Political polarization has been long increasing in the U.S., where it also seems unusually high for a rich nation. As one side has dominated the heights of tech, culture, media, law, and academia, and our urban centers of wealth, the other has felt neglected and dissed. So they elected Trump, at least partly knowing his faults, to send a clear signal of their unhappiness.
I'm a virgin and think sex equality is the dumbest thing I've heard of. No one deserves sex. It isn't equal to wealth inequality. The idea shouldn't even be entertained.
Yes, I think the incels actually are complaining that no one that they want to have sex with/have a relationship with wants to have sex with them. A tragedy of course, but, a pretty common one.
Right now the issue isn't framed correctly for the left to pick it up as an issue, because it is ugly/undesirable white cis men that are complaining, and the left has no pity to spare for white cis males, but as soon as some POC/women/homosexuals/transexuals/etc raise the issue I expect it will get a lot of play.
I bet the proposed solution won't come as a push for a basic cash grant for sex with a prostitute though, I bet it will come as moral shaming of attractive people if they refuse to have sex with anyone who wants to have sex with them. Like in Orwell's 1984. Refusing to have casual sex with someone will open you up to shaming as a racist or a homophobe or a 'beauty objectifier' or some such.
I think the hostility and bad faith were due to the fact that the incels are perceived to be white males, a group the left loves to hate, in fact, their designated villian. If the complaint had originated from one of the left's rainbow coalition, like say homosexuals or transexuals, or women, I bet it would have been given a much more sympathetic hearing.
If your statement "one doesn't have a right to someone else's body" were true, then human beings couldn't be forced to surrender the wages of their hard work, using their own bodies, for redistribution to others.
Of course, in reality, your statement is true. That is why theft is theft, and why taxation is theft. The fact that 'a majority' voted to take away your earnings doesn't make the taxation any more moral than if 6 of the 8 guys who live on your block got together and decided to beat you up and take your stuff.
Nobody has to "INDUCE" envy.Are you referring to "those pesky leftist agitators" who "put ideas into the heads of" the less-fortunate, who of course in the absence of "outside intervention" would NEVER think to question their lot in life? (Or so those in power always say.)
How do you know what motivates women in real life?
This is a serious question, and there has been serious psychological research on the subject, some of it yielding surprising results. If women were attracted by money (among other things) but either weren't consciously aware of it or didn't like to admit it, how would you observe it?
There are approximately equal numbers of men and women in the world. More women actually if you account for early deaths that men face and the greater number of gay men than lesbians. The people who cannot find sex partners are not finding them not because other men are hogging them all, but because either (a) they aren't willing to lower their standards far enough to date the single women who certainly exist or (b) they don't know how to find the single women who exist. To the extent that it's (b), this is not a question of "distribution", but of teaching people the social skills to locate the sex that is already there.
Framing the issue as one of "distribution" is wrongheaded because sex is not a finite or scarce resource. Any two people can create sex instantly if they can find a willing sex partner. One could talk about distribution of sex partners (i.e. other people), but biology created equal numbers of males and females, and we have a monogamous society already, so it stands to reason that for every single man, there is very likely a single woman out there, somewhere. Thus , it is pretty easy to see that if one lowers one standards far enough, almost everyone ought to be able to find a sex partner (except perhaps the severely disabled, physically or cognitively). If they're not having sex, and not finding sex partners, it isn't because other people are hogging those (not finite) resources, it's because they lack the cognitive and social tools to locate that resource. It's as if someone said "why does society not care about the unequal distribution of music?", in response to individuals who couldn't figure out how to operate the radio in their car. The radio is right there, just turn it on and tune it to a channel you like! If you don't like any of the channels well, that's not because there's no music out there for you, it's because your tastes are too narrow. If there's any proposal that could help the loneliness of the "involuntarily celibate", it's not to focus on the unfairness of the rest of society denying them a share of the sex, it is to give them some help in operating the radio - i.e. finding one of the many other lonely single men or women out there to have sex with, and perhaps, maybe even, encouraging them to adjust their expectations to a more realistic level.
Three cishet men found themselves in the gynocratic gulag. To pass the time they asked each other what great crimes they committed to find themselves interred.
“Too many women threw themselves at me. For this I was called a ‘PUA’ and sent to this place,” the first one says.
“I rejected the advances of women. For this I was called ‘MGTOW’ and sent to this place,” the second one says.
“I was neither successful with women nor did I reject them outright. For this I was called ‘incel’ and my execution will be at sundown!”
How should he have presented the substance of his questions and ideas such that it wouldn't have come off as trolling?
Few in our society are at risk of dying of they don't have more wealth. And should we never compare things that risk death to things that don't?
Are you going to die if you never have sex? Again, it's dumb to compare these two "inequalities."
And people do deserve wealth?
And what exactly is "better training"?
I'm a virgin and think sex equality is the dumbest thing I've heard of. No one deserves sex. It isn't equal to wealth inequality. The idea shouldn't even be entertained.
Yes, I think the incels actually are complaining that no one that they want to have sex with/have a relationship with wants to have sex with them. A tragedy of course, but, a pretty common one.
Right now the issue isn't framed correctly for the left to pick it up as an issue, because it is ugly/undesirable white cis men that are complaining, and the left has no pity to spare for white cis males, but as soon as some POC/women/homosexuals/transexuals/etc raise the issue I expect it will get a lot of play.
I bet the proposed solution won't come as a push for a basic cash grant for sex with a prostitute though, I bet it will come as moral shaming of attractive people if they refuse to have sex with anyone who wants to have sex with them. Like in Orwell's 1984. Refusing to have casual sex with someone will open you up to shaming as a racist or a homophobe or a 'beauty objectifier' or some such.
I think the hostility and bad faith were due to the fact that the incels are perceived to be white males, a group the left loves to hate, in fact, their designated villian. If the complaint had originated from one of the left's rainbow coalition, like say homosexuals or transexuals, or women, I bet it would have been given a much more sympathetic hearing.
If your statement "one doesn't have a right to someone else's body" were true, then human beings couldn't be forced to surrender the wages of their hard work, using their own bodies, for redistribution to others.
Of course, in reality, your statement is true. That is why theft is theft, and why taxation is theft. The fact that 'a majority' voted to take away your earnings doesn't make the taxation any more moral than if 6 of the 8 guys who live on your block got together and decided to beat you up and take your stuff.
"better training"???
Nobody has to "INDUCE" envy.Are you referring to "those pesky leftist agitators" who "put ideas into the heads of" the less-fortunate, who of course in the absence of "outside intervention" would NEVER think to question their lot in life? (Or so those in power always say.)
How do you know what motivates women in real life?
This is a serious question, and there has been serious psychological research on the subject, some of it yielding surprising results. If women were attracted by money (among other things) but either weren't consciously aware of it or didn't like to admit it, how would you observe it?
There are approximately equal numbers of men and women in the world. More women actually if you account for early deaths that men face and the greater number of gay men than lesbians. The people who cannot find sex partners are not finding them not because other men are hogging them all, but because either (a) they aren't willing to lower their standards far enough to date the single women who certainly exist or (b) they don't know how to find the single women who exist. To the extent that it's (b), this is not a question of "distribution", but of teaching people the social skills to locate the sex that is already there.
Framing the issue as one of "distribution" is wrongheaded because sex is not a finite or scarce resource. Any two people can create sex instantly if they can find a willing sex partner. One could talk about distribution of sex partners (i.e. other people), but biology created equal numbers of males and females, and we have a monogamous society already, so it stands to reason that for every single man, there is very likely a single woman out there, somewhere. Thus , it is pretty easy to see that if one lowers one standards far enough, almost everyone ought to be able to find a sex partner (except perhaps the severely disabled, physically or cognitively). If they're not having sex, and not finding sex partners, it isn't because other people are hogging those (not finite) resources, it's because they lack the cognitive and social tools to locate that resource. It's as if someone said "why does society not care about the unequal distribution of music?", in response to individuals who couldn't figure out how to operate the radio in their car. The radio is right there, just turn it on and tune it to a channel you like! If you don't like any of the channels well, that's not because there's no music out there for you, it's because your tastes are too narrow. If there's any proposal that could help the loneliness of the "involuntarily celibate", it's not to focus on the unfairness of the rest of society denying them a share of the sex, it is to give them some help in operating the radio - i.e. finding one of the many other lonely single men or women out there to have sex with, and perhaps, maybe even, encouraging them to adjust their expectations to a more realistic level.
Three cishet men found themselves in the gynocratic gulag. To pass the time they asked each other what great crimes they committed to find themselves interred.
“Too many women threw themselves at me. For this I was called a ‘PUA’ and sent to this place,” the first one says.
“I rejected the advances of women. For this I was called ‘MGTOW’ and sent to this place,” the second one says.
“I was neither successful with women nor did I reject them outright. For this I was called ‘incel’ and my execution will be at sundown!”
Well, it wasn't always so. The resistance to addressing sexual deprivation on the left today is rooted in the rise of feminism.