Jump to content

InCel rebellion, Toronto


jacee

Recommended Posts

Sexism and terrorism.

Misogynist adolescent angst with the will to kill. 

Elliot Rodger and Alex Minassian are now the heroes of the women-hating alt-right.

The stunted emotional development of the alt-right breeds, supports and encourages terrorism against women.

Just some thoughts about Alek Minassian's violent and lethal attack in Toronto and the InCel rebellion, that have not been addressed in any discussions here yet. 

The silence is deafening. 

http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/accused-toronto-attack-suspect-admired-mass-murderer-blamed-women-for-lack-of-sex-life

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jacee said:

Sexism and terrorism.

Misogynist adolescent angst with the will to kill. 

Elliot Rodger and Alex Minassian are now the heroes of the women-hating alt-right.

The stunted emotional development of the alt-right breeds, supports and encourages terrorism against women.

Drivel. There is no such thing as misogyny. He didn't hate women. He hated not having a woman. He hated that other men had them and he didn't. He was jealous. He was emotionally stunted and developmentally challenged, with a persistent tic, who had special ed teachers in school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, H10 said:

opps he is white....

With respect to that...

 

He is Armenian. Does that count as white? What about Turk, Iranian or Northern Indian. Because sometimes I see these ethnicities referred to as white and other times I see them referred to as "people of colour".

Same with Elliot Rodger. He is half asian, but is referred to as white by the media. Yet often I see the media refer to half asian people as "people of colour". Barrack Obama is also half white, but is never referred to as white. It is all very confusing.

 

In any case, this terrorist attack doesn't seem to have much to do with race. Rather, it is related to the incel ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Argus said:

Drivel. There is no such thing as misogyny. He didn't hate women. He hated not having a woman. He hated that other men had them and he didn't. He was jealous. He was emotionally stunted and developmentally challenged, with a persistent tic, who had special ed teachers in school. 

There is no such thing as misogyny? Come on. Surely there are some misogynistic Muslim goat herders out there somewhere. You don't want to let them off the hook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

There is no such thing as misogyny? Come on. Surely there are some misogynistic Muslim goat herders out there somewhere. You don't want to let them off the hook.

I won't dispute that devout Muslims consider women inferior, both morally and intellectually. That doesn't mean they don't like them. 
Barring psychological disorder I don't think any man actually dislikes women, as such. Saying that does not imply some men don't treat women badly, or aren't prejudiced against them in hiring or promotion. I think that derives from motivations other than 'hate'. Reducing motivation to 'hate' is simplistic and incorrect and makes it harder to actually get at the reasons and address them.

I understand the attraction of that for you, though, for the far Left hates so well, so widely and so desperately. Basically, anyone who disputes or challenges a Left wing belief on any issue is to be hated and despised. It's the nature of the far Left. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Can you judt once make an argument without resorting to kindergarten-level political generalizations? Or you can't because you are on the very far right, and that's how you roll?

I manage to respond politely to most people I interact with online. Those who habitually get snotty and insulting don't get a lot of polite answers.


Btw, calling everyone to the Left of Castro "the far right' is about THE definition of kindergarten level political generalization.

 

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being sarcastic because I'm designated "far left" for pointing out when you're wrong, which you then use as the basis of your whole argument.

I can't believe in a week when  a guy deliberately targets women to run over with his car, anyone would try to argue there's no such thing as misogyny. But what do you expect from someone who argues the Hells Angels are civilized white collar criminals just because they're caucasian?

Edited by BubberMiley
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

With respect to that...

He is Armenian. Does that count as white? What about Turk, Iranian or Northern Indian. Because sometimes I see these ethnicities referred to as white and other times I see them referred to as "people of colour".

Same with Elliot Rodger. He is half asian, but is referred to as white by the media. Yet often I see the media refer to half asian people as "people of colour". Barrack Obama is also half white, but is never referred to as white. It is all very confusing.

In any case, this terrorist attack doesn't seem to have much to do with race. Rather, it is related to the incel ideology.

Well most of the Armenians call themselves white, they are technically west asians and not Europeans but most people cannot tell they are non-whites and many of them are mixed with white anyways.  Turks, Iranians, Indians etc. rarely are white passing.  Most are some kind of brown.

 

Rodgers looked more to the white side, and was basically white passing and tried to identify as white.  Obama was not white passing and American society is marked by a strict racial hierarchy and racial class system which aims at keeping African Americans on the bottom.  So they typically class any non-white passing person as not white.

iT IS ABOUT RACE, HE CANNOT BE  a terrorist because he is white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I was being sarcastic because I'm designated "far left" for pointing out when you're wrong, which you then use as the basis of your whole argument.

I designate you far left because you've been on this site long enough and expressed your opinions often enough for me to make that judgement. I place you somewhere on the left wing of the NDP

20 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

I can't believe in a week when  a guy deliberately targets women to run over with his car, anyone would try to argue there's no such thing as misogyny.

I don't recall seeing where this guy veered away from men to hit women. Every report concludes he hit whoever was on the street in front of him and didn't manage to jump out of the way on time.

20 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

But what do you expect from someone who argues the Hells Angels are civilized white collar criminals just because they're caucasian?

Never said, inferred or implied that. In fact, I've called for them to be rounded up and shot. But dishonesty is a fairly inseparable part of the far left ideological culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I designate you far left because you've been on this site long enough and expressed your opinions often enough for me to make that judgement. I place you somewhere on the left wing of the NDP

You have me confused with someone else. I've never said anything that could be interpreted as far left or even particularly left wing. I'd like you to take the time to try and find one and cite it because it would waste your time and you would be unsuccessful.

But given the fact that he started out his rampage with a declaration of solidarity with the incel movement and killed way more women than he did men, it doesn't take a huge leap in logic to determine he was a misogynist. Why anyone would try to argue he wasn't is beyond me.

Regarding the off-topic hells angels, weren't you the guy arguing they aren't a street gang (which are exclusively the domain of brown people) and that they would make great neighbours? Yeah. You were.  I guess dishonesty is not exclusive to the Far Left. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

But given the fact that he started out his rampage with a declaration of solidarity with the incel movement and killed way more women than he did men, it doesn't take a huge leap in logic to determine he was a misogynist. Why anyone would try to argue he wasn't is beyond me.

There is no 'incel movement'. There are a bunch of angry guys who can't get women. And again, the fact they want to have women pretty much shows they don't hate women. As for how many women vs men were killed, that could be a product of who happened to be walking on that street, or who was better at leaping out of the way, or both. 

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Regarding the off-topic hells angels, weren't you the guy arguing they aren't a street gang (which are exclusively the domain of brown people) and that they would make great neighbours? Yeah. You were.  I guess dishonesty is not exclusive to the Far Left. :lol:

They aren't a street gang. They're a motorcycle gang. It has been long noted that living on the same street as their clubhouse is quite safe. I didn't imagine it or make it up and you haven't demanded evidence so I guess you know that too. You just don't like my saying it. And you know I called for them to be rounded up. You just prefer to ignore it, because you despise anyone who isn't out there on the fringes of the left with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Argus said:

There is no 'incel movement'. There are a bunch of angry guys who can't get women. And again, the fact they want to have women pretty much shows they don't hate women. As for how many women vs men were killed, that could be a product of who happened to be walking on that street, or who was better at leaping out of the way, or both. 

They aren't a street gang. They're a motorcycle gang. It has been long noted that living on the same street as their clubhouse is quite safe. I didn't imagine it or make it up and you haven't demanded evidence so I guess you know that too. You just don't like my saying it. And you know I called for them to be rounded up. You just prefer to ignore it, because you despise anyone who isn't out there on the fringes of the left with you.

Like I said, I'm not sure why it is important to you to deny the obvious. Is it because he's white that you can't accept he's a misogynist? Just like you can't accept the Hells Angels and their associates are street gangs (despite all the evidence I provided in the appropriate thread) because they're white?

And can you make an argument without blathering on about how the far left despises everybody and you, by your far right status, therefore must love everybody? Also, are you able to provide one example of a position I took that you would consider to be "far left," or do you just like to make assertions based on absolutely nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2018 at 5:30 PM, BubberMiley said:

Like I said, I'm not sure why it is important to you to deny the obvious.

The obvious is that the Hells Angels aren't a street gang. The only people who refer to them or try to refer to them as a street gang are social justice warriors defending against the truism that street gangs are pretty much universally non-white.

Quote

And can you make an argument without blathering on about how the far left despises everybody and you, by your far right status, therefore must love everybody? Also, are you able to provide one example of a position I took that you would consider to be "far left," or do you just like to make assertions based on absolutely nothing?

This one will do. Only a SJW would take the ridiculous and angry position you have on a minor point and rave on for post after post about how evil anyone is who dares to believe street gangs aren't white too, even bringing it into other topics which have nothing to do with street gangs.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Argus said:

The obvious is that the Hells Angels aren't a street gang. The only people who refer to them or try to refer to them as a street gang are social justice warriors defending against the truism that street gangs are pretty much universally non-white.

This one will do. Only a SJW would take the ridiculous and angry position you have on a minor point and rave on for post after post about how evil anyone is who dares to believe street gangs aren't white too, even bringing it into other topics which have nothing to do with street gangs. 

How is the zigzag crew not a street gang?

http://www.rapdict.org/Zig_Zag_Crew

And how is rounding them up and shooting them not Far Right? 

(Sorry if this post is too raving and angry for you.)

Edited by BubberMiley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2018 at 12:33 AM, BubberMiley said:

How is the zigzag crew not a street gang?

http://www.rapdict.org/Zig_Zag_Crew

And how is rounding them up and shooting them not Far Right? 

(Sorry if this post is too raving and angry for you.)

I'm not going to get into what activities a biker gang in Manitoba engages in as I know nothing about them. Street gangs out here are a loose collection of thugs which engage in the sale of drugs and prostitution. And yes, I'm aware bikers do it too - from a higher level. You won't see a couple of bikers on a corner selling drugs. You also rarely see them shooting it out with other bikers because they run across them in the mall or in a movie theater. Their members aren't as undisciplined as street gang members, and so are less prone to common street violence against 'civilians'. Bikers are more like the mafia, so their crimes are generally unseen by the general public and cause less mayhem. Bikers beat you if you want to join up. Street gangs will beat you if you refuse to join up.

All of which is an irrelevant side-issue you have apparently fixated upon because you thought I was being too kind to bikers. Except now when I say they should be killed you're calling me 'far right'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 8:19 AM, jacee said:

Sexism and terrorism.

Misogynist adolescent angst with the will to kill. 

Elliot Rodger and Alex Minassian are now the heroes of the women-hating alt-right.

The stunted emotional development of the alt-right breeds, supports and encourages terrorism against women.

Just some thoughts about Alek Minassian's violent and lethal attack in Toronto and the InCel rebellion, that have not been addressed in any discussions here yet. 

The silence is deafening. 

http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/accused-toronto-attack-suspect-admired-mass-murderer-blamed-women-for-lack-of-sex-life

 

 

 

You bring up an excellent issue that appears to be growing in society. Young males who lack direction, control and who are sexually frustrate.

In my opinion a few young males focus on traits that would attract women derived from fictional entertainment.  They try imitate the characters in the fictional entertainment, ie shows or movies or porn, with hopes if not expectations that the results are similar to what happens in the shows or movies (ie guy get the girl). Unfortunately, this expectation is not realistic just like the entertainment. When young men are rejected by society for such strange behaviors or inappropriate advances they become frustrated. This frustration along with sexual frustration leads to anger at the social mating game to which they thought they figured out, but really completely misunderstand. They do not understand why they fail, they only know of the constant pain of rejection and loneliness.

Fortunately, most of these young men do seek information possibly online, reading books (men are from mars women are from Venus for example) a dating coach or personal life coach and in some extreme cases a psychologist. For the few who do not seek assistance, after a few years of cycle rejection and anger, it can turn into horrible and inexcusable actions as such acted out by Elliot Rodger.

 

I think part of the issue is young society presumes that men are born with the innate ability and knowledge on how to court or properly date a women. Men also tend to not converse about how to court, date or have a relationship with other men until later on in life. Possibly men find even the act of asking for dating or relationship advice to be weak or in society none masculine, since men are supposedly born with this knowledge.

In my opinion if more time was spent in high school learning the behavior, courtship and dating of an individual through courses or books, then we would have less sexually frustrated young men. If there where high school studies on how each sex feels accepted, loved or emotionally connected and what motivates them in a relationship it might help. If young men purely focus on how to attract women, dress and act accordingly, it could lead to self harm and in the worst case scenario possibly lead to sadistic actions against society. However, if these sexually frustrated young men were directed from a young age to focus purely on personal development for their optimum selves, they might become highly successful and thus highly sexually desired.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 7:07 PM, Argus said:

Drivel. There is no such thing as misogyny. He didn't hate women. He hated not having a woman. He hated that other men had them and he didn't. He was jealous. He was emotionally stunted and developmentally challenged, with a persistent tic, who had special ed teachers in school. 

One could speculate what came first: 

He hates women because they've rejected them.

Or 

Women rejected him because his seething hatred was apparent. 

Either way, Incels see women as inferior, to be dominated, and they despise the power that women have to reject them. 

We (women) have all met them, men who want to think a simple conversation or smile is an invitation to sex, who quickly blow their chances with presumption and innuendo, and then they explode into nasty insults ("bitch" is the goto) when you reject their bumbling advances.

Their 'advances' are too much too soon, too disrespectful, too domineering, etc. You always hope that you never see the explosive ones again, that they don't know where you live or work and don't stalk you ... because they are the ones who might. 

They don't want a real woman. They can't sustain a real relationship. They just want a sex object they can dominate. There's a difference. 

Yes, there is such a thing as misogyny. 

 

Edited by jacee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interested to see the response to that post.  JC is also taking down a caricature here, but she fabricated it as a short cut for people she has actually met and had to deal with.

Whether the incels hate, denigrate or objectify woman is to me an argument about words.  The point is that we have people making statements that assume women have a different and effectively lesser status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2018 at 8:22 AM, jacee said:

We (women) have all met them, men who want to think a simple conversation or smile is an invitation to sex, who quickly blow their chances with presumption and innuendo, and then they explode into nasty insults ("bitch" is the goto) when you reject their bumbling advances.

Their 'advances' are too much too soon, too disrespectful, too domineering, etc.

You're not talking about misogynists but men with poor social skills who don't know how to read women, and thus don't have experience in talking to/relating to them. This is exacerbated by our society and culture where many women try to 'let them down easy' by making excuses or giving hints, many of them non-verbal in order to spare both sides embarrassment.

How often does a guy ask a woman to dance or go out and have her say something like "Sorry, but you don't meet my minimum standards." Such a woman would indeed be called a bitch, even though she's just being honest. Hey, men don't even approach women they don't think are physically attractive to begin with! It's silly to think such measurements only go one way. But women aren't allowed to say that (culturally) so they tend to give cues that most men understand - but not all, and not always.

Domineering? Hmm. That's a judgement thing on the part of both sides. Because one of the things women look for in a man is confidence. So there's a line where you demonstrate confidence (a 'bumbling' advance is the opposite of confident) but not arrogance, strength but not too much. To expect every guy to know where that line is, especially when drinking, especially given every woman draws the line in a different places, is unrealistic. And again, when you're dealing with men who don't have very good social skills, well...

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2018 at 10:02 AM, Michael Hardner said:

It will be interested to see the response to that post.  JC is also taking down a caricature here, but she fabricated it as a short cut for people she has actually met and had to deal with.

Whether the incels hate, denigrate or objectify woman is to me an argument about words.  The point is that we have people making statements that assume women have a different and effectively lesser status.

Did he actually say that. My understanding is he quoted a nut in California who raged against both women and the men who were successful with them. I think the real point, again, is these guys who don't relate well to others, who don't understand how to act, how to behave, how to deal with other people, men AND women. Did this guy have any male friends, for example? Not that I've heard. Did he ever have a friend? I mean, if you go through school with a special ed teacher hovering over you in class are you likely to be popular?

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,752
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Dorai
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • paradox34 went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Venandi earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • CrazyCanuck89 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • CDN1 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • DUI_Offender went up a rank
      Proficient
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...