Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for "incel"

[ericbarbour]

The genuine blackpill incel looksmaxxing stuff, not the people making it innocent, is banned from TikTok by policy. They have a policy to ban that type of content. And it is enforced. YouTube, however, does not have such a policy.

I tried searching YT for "blackpill" and "looksmax", and a lot of videos came up. Most are shorts and some are really messed up. YT still needs to ban thousands of things like this.

The average human looks a bit potato-like, and trying to transform into a "gigachad" is completely insane. VERY goddamn few people are born looking like fitness models. Everyone certainly SHOULD exercise and maintain a healthy body weight, but beating your brains out in a gym and shooting 'roids, seeing plastic surgeions, etc. in an attempt to transform into a bodybuilder with razor cheekbones is stupid. Maybe that's a good definition of an "incel"--he doesn't actually do that but thinks it's necessary to get laid?

I still think sex drives some people around-the-bend crazy.

[Archer]

Is it not best to simply avoid using this slang? It all sounds asinine to begin with, so why dignify it with argument? Take my word for it on this one. Or don't, but I don't think anyone could plausibly argue that a bastardized 'word' like "looksmaxxing" improves the quality or expressive power of one's vocabulary. It's all meaningless bullshit.

[journo]

The Wikipedia definition has been recently changed yet again to "movement associated with a subculture" through the addition of the second sentence which says: "The movement is strongly linked to misogyny". At least the claim it is a movement means something, first time a meaningful definition has been placed there in years.

To make their (admittedly still bizarre) definition read better they could make it "Incel is a movement associated with a misogynistic subculture". Because right now it reads conflicting and confusing.

I honestly don't know of many self-identified incels who consider or act as if incel is a movement, but they do exist. So they are a step closer to identifying reality I guess, just ignoring those who do not act as if it is a movement.

Also note that someone recently changed the first sentence to "Incel is a subculture...", which the patrollers reverted, despite the patrollers saying "incel is a subculture" over and over in talk pages. They have a pattern of defaulting to a non-meaningful first sentence of "incel is a term associated with... x y z" regardless of their statements in talk pages.

[Archer]

The Wikipedia definition has been recently changed yet again to "movement associated with a subculture" through the addition of the second sentence which says: "The movement is strongly linked to misogyny". At least the claim it is a movement means something, first time a meaningful definition has been placed there in years.

To make their (admittedly still bizarre) definition read better they could make it "Incel is a movement associated with a misogynistic subculture". Because right now it reads conflicting and confusing.

I honestly don't know of many self-identified incels who consider or act as if incel is a movement, but they do exist. So they are a step closer to identifying reality I guess, just ignoring those who do not act as if it is a movement.

Also note that someone recently changed the first sentence to "Incel is a subculture...", which the patrollers reverted, despite the patrollers saying "incel is a subculture" over and over in talk pages. They have a pattern of defaulting to a non-meaningful first sentence of "incel is a term associated with... x y z" regardless of their statements in talk pages.

This is how they graft it onto the media's political storyline. If they simply defined it as a portmanteau it would have none of the negative connotations that make it effective as a slur. That's why these words are always described as a "movement" or a "subculture" or some such bullcrap. Then they can make vague, nebulous characterizations about what or who it's associated with or linked with or has ties to, which is usually negative. Finally, they use this label as an ad hominem to undermine objective discourse and lead the discussion away from the original subject so that nothing is accomplished or resolved. People are simply labeled with an identity. Notably, this sort of doublespeak is impossible without the verb "is".

[journo]

That's why these words are always described as a "movement" or a "subculture" or some such bullcrap. Then they can make vague, nebulous characterizations about what or who it's associated with or linked with or has ties to

Yes, this is exactly it. They are misappropriating 'subculture' and/or 'movement' as nebulous weasel words to allow a coat-rack article for 'everything I don't like'

In order form most nebulous/nonsensical to most real (I'm sure I'm missing some)
*"a term associated with a subculture"
*"a subculture"
*"a movement which contains a subculture"
*"a movement"
*"a collection of movements"
*"a pejorative for a life circumstance"
*"a life circumstance

[Archer]

That's why these words are always described as a "movement" or a "subculture" or some such bullcrap. Then they can make vague, nebulous characterizations about what or who it's associated with or linked with or has ties to

Yes, this is exactly it. They are misappropriating 'subculture' and/or 'movement' as nebulous weasel words to allow a coat-rack article for 'everything I don't like'

In order form most nebulous/nonsensical to most real (I'm sure I'm missing some)
*"a term associated with a subculture"
*"a subculture"
*"a movement which contains a subculture"
*"a movement"
*"a collection of movements"
*"a pejorative for a life circumstance"
*"a life circumstance

Indeed, yet tricks like that are second-rate and there's a nifty rule one can use to defeat or mitigate them. Try avoiding the verbs "is", "are", and so forth - one rarely needs them. Then one cannot use the media's bastardized form of discourse, which encourages one to draw crude equivalences. One then must think more carefully about verb choices. Consequently the expressive power of one's language increases. It precludes solipsistic and irrelevant statements about one's "identity" or that of others.

Personally I don't always write in that form, yet even just practicing with it as an exercise seems to help.

[journo]

Is Molly going to add Luigi Mangione to her curated list of "official incel murderers"

For anyone not seeing the wall to wall coverage, a young chad nerd named Luigi annihilated a top health insurance CEO after his dick stopped working

https://nypost.com/2024/12/10/us-news/l ... lord-says/



His official Twitter than Elon resurrected after an employee suspended it


https://archive.is/NZkuj

[journo]

current state of this "encyclopedia article"

it's so juvenile

and look at all the obsessing over what race and gender they may or may not be, that's like the image tagline now



BAHAHAHA https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1285723539

[journo]

The most misogynistic incels often push to define 'incel' as exclusively male, marginalizing the existence of female incels. They downgrade them to 'femcels' a term often used to dismiss rather than include and want incel to be a misogynistic subculture.

Strangely, the latest revision of the article's lede, currently authored by Molly, and different than the last post, reflects these same biases. It erases modern female incels from the definition, and implies that participating in forums for lonely or sexually frustrated people equates to being a misogynist. To make matters worse, 'involuntary celibacy' redirects to 'incel', reinforcing this narrow, gendered, and ideologically loaded framing.

Ironically, this type of framing is more likely to encourage misogyny than discourage it, as it preemptively casts participants in a negative light and ignores nuanced or benign forms of the identity. People tend to adopt the roles society projects onto them especially when examples of better behavior are entirely excluded from definitions.

Returning to the thread title, 'Wikipedians are unable to establish any coherent definition for 'incel'', the inconsistency is glaring. The lede currently erases modern female incels, yet the rest of the article references them multiple times. The lack of a consistent, inclusive definition weakens the article’s credibility and reinforces the very dynamics it purports to describe.