You become an incel by not getting laid.
That plus being an ass in general I’d say. I’m 25, haven’t ever gotten laid and struggle with loneliness all the time, but still don’t think all women are sluts and are obligated to fuck me.
Incel = involuntary celibate
You become one by not being able to find a life partner or even a one night stand. Not something I’d really blame the individual for.
While I think incel’s maybe everywhere is there not some online hookups or at least prostitues that can pacify them?
Possibly yes but that doesn’t help if one is morbidly afraid of approaching women for example.
However my point was that it’s a bit pointless to ask why would someone become something when by definition it’s involuntary. It’s like asking why would anyone be under 6ft tall.
Incel isn’t something that you become.
I mean, involuntary anything isn’t really a choice. It’s right there in the name.
But the original self-professed incel was a woman, complaining that she was “unfuckable”. The term now tends to describe mostly men who feel fury at some social system that prevents them from caging a TradWife into their house, rather than the 00s era college NEET who just feels like their youth is being wasted because they aren’t getting laid.
The cliquishness might be a choice, but the condition certainly isn’t.
Celibacy is a lifestyle choice. Wanting sex and not having it, is not what I would call “involuntarily adopting a lifestyle choice”. Incel is rather, like you said, the feeling of being “unfuckable”. The problem, as I see it, is that the majority of men in this position are voluntarily “unfuckable”. They are actively being unlikeable by doing things like treating women like they they should be required to like them, which in turn, makes them “unfuckable”.
It’s a term that’s taken on some additional baggage/meaning. Originally it simply meant someone who was involuntarily celibate - wants to have sexual relationships, but doesn’t. Now it usually refers to someone adhering to a kind of peculiar set of ideologies around that (see: social value theories taken to some often ridiculous extremes; good ol’ fashioned misogyny/perhaps misanthropy; etc.).
There’s a kneejerk reaction to incels in the latter sense because so much that comes out of that is pretty awful. That and it’s often folks who engage with the latter stuff who are more inclined to identify with the term incel - most others who just fit the former definition just say they’re single.
IMO the latter usage is just more proof that we are failing and continuing to fail men, badly, in terms of community and mental health supports.
People just want an easy scapegoat, and there are many parties willing to sell them one.
Knowledge against racism has existed for millennia. Time is a flat circle.
Naziism and fascism are broadly a response to the same material conditions as communism and anarchism (to an extent).
Liberalism does not put forth a response to those conditions because it created them and has no internal process to relieve them (instead it externalizes them) or stop perpetuating them.
When faced with a choice between communism or fascism people generally don’t perform an in-depth analysis of what’s best for them or their cohort but instead attach to the group that provides some relief or aid.
That’s why it’s important to always help people around you when you can.
How does liberalism create material conditions leading to nazism and fascism?
I think that’s a stretch to paint with such an unconditional broad brush.
Both movements broadly point to the material conditions created, perpetuated and encouraged by liberalism as their impetus. Scholars within both movements have written extensively cataloguing the precise ways different conditions came to pass and how it’s the fault of liberalism.
Generally speaking your communist will say liberalism sprang from the class relation under capitalism and the bourgeoise, while your fascist will say it was “‘da joos”.
E: I tried to click preview but replied instead but it’s fine because I don’t want to summarize two centuries of political thought anyway.
If you have a specific example you want clarification on I’d be happy to give it but if you truly feel befuddled that a person could say that liberalism creates the conditions (perhaps, contradictions 🤔) for communism or fascism I can point you at a bigass pile of books instead.
You keep saying “because liberalism” but you don’t specify why. You repeating yourself and using bigger words isn’t answering the question other than pointing the finger at liberalism.
You may know this, but if not…
Keep in mind they’re likely referring to the philosophy of liberalism, not the United States “liberal=progressive/left leaning”.
The comment seems pretty muddy as far as what aspect of liberalism we’re talking about. The poster is saying that liberalism “created the conditions”, a direct act, vs any aspects of liberalism as a philosophical concept creating socioeconomic rules and conditions that lead to the results specified.
I’m trying to sort out what the poster means. I’d like to know what the gap they’re leaping from liberalism to fascism contains. Is it just generic anti-liberalism sentiment this poster is displaying? Or is there a distinction between liberal philosophy ( an incredibly broad concept to just pin unqualified blame to) and liberalism as a modern concept in social policy and governance in their statement?
As I’ve continued through life, my political and economic ideology has shifted a lot from Marxism and Marx-derived ideologies into a personal interpretation of collectivism that basically is just, “how can we make everything mutual aid?”
