The Tates sell their “be a man” coaching package. The message from the top of this bullshit, is that there is something you can do, we have the secrets, now give us money.
Comment on OpenAI featured chatbot is pushing extreme surgeries to “subhuman” men
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 month ago
How does one promote involuntary celibacy?
Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 month ago
mcv@lemm.ee 1 month ago
The Tates sell their “be a man” coaching package
As if he’d know how.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 month ago
See my reply below.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
No that’s not really true from what I heard. Tons of vindicta type femcels and Tate fan manosphere loons are into looksmaxxing and moneymaxxing and whatnot. Ironically enough blackpilled proper withdrawn hikki incels at least don’t get taken for a ride by grifters so much.
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Yeah, I think there’s been some confusion here, so let me try to clarify what I meant.
I see at least three different ways people use the term incel, and mixing them up leads to a lot of noise in these discussions. First, there’s the literal definition - someone who is involuntarily celibate but doesn’t necessarily hold resentment or misogynistic views. They might even be actively trying to improve their situation, through social development, fitness, or other personal changes.
Then there’s what I’d call the ideological definition - this is closer to the original online “incel community” form: people who believe they’re permanently locked out of dating and sex due to genetics or physical traits, and who often adopt a fatalistic worldview and resentment towards women because of it. That group tends to see looksmaxxing as a waste of time or a cope, because they’ve already written themselves off as hopeless. That was the version I was referring to in my comment.
And then there’s the slur usage, which is probably the most common in everyday discourse now: “incel” as a catch-all insult aimed at men with unpopular, toxic, or misogynistic views, whether or not they’re actually celibate or share any ideological connection to the incel community. This version often gets applied to manosphere types, Andrew Tate fans, or anyone viewed as a reactionary online. But here’s the irony - many of those guys despise incels and distance themselves from that label. Likewise, I’d say most ideological incels don’t align with Tate’s worldview either. Tate’s core message is about self-improvement to gain status and sexual access, while incels - at least in their blackpilled form - tend to reject the idea that improvement is even possible.
So yeah, I agree there’s a lot of grift and posturing in these online spaces, but we’re not talking about a single, coherent group. That was the point of my original comment: looksmaxxing isn’t inherently tied to incel ideology. In fact, it contradicts the most fatalistic version of it. Conflating them flattens out the distinctions between self-improvement, toxic ideology, and hopelessness - and I think that matters if we want to criticize these cultures without just throwing buzzwords around.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
You’re spot on, I’m sorry for my loose usage of the term.
But I dont necessarily fully agree with your definitions either. Don’t get me wrong they are soundly constructed, I just don’t personally see it the same way. The slur one is fine and I largely agree.
As for the ideological definition I’m not sure that you can decidedly say that self-improvement is at odds with it.
I think a full definition for me would be mostly related to the culture of specific online spaces, what I would call “4chan social dynamics” and it’s memes and people who buy into them past a certain point, and very little to do with any sexual status or lack thereof, which there’s nothing actually wrong with, it’s fairly obvious that lack of sexual access for men is a significant detriment to their quality of life and it’s complex societal problem to be solved like any other. It’s not for me to really talk about at length because I’m not a man.
I would argue though that “femcels” in communities like FDS and (I’m not sure if it’s a thing still) Vindicta are very much thinking along the exact same lines despite very few of them being involuntarily celibate or identifying with the label in any significant way.
Likewise men who have sex but still buy into these memes are also still ideologically incels under this definition.
I think this grouping is more useful because it allows us to identify ideological and philosophical commonalities between more stereotypical incels and those who wouldn’t on the surface be such.
What I’ve found across my observations is if grouped this way, plenty of these people actually do practice self-improvement and are explicitly motivated to do so via their ideology.
So I don’t necessarily see a toxic variety of “self-improvement” as being contrary at all to this ideology, in fact if anything I see the “blackpilled” (or in less internet terms - hopeless) variety as being far less harmful than the “redpilled” variety which is often used to exploit people economically via endless lifestyle coaching guides and courses and even transparent pyramid schemes alongside usually a serving of mysogyny and reducing women’s behaviour to some sort of conspiratorial pseudo-scientific evolutionary psychology “harsh truth” that only serves to further disconnect people from the real world and entrap them in cycles of financial exploitation.
In plain English, in the best case the very framing of “work out to get a girlfriend” is inherently distorting reality into 4chan social dynamics and implying a causality that isn’t there (e.g. “guys who work out get girls”) when in reality women aren’t something to “get”, and many men don’t work out and have women all the same. Through this lens “looksmaxxing” is problematic the same way those fake “diet” aids are, even when the implication is unspoken.
When you introduce the profit motive into this, there’s never any incentive for people to get out of the cycle, only deeper in. In contrast the ones who think self-improvement is a cope maybe have some unproductive ideas but honestly I just don’t think people holding communions of shared self-loathing is a particularly huge problem unless they threaten and go through on real world harm ala Elliot Rodgers or whatever his name was.
Also sorry for the long-winded response, I just want to add that I may sound overly harsh on self-improvement but this is coming from someone who is a staunch self-improver myself, I’m not at all against self-improvement in the slightest, but I think it’s important to work towards whatever goals one may set for the right reasons as well, and recognize when a drive for self-improvement stems from a “toxic” (less productive) place and when it stems from a legitimate place (actually solves problems).
Opinionhaver@feddit.uk 1 month ago
I think you might be right that the term incel has gone through some concept creep over time. What I’d call “classical inceldom” definitely had a fatalistic core - people who believed that nothing they did could change their circumstances. In those spaces, self-improvement wasn’t just seen as pointless, it was actively discouraged. There’s a strong crabs-in-a-bucket mentality, where even small expressions of hope - like saying a waitress smiled at you - are treated as betrayal. That kind of remark gets torn down because it suggests there is hope, and hope runs against the entire premise of the community.
So while I don’t necessarily disagree with how you’re framing things, I think it’s important we clarify what version of incel we’re each talking about. Otherwise, it’s easy to talk past one another while thinking we’re arguing about the same thing.