Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- thoughts:society:incels [2021/09/26 16:13] – [Changing Role of Relationships] Owen Mellema
+++ thoughts:society:incels [2021/09/28 20:55] (current) – [Minimization] Owen Mellema
@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 ==== Changing Role of Relationships ====
 Without the necessity or the desire to have a family, the idea of monogamy seems obsolete. Even though humans are monogamous by nature, the social structure of relationships have changed such that seeking pleasure only is acceptable. This has formed a sort of "poly-monogamy", where people have many short-term monogamous relationships with a number of other people. Now, due to to sexual dynamic as described above, the result is that a large group of women end up in relationships with a much smaller group of men, leading to the imbalance in genders having sex.
+===== Good or Bad? =====
+Given the facts that I listed above, it is clear that the root cause of inceldom is women having more freedom and not being forced into relationships. Although the concept of tradeoffs is foreign to modern people, this is objectively a good thing. Clearly, a group of people wanting to do something but not being able to is better than a group of people not wanting to do something but being forced to. By the same token, it's better that our society has people that wish to live in a pure society but don't, than to force people to partake in a pure society when they do not wish to. This is why we have separation of church and state.
+In more ways than one, poverty is to an economic freedom what inceldom is to sexual freedom.
+^ ^The Poor^Incels^
+^Exists as the consequences of other people having freedom|Yes|Yes|
+^//May// be the person's own fault|Yes|Yes|
+^//May// be due to circumstances out of their control|Yes|Yes|
+^Negatively impacts quality of life|Yes|Yes|
+Of course it's worse to be poor than to be an incel. The consequences of being an incel are psychological, while the consequences of being poor are both psychological and physical. The point that I'm trying to make is that they both fall into the same general category, and to be morally consistent requires thinking about the poor as you would incels.
+===== Ethical Sexual Capitalism =====
+I am a Capitalist, that is, I am opposed to Communism, that is, I am opposed to the forceful redistribution of wealth. I'm opposed to Communism for two reasons. First, it has failed every time it has been tried. This position is what I call //Pragmatic Capitalism//. Secondly, I believe that it is unethical. This position is what I call //Ethical Capitalism//.
+As in [[thoughts:politics:abortion | my article about abortion]], I can use a Belief Summary to explain Ethical Capitalism:
+|        ^ Yes ^ No ^
+^ Giving |+|0|
+^ Taking |-|0|
+Succinctly, it is good to give, but wrong to take. Meanwhile, Communism is very nearly the opposite.
+|        ^ Yes ^ No ^
+^ Giving |0|-|
+^ Taking |0|0|
+That is, it is wrong to not give.
+Here is a simple argument in favor of Ethical Capitalism, not intended to convert communists but rather to explain my position. A man can be said to said to be the owner of his mind, as no one can control it. As the owner of his mind, it is right that he should also be the owner of his body. As the owner of his body, it is right that he should be owner of those things that extend his body, that is, his land, his house, his money, etc.
+How is this relevant? Well, in more ways than one, capitalism is similar to how sex works in the modern era.
+^ ^Capitalism^Sex^
+^Exists as a consequence of freedom|Yes|Yes|
+^Some people are disadvantaged|Yes|Yes|
+^Being disadvantaged //can be// the result of poor decisions|Yes|Yes|
+^Being disadvantaged //can be// due to circumstances out of their control|Yes|Yes|
+^Being disadvantaged negatively impacts quality of life|Yes|Yes|
+^The most privileged minorities consume far more than the rest|Yes|Yes|
+Let us, therefore, lay out the dual of the two economic theories. First, Sexual Capitalism. In this system, the most important virtue is that people are free to make their own decisions about who they enter into relationships with, and the nature of those relationships. This is the system that exists now.
+Naturally, the competing theory is Sexual Communism. In this system, a "fair" distribution is enforced. That is, everyone is guaranteed a relationship, although it may not be with who you want. The "sexual bourgeoise" will be forced by some third party to surrender to the "sexual proletariat".
+Let me very, very clear: **Obviously that is a fucking horrible idea**. It is so deeply immoral that it should cause instant revulsion in most. Despite this, the "incel culture", as I defined it above, sometimes finds this idea to be a good one. To them I ask: Is that a morally consistent position? That is, are you also an economic communist? Are //you// using your body and possessions to benefit the less fortunate? Of course you aren't, at least, not in any meaningful way. You are not a communist, you are a looter - you're only in it to benefit yourself, not out of genuine ethical consideration.
+However, consider the fact that sexual capitalism //requires// the existence of incels, just as economic capitalism requires the existence of the poor. In the same way that a physically weaker person won't get chosen for a job if a stronger person has also applied, if people have free choice in their relationships, then, naturally, there are going to be people that don't get chosen. This is the cost of living in a free and ethical society.
+Of course it's worse to be poor than to be an incel. The consequences of being an incel are psychological, while the consequences of being poor are both psychological and physical. The point that I'm trying to make is that they both fall into the same general category, and to be morally consistent requires thinking about incels as you would the poor.
+===== Minimization =====
+There is this modern idea that if something is pretty good, but has a tradeoff, that means it isn't good. That is, modern people aren't willing to accept mostly good, we expect things to be perfect or we label them bad. In general, it's good that we think this way, as it encourages innovation. At the same time, nothing is ever without consequences.
+Sexual Capitalism is a good idea, but incels prove it is flawed. If we are unable to accept anything less than perfection in our ideas, we have two options: Abandon the idea in search of a perfect one (and there aren't any), or minimize the problem, so as to continue living as if it were perfect.
+One minimization technique is to assert that incels themselves are to blame. One might call this the "Bootstraps" approach. Like poverty, this may be true in some circumstances, but not in all circumstances. For example, some incels are overweight, and this can certainly be fixed with dieting and exercise. By wearing more fashionable clothes, getting a haircut, etc one might improve their chances.
+However, there are things that can't be changed. It doesn't matter how much you work out or how muscular you are, if you were 5'0" before, you'll be 5'0" after. Same goes for ugly faces. Also, some people are nuerodivergent, which causes them trouble. Autistic people, for instance, have a lot of trouble interacting with others. Some people have social anxiety, which means that, despite possibly being a very good person, they would struggle with the initial stages of flirting.
+When this fails, the next strategy is dehumanization. By mocking, trolling, or in general looking down upon a person, it's possible to subconsciously assign him the status of "less than human", and therefore reduce empathy for him.