2. So the worst-off members of society are the social rejects (low-status men, mostly), not those who are merely materially poor.
3. But self-identified egalitarians tend to be as happy as anyone to "punch down" at social rejects.
Conclusion: actually-existing egalitarianism, as a social force, is (typically) not motivated by principled concern for the worst-off, but something more like coalitional politics to boost the status of certain favoured groups.
All I'm gonna do here is contribute my data point, and perhaps take my beating. I'm 47 and single. I've had what, judging from the studies I've seen, is significantly but not astronomically greater than the median for sexual partners. I've had a few relationships lasting a few years each. I've also had multi-year sex gaps and not felt like I was suffering for it.
I'll tell it to you like an old-school D&D player who still respects nine-point alignment:
Nearly all of my sexual and relationship success involved an unmistakable element of RPing Neutral Evil.
I know all nine alignments within myself. And now, sitting here more than halfway (most likely) through my life, I love the Good. And I don't usually feel lonely. But if and when I decide that that particular form of escaping loneliness is desirable again, then being able to tap into the selfish, morally unserious charmer (carefully constrained as a superficial persona) is an undeniably useful skill.
I think many guys struggling romantically don't actually care as much about getting sex per se as it may appear. What they really desire is *respect*, and the feeling of status and accomplishment.
When a women wants to have sex with you, she thereby shows a certain kind of respect. Even stronger than the desire for women's respect is the desire for fellow's men respect that comes when you succeed romantically.
This seems to be a classic case of "you're weakmanning me!" vs "you're motte-and-baileying me!". "I'm trying to prevent sexism and you paint me as cruel" vs "You are cruel and use the sexism as a shield".
Maybe we can use some amount of time we're spending on these fruitless back and forths on policy proposals instead?
Here are some: incentivize replacing parking spaces with 'third places' (restaurant terraces, city parks...) so people can meet other people more easily, incentivize replacing capitalists firms with co-ops to combat alienation and create a more social working environment, create a UBI so people living paycheck to paycheck can spend more time going out and meeting people, have some more courses on emotional/social intelligence/cooperation in school instead of spending so much time on standardized tests. This should help with the ever increasing alienation (~loneliness).
The incel identity is astonishingly ineffective at solving the problems it postulates, and arguable makes them worse. A huge amount of social interaction is contingent on self confidence and identity. If you identify as someone who will never get girls it significantly decrease your chances. In that sense its a bit like marxism, the grievances are cognizant but the formulation is so unhelpful that it's frankly a danger to society. Stigmatizing bad ideas is good, the overwrought insane bashing is dumb but the general ick and shame to someone who self identifies as an incel it a good mechanism of social regulation.
I've had this argument with a number of people and what they say is that they understand Incel to refer to members of a certain cultural movement -- the people talking about Chads and Stacies. And while I tend to read it as ambiguous in the same way that you do I have enough friends who understand it as meaning membership in this particular movement that I think we need to conceed that's a, if not the, definition amoung US English speakers.
As such, I think the better critique is that there is a motte-bailey move going on and that the author here clearly means to blur the line as you mention.
I don't think all critics of "incels" do that. Some genuinely mean members of that movement. However, it's hard to understand what else Pao could mean when she says that some incel's misogyny is hard to spot.
The paradox of egalitarianism:
1. Social connections matter more than money.
2. So the worst-off members of society are the social rejects (low-status men, mostly), not those who are merely materially poor.
3. But self-identified egalitarians tend to be as happy as anyone to "punch down" at social rejects.
Conclusion: actually-existing egalitarianism, as a social force, is (typically) not motivated by principled concern for the worst-off, but something more like coalitional politics to boost the status of certain favoured groups.
All I'm gonna do here is contribute my data point, and perhaps take my beating. I'm 47 and single. I've had what, judging from the studies I've seen, is significantly but not astronomically greater than the median for sexual partners. I've had a few relationships lasting a few years each. I've also had multi-year sex gaps and not felt like I was suffering for it.
I'll tell it to you like an old-school D&D player who still respects nine-point alignment:
Nearly all of my sexual and relationship success involved an unmistakable element of RPing Neutral Evil.
I know all nine alignments within myself. And now, sitting here more than halfway (most likely) through my life, I love the Good. And I don't usually feel lonely. But if and when I decide that that particular form of escaping loneliness is desirable again, then being able to tap into the selfish, morally unserious charmer (carefully constrained as a superficial persona) is an undeniably useful skill.
I think many guys struggling romantically don't actually care as much about getting sex per se as it may appear. What they really desire is *respect*, and the feeling of status and accomplishment.
When a women wants to have sex with you, she thereby shows a certain kind of respect. Even stronger than the desire for women's respect is the desire for fellow's men respect that comes when you succeed romantically.
This seems to be a classic case of "you're weakmanning me!" vs "you're motte-and-baileying me!". "I'm trying to prevent sexism and you paint me as cruel" vs "You are cruel and use the sexism as a shield".
Maybe we can use some amount of time we're spending on these fruitless back and forths on policy proposals instead?
Here are some: incentivize replacing parking spaces with 'third places' (restaurant terraces, city parks...) so people can meet other people more easily, incentivize replacing capitalists firms with co-ops to combat alienation and create a more social working environment, create a UBI so people living paycheck to paycheck can spend more time going out and meeting people, have some more courses on emotional/social intelligence/cooperation in school instead of spending so much time on standardized tests. This should help with the ever increasing alienation (~loneliness).
Great post! Thanks for the encouragement to treat everyone with dignity and respect.
The incel identity is astonishingly ineffective at solving the problems it postulates, and arguable makes them worse. A huge amount of social interaction is contingent on self confidence and identity. If you identify as someone who will never get girls it significantly decrease your chances. In that sense its a bit like marxism, the grievances are cognizant but the formulation is so unhelpful that it's frankly a danger to society. Stigmatizing bad ideas is good, the overwrought insane bashing is dumb but the general ick and shame to someone who self identifies as an incel it a good mechanism of social regulation.
I've had this argument with a number of people and what they say is that they understand Incel to refer to members of a certain cultural movement -- the people talking about Chads and Stacies. And while I tend to read it as ambiguous in the same way that you do I have enough friends who understand it as meaning membership in this particular movement that I think we need to conceed that's a, if not the, definition amoung US English speakers.
As such, I think the better critique is that there is a motte-bailey move going on and that the author here clearly means to blur the line as you mention.
I don't think all critics of "incels" do that. Some genuinely mean members of that movement. However, it's hard to understand what else Pao could mean when she says that some incel's misogyny is hard to spot.
I think the word your looking for with InPoor is either bum, welfare queen or low-class.
thanks for this, very thorough. assortive mating is amorally unfair, am grateful there's a vocal Chorus of complaint against it.