linked to seems to be taking at face value the opinions on sexual successfulness of a known, much-discredited PUA dude

Alternative opinion: its author might have thought about more this stuff than you have
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=katie+jm+baker

BUT@468
– as some scientist – at least in the case of the Germans – have found out that:

”Entscheidend für das Sexualverhalten der Deutschen sei nicht ihre Herkunft aus Ost oder West, sondern ihr Bildungsniveau”. (”It’s the level of education… stupid”!)

And so Germans who are NOT as ”highly educated” – as perhaps the scientists – who came out with all these… surveys seem to have a lot more (fun) sex?

And could that be the major problem with these ”US incels” they are far too… too ”literate”?

@ engels 05.10.18 at 9:12 am
> I’d personally put the emphasis more on material factors that underpin a more-a-less societal culture of extreme individualism, competitiveness, punitiveness and social darwinism

I agree that this culture is a problem, but changing material factors does not preclude trying to affect the culture itself directly; in fact, the two naturally go hand in hand, since, after all, propaganda for a change in the material factors may also be described as changing the culture. I do, however, agree that, as your links show, a sufficiently generous and progressively organised welfare state does have the merit of liberating and empowering women in a way far more substantial than purely cultural campaigns can. And who knows, perhaps it will also lead to more sex in general, too, thereby ‘lifting all boats’, which Faustusnotes advocates for (05.10.18 at 4:58 am)? I’m still inclined to think that a big part of the phenomenon are simply mental issues like low self-esteem, general poor socialisation, social anxiety, fear of rejection, fear of poor ‘performance’, etc.; all of these can be rather paralysing and debilitating, and how much the culture needs to change and the ‘tide’ needs to ‘rise’ to compensate for such things in more extreme cases, I really don’t know. As for the ‘duty to transfigure our desires’ thing, I haven’t read the article, but it sounds like a hopeless endeavour.

BTW, judging from your comment here (05.03.18 at 6:46 pm, 327), when juxtaposed with the general thrust of your other comments, it seems to me that you might be misunderstanding what this (05.03.18 at 1:43 pm, 319) and, for that matter, this (05.08.18 at 2:56 pm, 432) is actually about.

Anyway, I suppose I’ll bow out at this point. May you all abide in peace and prosperity.

Here’s where we differ foundling. Unlike you and Collin street I don’t think people are always arseholes because they have a mental problem or because society made them that way. I think people can be arseholes because they are arseholes. There is no cure for being an arsehole. There will be arseholes after the revolution. As we saw in game of thrones, getting laid won’t draw out the poison. Arseholes gonna arsehole.

A corollary of this deep theory of arseholes is that there are also people who are not arseholes but just aren’t good at adulting. These people – we’ve all met them – aren’t bad adults because they have mental illness or because of capitalism. They’re just not very good at it. If they’re lucky someone will convince them of their mistakes and help them fix them but this often doesn’t happen and it’s particularly unlikely to happen to entitled young white men. Some of these bad adults will also be bad at getting laid, which is part of adulting. These people will also exist after the revolution.

For very different reasons O suspect that the ranks of the unlaid have a heavy over representation of arseholes and people who can’t adult. And there may not be much society can do about that.

engels 455: The left is to blame for sexual misery because it “opposes” secure housing?

I agree that this culture is a problem, but changing material factors does not preclude trying to affect the culture itself directly

That’s kind of why I wrote ‘I’d personally put the emphasis more on material factors’ rather than ‘I believe material factors should be addressed to the absolute exclusion of everything else’. I’m certainly not making FaustusNotes’ ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ argument (whatever that means in this context) but I am generally opposed to the medicalisation of social problems. Your penultimate para is too cryptic for me I’m afraid. I invite you again to read Amia Srinivasan’s elegant and carefully argued essay before dismissing her conclusions as ‘hopeless’.

engels 455: The left is to blame for sexual misery because it “opposes” secure housing?

I wouldn’t put it quite like that but the mainstream ‘left’ in US and elsewhere is to blame imo for selling out its principles to neoliberalism, and for the animosity it has attracted from ordinary people and the material, psychological and political problems that have proliferated as a result.

@480
‘I’d personally put the emphasis more on material factors’

Me TOO – and as I always knew that ”the Poor” have more -(and better?) sex I would now finally suggest get rid of all y’alls ”material” belongings and if y’all having nothing left anymore sex will come quite… may I say ”natural”?

Collin Street 05.11.18 at 11:15 am:

There is no cure for being an arsehole.

Eh.

This is precisely the reason I insist on framing it medically.

Don’t give up hope.

I know that I have been cured many times. I’m probably due for another.

Oh, I hate to concede anything, but of course there is irony goin on here, and mostly I want to get “mind-control” and liberal attempts to change people (change Incels) according to unexamined preferences and values examined. Radically accepting difference means what exactly, and has what policy implications. Neoliberal anarchy?

Or maybe individual freedom isn’t the highest priority?

I am still working on the harms done in Huxley’s imagining, especially by the accounts of those who matter. Everybody’s happy, right? What’s the problem?

Honestly, looking over some of the last few responses, it looks like a positive approach that would help would be destigmatizing mental health issues, as well as subsidizing their treatment. Suggesting that someone who was improperly socialized by their culture’s norms might benefit from seeing a counselor for guidance and/or support is not the same as saying they have a mental illness. They may have a clinical social anxiety disorder, they may have subclinical symptoms of one, they may just have cognitive distortions, thinking errors, or just plain poor socialization – and any of these could benefit from time with an agenda-free support group (because online incel communities are to a large degree toxic support groups) or therapist, without suffering social stigma or financial hardship for doing so.

Or yes, they may be terrible people who are happily wallowing in their misery. But writing off 5-8% of the populations (less the few rare good ones who are blameless – “some of my best friends are incels!”) as all being irredeemable acceptable targets for scorn and abuse is noxious. Which points to a major flaw in the claim that this chunk-o-population isn’t comparable to trans people (or if we’re looking for a closer numerical parallel, LGBT overall, though that still likely falls short) because those righteous people face systematic structural problems (ubiquitous unstated addendum: for being something they didn’t chose to be) that these unworthy ones don’t. We don’t just try to fix active discrimination against trans (LGBT) people, though. Far from it. We advocate for compassion, acceptance, and push back vigorously at hatred of them as a group. In short, we insist on treating them as individuals rather than letting their gender identity (sexuality) reduce them en masse to acceptable targets. And yet, well, the involuntary celibate are to be breezily reduced to whiny man-child arseholes, one and all? Hmm.

The left is as much a breeding ground for sheltered fuckheads as any other large group of people, and it has plenty of arseholes riddled all through it. We shouldn’t celebrate and enable that tendency, though, no matter how satisfying it might feel to punch down at easy targets among the ideological opposition. Again, they’re not necessarily the opposition until they get driven by scorn, embarrassment, and isolation into the open arms of the waiting, consoling, all-too-sympathetic incels.

(Except I do think sexual/emotional exclusion is a legitimate grievance)

Anyway, I think if the analogy with trans rights is pursued it leads to somewhat different policy prescriptions to OW’s. Leftists don’t offer trans people therapy to help them adjust to society as it is, but attempt to change society to address transphobia. The parallel course with respect to OW’s hypothetical socially timid male incel might include attempting to destigmatise male passivity or female sexual assertiveness. At least that’s the direction I’d want to go in given my general objection to therapy as a response to such problems: it doesn’t blame the victim but it does place the burden of adjustment on her.

or do I have to repeat TM?

…”These battles for sexual freedom and self-determination have been fought and many have been won *by liberals* and as a result society is better and freer and sexual mores are less repressed and more healthy.

The complaint of the vocal incels on the other hand seems to have nothing at all to do with sexual freedom. They are white men complaining that women aren’t compliant enough. And it’s really a mystery to me why this kind of complaint is taken seriously by men who claim to be on the left.”

@
”by men who claim to be on the left.”

Which reminds me:
Men seem to be very… very confused lately?

They should… dance more? – as there is this ”great dance video” called:

”This is America”!

These battles for sexual freedom and self-determination have been fought and many have been won *by liberals* and as a result society is better and freer and sexual mores are less repressed and more healthy

God bless Larry Flynt, PornHub and the Weinstein Company

Shorter engels: The left is to blame for every grievance vocied by white males because of its (the left’s) insistence on women’s and minority rights, which cannot but “attract” the “animosity” of “ordinary people men”.

Oops, that wasn’t really shorter, but more honest. Don’t you think?

John, you may like this: https://bloggingheads.tv/videos/52779?in=50:39

Black intellectuals call Trump the first rapper president, explicit comparisons with Bullworth.

@
”God bless Larry Flynt, PornHub and the Weinstein Company”

But, but, but – ”A Fish Called Wanda” wasn’t produced by the Weinstein’s – and that’s supposedly THE film – which released them ”libido” in all the (very nice) incels of the last generation?

And that’s why speaking with some foreign tongue during ”intercourse” still seems to work so well in teh homeland?

engels@492:
I strongly agree that there’s structural work that would help A LOT, and I further agree with the specific areas you identify. Western gender roles are a wonderful breeding ground for resentment, isolation, depression, and confusion for people who don’t neatly conform to them or who fall afoul the hierarchies they create.

Still, no matter how society might change, there will be people who have more or less trouble fitting into the structure it creates… and better they get assistance in doing so from someone trained and theoretically disinterested than by toxic, manitulative peer groups with a sociopolitical agenda. More cynically, destigmatizing mental health issues seems easier and more likely to occur than altering society-wide gender dynamics, no matter how personally thrilled I’d be if we could smash our current gender norms into dust. Taming the beast is certainly not the most enticing course of action, but in the short run it’s likely to be more effective than getting rid of the beast. Alas. But that’s not to say we shouldn’t strive for both, nor that we can’t. Particularly since there is political will to destigmatize mental health issues in quarters that would declare a holy war against the least change in gender norms…

nastywoman@493:
There is, alas, a rather marked difference between the ideological left and the tribal left. And even on the ideological left, there are a lot of people itching for an excuse to become contemptuous asses who gleefully do so as soon as they find someone who’s been deemed an acceptable target by their peers.

You could make at least a minimal effort to conceal your misogyny.

People don’t realise that their bigotries are bigotries. And you’ll only conceal the things you recognise as problematic.

The hard part isn’t getting bigots to say bigoted things, it’s getting them to recognise them as bigoted. And honestly… doing it directly is a waste of effort, you’re better served gagging them and letting them work out the whys in their own time.

Making an error precludes understanding that error directly. If more people understood that, we’d have a lot less dogmatism, but…