I have noticed form the start that practically all media articles and YouTube videos regarding incels have painted us in a very negative light, making the public seem that we are "terrorists" or "extremists."
I have noticed that they cherry pick the edgy posters here and act like they account for the majority of the forum, when in reality they are only a small handful.
In order to have true freedom of speech here, of course there are going to be retarded things said by users. - just like any other forum at different degrees. Not to mention it is generally the newer users using this site for a laugh making these type of posts.
Producers will also look at terrorist attacks, and find ways of linking the attackers to inceldom or "alt-right" forums and say; oh he must have lashed out BECAUSE of his inceldom or radicalised incel views. When in reality the people causing these terrorist attacks instead of "radicalised ", would have undiagnosed mental health issues which would have probably been the cause, and if they were treated or helped with that then the attack could have easily been prevented. - But instead we have an entire society belittling and making fun of us, spreading hate, and they wonder why some of us eventually lash out.
Incels are just people who can't form a relationship despite trying, there is nothing radical or extreme about that, nor is it an ideology.
The status quo, the just world fallacy, and modern dating market that gives disproportionate power to women
requires an underclass of men to exist, and requires justification of its existence that is palatable to the normie.
Obviously, shitting on a group of mostly harmless (less prone to violence and rape than the general population) high inhib, highly neurodivergent and depressed underclass is generally considered heartless and reprehensible, so they can't outright say that men who don't get pussy are evil. Social engineering, manufactured consent and other tricks are required to make it more digestible to the general population, justify bullying them, and make normies believe that this is a self-inflicted phenomenon. This starts with two things:
1) Justification of the just world fallacy:
1.1) Normies defend the just world fallacy; it reinforces the beliefs that their parents taught them (if you're a good person then you'll be rewarded in life, etc.) To go against this is similar to telling a person indoctrinated into religion from birth that everything they have been taught is a lie. They will vehemently defend it, just as normies defend the just world fallacy.
1.2) Bluepilled normies/buxxers, and women, vehemently defend the system because it gives women social power. If your ability to attract, sleep with, or lock down a woman is seen in a positive light, whilst your inability is seen as a moral or personal failing, that implies women get to choose who is seen as a good person and who is not; because women are, and have been, the gatekeepers of sex and relationships.
Some bluepilled normie men defend the system, even when they are aware of its faults, because they hope to get some crumb of sympathy pussy. This class of men should be seen as some of the most reprehensible and traitorous to incels. Evidently, perpetually being seen as victims, no matter how much power is given to them, also works in women's favor, as it makes bluepilled 'buxxing men believe that women
are genuinely oppressed and that they should be given even more power in social playing fields.
2) Justification of modern dating dynamics, and why normies hate looksmaxxing:
Before we get to how/why normies justify their hatred of incels, we need to be on the same page about women's mate preferences.
The modern female dating strategy requires the existence of an underclass of men. To understand what I mean, you need to understand that female dating patterns are not solely based on the attractiveness of chad, but also the status that he brings to a woman from being seen out in public with him. If a woman is seen out in public with chad, people will think 'wow, he looks handsome, tall and successful; she must have
something going for her in order to be able to attract such a valuable man'. (Side note: you may notice that dating dynamics are actually
reversed in this case. Chad, the man, not the woman, is the gatekeeper of relationships. This is just the tip of the iceberg of lookism and the halo effect).
Note that, a lot of women are not
consciously aware of this dynamic; they are guided by their emotions, hormones and intuitions; the subconscious, not the conscious. (See: Nisbett and Wilson's (1977) Stockings study; claiming that a lot of people
don't consciously know why they like a pair of stockings more than some others, often resorting to justifying their decisions after the fact, even if the things they claim, or have been brought up by people around them as potential justifications as to why they like that pair of stockings more than others, have no bearing on the actual decision-making process that lead to them liking that specific pair of stockings in the first place). This also helps explain why good looking people "coincidentally" have better personalities, but I've gone on enough of a side-tangent. I can write about this if you'd like on a different post.
Now, for this dynamic to exist, and perpetuate, there needs to be some difference in looks and status among men. After all, if all men looked the same, or even just somewhat similar; the status that comes with being seen out in public with chad would be greatly reduced. This is one reason why women claim that they value personality over looks, but their revealed preferences put looks over personality (see: scientific BP on incels.wiki). If they revealed their true colors, that they valued looks over personality, you'd have more men obsessing over looks (see: looksmaxxing), which would close the gap, even if ever so slightly, between chad and the average guy, which would in turn reduce the status that comes with being seen out in public with chad.
This is why women see looksmaxxing, and the BP, as a threat, and resort to calling it a 'stupid obsession' and throwing around generic 'muhh personalityyy!!' copes. It pulls the curtain on the lies women have been telling about dating to men.
It should be noted that there
are women who genuinely think they value personality over looks, but as we have proven, looks
are your personality (see: scientific BP on incels.wiki), or perhaps some of them are trying to gaslight themselves into believing they are not shallow. As for men who defend this: mos tof them are just coping, or have been lied to and have a hard time coming to terms with it, instead lashing out at fellow men.
3) Justification of the existence of an underclass of men:
Now we're getting into the real creme of the argument.
The very existence of incels is a walking contradiction, a counterargument, against the just world fallacy that normies love to defend. You can imagine this as a person, indoctrinated to religion from birth, seeing a physical manifestation of the proof that their religion is a lie, naturally being quite upset upon seeing this. As the scientific BP has established, incels have far higher rates of mental illnesses and disorders, are less prone to rape, less prone to violence, and more likely to be victims of bullying. This HEAVILY upsets the just world fallacy believing normies, as it runs counter to what have been taught.
In order to cope with this fact, they resort to name calling, grouping violent non-incels with incels, among other tricks that usually boil down to shifting the blame on incels, making it seem as though their woes are the result of a deserved consequence of their actions, thereby justifying the just world fallacy. A common trick they use is to group sex-haver voilent misogynists with incels, and claim that they are incels, even though incels are less misogynistic than high body count sexhavers.
Now, why did I bring up the second point, If I haven't tied it into the ultimate argument? But oh brother, you see, we have not yet accounted for the fact that
not every normie believes in the just world fallacy. This part, as you will see, is perhaps the most evil of them all. There is a subgroup of people, who are consciously aware that the just world fallacy is false, but have only to gain from defending the status quo. It should be noted that these people are hard to tell apart from just world fallacy believers, as they often guise their argument as a defense of the just world fallacy in order to make it more palatable to the general population, and to not reveal their true motives. I mostly explained this in the 3rd large paragraph of the 2nd part, but I wanted to elaborate on it a bit more.
Obviously, this post is not comprehensive; there are a lot of small, niche subgroups that defend the status quo who are left unaccounted for, but I believe I've covered the most important bases. To note, a lot of those smaller groups can be explained with some permutation of the arguments and normie fallacies I have laid out in this post. If you guys want a more comprehensive write-up that covers and explains more groups, I can get around to doing that once I have more free time.
