I wasn't weighing in on whether their conversion ideas were legitimate or not, merely saying that some people talked about pursuing it.
I was being facetious, I apologize if I upset you. It might have been insensitive of me. I'll remove that part.
I think the logic goes that lots of dudes want, whether by social conditioning or natural libido or whatever, to fuck anything that walks. Lots of women, for the same reasons, don't. Therefore, if someone wants to have sex, they should have sex with men. It's not about gay men being more libidinal than straight men, it's about men being more libidinal than women. Again, their logic, not mine. Hopefully you don't see this as defensive, since it's not like conversion is a key pillar of their ideology, it's just something that pops up conversationally here and there.
I never excused their actions, I merely want to understand it causally and sometimes to help others make sense of it. The problem with their ideology is that it is reactionary, not that it is extremist; we're extremists, too! I get how you take me for an apologist (though I'm not), but I don't get how you took anything I said to be a "whataboutism".
I'm not particularly aware of the violence it has caused beyond the mass shootings, but I've read some of their violent fantasizing on their board and I won't reprint it even with a CW. I know that this is a dangerous "culture" (network of cults) with a bad ideology, the point isn't to say that it isn't bad. But if you're really serious about acting against them, it's important to understand how they work and where their motivations come from, you can't just make shit up or hastily string faulty inferences together and then have it be unassailable because challenging this negative claim is de facto apologetics. It doesn't make any sense.
Now of course, if you read my dumb rant (which I don't encourage, I think it'll just upset you), I do admit that I personally feel bad for the more sad boy contingent of them, just as I feel bad for a friend of mine who got brought into a more literal cult and now recruits more victims, even though I also condemn their actions and basically everything they do or think at this point. However, my feelings might motivate my attention to this issue, but I do not justify anything with those feelings as that would be absurd and no one here would even understand it, much less agree. It would also be poor reasoning. Ultimately, what I want is the best outcome for the most people, which statistically means mainly that people should be protected from incels, but it also means that -- insofar as logistics allow it -- the incels should be put in re-education camps rather than on death row, and they don't need to repent first, they just need to be put somewhere where they can't hurt anyone and then learn why they should repent.
This paragraph i'm referencing, nope nope nope.
I understood before, but the particularly offensive content has been removed
By the way, you don't need to apologize for voicing concerns, it is a good thing to do.
It's ridiculous and should only be condemned. It's concerning that the foundation of some of these people is belief in conversion therapy. Sorry for implying you did.
Probably
This gets said a lot but most gay men I know are vers/switch and don't have hard and fast rules in actual dating relationships. The top shortage thing is probably more to do with hookups because for a hookup people usually have an idea about what they want which is to be railed.
Please don't insinuate im an extremist, I yap on a lefty forum on an account I made during a particularly bad period and don't do any violence or have any plans or desires or wishes to harm anyone, call me a lib. Conflating that with people who actively wish death on women is wild.
But if you're really serious about acting against them, it's important to understand how they work and where their motivations come from, you can't just make shit up or hastily string faulty inferences together and then have it be unassailable because challenging this negative claim is de facto apologetics. It doesn't make any sense.
Excuse me?
You have no idea who i am, what i do, what I've read or studied etc. That's just an assumption you just made.
Sorry I didn't prep for a debate on the motivations of violence towards women in that clique of men and have all my references and citations ready to go.
I didn't see you as an apologist more someone who's missing half the picture on this issue by virtue of being a man and not the victim of the chain of violence. And also made some dodgy comments i replied to.
I had read the rest of your comments and others before I replied. I only commented cos of the things I initially called out.
It's not like I haven't read or taken anything in and I don't like how you assume I've dismissed it. I do talk to men in real life. I have spoken and listened to others, I do have a boyfriend who has a voice and opinion too. I wasn't planning to spend all night effort posting either.
Please don't insinuate im an extremist, I yap on a lefty forum on an account I made during a particularly bad period and don't do any violence or have any plans or desires or wishes to harm anyone, call me a lib. Conflating that with people who actively wish death on women is wild.
I just wanna point out that we don't really wish for violence, we simply know that it's going to come to us. The bourgeoisie will not give up their power willingly and will use extreme violence to keep that power. The violence of the revolutionary left is self-defence in that regard as far as I'm concerned. Especially if you ever read The Jakarta Method it just becomes plainly obvious.
Conflating that with people who actively wish death on women is wild.
I was going to say that if you accused me of equivocating, I swear on me mum. The extreme right and the extreme left are both extremes, people who adhere to either are extremists. Extremism isn't an ideology or a value, it's a descriptor of how an ideology relates to the status quo (i.e. being really far away). Unless you meant I was equivocating liberals [on a leftist website] with incels, which would make less sense. I just didn't know you were a lib since almost no one with a HB account identifies that way.
Excuse me?
I should have phrased it more carefully, but I wasn't actually referring to you with that comment. Remember this is all based on you responding to me saying other stuff, there was more context than just us talking, and it's a bad habit of this board (and, admittedly, people in general) to make hasty assumptions about their opposition. I've been getting in trouble with using the general "you" a lot; I need to figure out how to signal things more clearly.
I'm not a lib lmao but I'm also just here to vibe. I'm probably a lib to most people here but like 🤷♀️
Tbh I do the whole saying you thing alot when I'm trying to explain stuff and people are like what no I'm not and I'm like oh no I meant like the general topic of conversation.
In the end I think for guys who've been near to that centre and have pulled away there will be a natural sympathy that imo (to be debated another time) presents as understanding of wider issue because of a personal experience. And then believing that personal experience to be representative of the wider whole.
That same paragraph could be applied to women who've faced violence or grief from incels but the difference is that we are the victims, we HAVE to understand why men are violent to survive them and we've being doing that for a while now with feminism.
I'm not saying women have the answers but we have decades of research, academia, discussion and lived experience as well as facing similar and more oppressive societal structures.
Maybe trust we might have a good starting point for this debate than men who only started really addressing their cultural issues more recently?
Incels propagate violence towards women. They aren't the first. This is a cycle. We have a good starting point on why violence towards women happens. Why incels are uniquely the way they are is to find out but feminists do have a decent bit of knowledge to draw from that is always dismissed in my experience.
Anyway I'm not the smart feminist to be soapboxing and I've probably said something stupid so I'm slink away now. Sorrryyyy going to sleeeeppp.
Edit: aaaa I did the using you but not actually meaning you personally thing. Shit.
I wasn't weighing in on whether their conversion ideas were legitimate or not, merely saying that some people talked about pursuing it.
I was being facetious, I apologize if I upset you. It might have been insensitive of me. I'll remove that part.
I think the logic goes that lots of dudes want, whether by social conditioning or natural libido or whatever, to fuck anything that walks. Lots of women, for the same reasons, don't. Therefore, if someone wants to have sex, they should have sex with men. It's not about gay men being more libidinal than straight men, it's about men being more libidinal than women. Again, their logic, not mine. Hopefully you don't see this as defensive, since it's not like conversion is a key pillar of their ideology, it's just something that pops up conversationally here and there.
I never excused their actions, I merely want to understand it causally and sometimes to help others make sense of it. The problem with their ideology is that it is reactionary, not that it is extremist; we're extremists, too! I get how you take me for an apologist (though I'm not), but I don't get how you took anything I said to be a "whataboutism".
I'm not particularly aware of the violence it has caused beyond the mass shootings, but I've read some of their violent fantasizing on their board and I won't reprint it even with a CW. I know that this is a dangerous "culture" (network of cults) with a bad ideology, the point isn't to say that it isn't bad. But if you're really serious about acting against them, it's important to understand how they work and where their motivations come from, you can't just make shit up or hastily string faulty inferences together and then have it be unassailable because challenging this negative claim is de facto apologetics. It doesn't make any sense.
Now of course, if you read my dumb rant (which I don't encourage, I think it'll just upset you), I do admit that I personally feel bad for the more sad boy contingent of them, just as I feel bad for a friend of mine who got brought into a more literal cult and now recruits more victims, even though I also condemn their actions and basically everything they do or think at this point. However, my feelings might motivate my attention to this issue, but I do not justify anything with those feelings as that would be absurd and no one here would even understand it, much less agree. It would also be poor reasoning. Ultimately, what I want is the best outcome for the most people, which statistically means mainly that people should be protected from incels, but it also means that -- insofar as logistics allow it -- the incels should be put in re-education camps rather than on death row, and they don't need to repent first, they just need to be put somewhere where they can't hurt anyone and then learn why they should repent.
I understood before, but the particularly offensive content has been removed
By the way, you don't need to apologize for voicing concerns, it is a good thing to do.
It's ridiculous and should only be condemned. It's concerning that the foundation of some of these people is belief in conversion therapy. Sorry for implying you did.
Probably
This gets said a lot but most gay men I know are vers/switch and don't have hard and fast rules in actual dating relationships. The top shortage thing is probably more to do with hookups because for a hookup people usually have an idea about what they want which is to be railed.
Please don't insinuate im an extremist, I yap on a lefty forum on an account I made during a particularly bad period and don't do any violence or have any plans or desires or wishes to harm anyone, call me a lib. Conflating that with people who actively wish death on women is wild.
Excuse me?
You have no idea who i am, what i do, what I've read or studied etc. That's just an assumption you just made.
Sorry I didn't prep for a debate on the motivations of violence towards women in that clique of men and have all my references and citations ready to go.
I didn't see you as an apologist more someone who's missing half the picture on this issue by virtue of being a man and not the victim of the chain of violence. And also made some dodgy comments i replied to.
I had read the rest of your comments and others before I replied. I only commented cos of the things I initially called out.
It's not like I haven't read or taken anything in and I don't like how you assume I've dismissed it. I do talk to men in real life. I have spoken and listened to others, I do have a boyfriend who has a voice and opinion too. I wasn't planning to spend all night effort posting either.
I just wanna point out that we don't really wish for violence, we simply know that it's going to come to us. The bourgeoisie will not give up their power willingly and will use extreme violence to keep that power. The violence of the revolutionary left is self-defence in that regard as far as I'm concerned. Especially if you ever read The Jakarta Method it just becomes plainly obvious.
I was going to say that if you accused me of equivocating, I swear on me mum. The extreme right and the extreme left are both extremes, people who adhere to either are extremists. Extremism isn't an ideology or a value, it's a descriptor of how an ideology relates to the status quo (i.e. being really far away). Unless you meant I was equivocating liberals [on a leftist website] with incels, which would make less sense. I just didn't know you were a lib since almost no one with a HB account identifies that way.
I should have phrased it more carefully, but I wasn't actually referring to you with that comment. Remember this is all based on you responding to me saying other stuff, there was more context than just us talking, and it's a bad habit of this board (and, admittedly, people in general) to make hasty assumptions about their opposition. I've been getting in trouble with using the general "you" a lot; I need to figure out how to signal things more clearly.
I'm not a lib lmao but I'm also just here to vibe. I'm probably a lib to most people here but like 🤷♀️
Tbh I do the whole saying you thing alot when I'm trying to explain stuff and people are like what no I'm not and I'm like oh no I meant like the general topic of conversation.
In the end I think for guys who've been near to that centre and have pulled away there will be a natural sympathy that imo (to be debated another time) presents as understanding of wider issue because of a personal experience. And then believing that personal experience to be representative of the wider whole.
That same paragraph could be applied to women who've faced violence or grief from incels but the difference is that we are the victims, we HAVE to understand why men are violent to survive them and we've being doing that for a while now with feminism.
I'm not saying women have the answers but we have decades of research, academia, discussion and lived experience as well as facing similar and more oppressive societal structures.
Maybe trust we might have a good starting point for this debate than men who only started really addressing their cultural issues more recently?
Incels propagate violence towards women. They aren't the first. This is a cycle. We have a good starting point on why violence towards women happens. Why incels are uniquely the way they are is to find out but feminists do have a decent bit of knowledge to draw from that is always dismissed in my experience.
Anyway I'm not the smart feminist to be soapboxing and I've probably said something stupid so I'm slink away now. Sorrryyyy going to sleeeeppp.
Edit: aaaa I did the using you but not actually meaning you personally thing. Shit.