Incel terrorism

[AlteredEgo]

Point taken, so I will clarify. I would never presume to tell anyone how to self-identify or what their professed orientation "really" is. They know who they are, and I take them at their word.

Then, perhaps, you should also be able to take at their word those whose stated reasons for arriving here do not match your assumptions. For example, I came here originally to see what the people were like. The people. I wondered what kinds of threads flourished in a place like this. I saw a link both to here, and to a Cracked article about here on another website. The people and threads here delightfully defied my expectations, and I found myself wanting to join in the levity, absurdity, flirting, and debate. I found the galleries pretty quickly. I don't know what a newbie sees these days, but I was able to see thumbnails for a period, and then they blurred over. Curious, I paid for a subscription. By the time it lapsed, I had no desire to reinstate it. These days, I seldom get curious about the galleries, but I appreciate being grandfathered in to them through a now defunct program. When I do venture into the galleries, I peek at my buddies, revisiting the same handful of galleries, perhaps four or five times a year, rarely adding a new one every few years.

Everyone isn't you, and your reasoning doesn't have to be theirs.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

I can imagine that, I'm only going off the fact that the last time I posted in the wrong place, it was removed within the hour and I even remember Altered_Ego posting innocuous language based anecdotes in one of my threads in the Ask a Man forum.



I thought it might be gay/bi men, there's plenty of active homophobia on this site (and I've seen that for years). That post that I've reported is in a thread whose OP posted a video of Joseph Nicolosi (one of the gay conversion "psychologists") giving off his theories on the topic, given the fact that the thread itself is still alive (after two years) that should give you an idea of how seriously homophobia is taken on the site. I would personally say misogyny is taken even less seriously than homophobia on the website (likely for demographic reasons). But the levels of both are deeply troubling.

I can only conclude that "arbitrary" best fits.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I can only conclude that "arbitrary" best fits.

False. It isn't arbitrary. No one reported me, and no mods noticed. They act on reports, and what they notice. Also, the process is slow because they need a specific minimum number of them to vote on every action. If they all don't vote, the matter waits until the stragglers catch up on their voting.

 

[MickeyLee]

related video

 

[stax 68]

related video

 

[stax 68]

related video

related video

Number 12 Looks Just Like You

In a future society, everyone must undergo an operation at age 19 to become beautiful and conform to society. One young woman desperately wants to hold onto her own identity.

"Portrait of a young lady in love... with herself. Improbable? Perhaps. But in an age of plastic surgery, bodybuilding and an infinity of cosmetics, let us hesitate to say impossible.
These and other strange blessings may be waiting in the future, which, after all, is The Twilight Zone."

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

False. It isn't arbitrary. No one reported me, and no mods noticed. They act on reports, and what they notice. Also, the process is slow because they need a specific minimum number of them to vote on every action. If they all don't vote, the matter waits until the stragglers catch up on their voting.

Sorry, you're absolutely right. It's worse than arbitrary.

"A camel is a horse designed by a committee"

At least it isn't the moderator's faults for all of this. It's a poor system right out of the gate. They and we just have to deal with the resulting inconsistency and slow response.

 

[AlteredEgo]

Sorry, you're absolutely right. It's worse than arbitrary.

"A camel is a horse designed by a committee"

At least it isn't the moderator's faults for all of this. It's a poor system right out of the gate. They and we just have to deal with the resulting inconsistency and slow response.

Okay, but what do you think would be a better system?

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Okay, but what do you think would be a better system?

I can relate what has worked well for the site where I've moderated forums for over 12 years. Each sub-forum has an assigned moderator. He or she handles all issues in that forum. If a member has a disagreement with a moderation decision, the site admins can be contacted, but unless there's an egregious error in judgment, the mod's decision will stand.

Typically, members who frequent a given forum and are seen as stable and fair minded are offered the responsibility to be a moderator. These members know the regulars, know the unique culture of that forum, and set expectations for behavior. But ultimately, the site's rules and mission are the guidelines the moderators work with.

The site has a private "Office" forum where admins and mods can update each other on issues, handle coverage during an absence, and post things like banned member lists. Because I'm a member first and moderator second, I participate and communicate with everyone, so I'm not an unknown quantity....they know how I'll react to an issue, and often the regulars "self moderate" the place.

It's run smoothly the entire time I've been a member, and issues don't linger unresolved, members aren't confused by silence, and there are few complaints. Seems successful, but I also know every site is different, so there may be reasons this wouldn't work here.

 

[AlteredEgo]

I can relate what has worked well for the site where I've moderated forums for over 12 years. Each sub-forum has an assigned moderator. He or she handles all issues in that forum. If a member has a disagreement with a moderation decision, the site admins can be contacted, but unless there's an egregious error in judgment, the mod's decision will stand.

Typically, members who frequent a given forum and are seen as stable and fair minded are offered the responsibility to be a moderator. These members know the regulars, know the unique culture of that forum, and set expectations for behavior. But ultimately, the site's rules and mission are the guidelines the moderators work with.

The site has a private "Office" forum where admins and mods can update each other on issues, handle coverage during an absence, and post things like banned member lists. Because I'm a member first and moderator second, I participate and communicate with everyone, so I'm not an unknown quantity....they know how I'll react to an issue, and often the regulars "self moderate" the place.

It's run smoothly the entire time I've been a member, and issues don't linger unresolved, members aren't confused by silence, and there are few complaints. Seems successful, but I also know every site is different, so there may be reasons this wouldn't work here.

I don't think that will work here. Too many crybabies in the membership. Just about every decision would be forwarded to an admin for review. I don't see how slow and democratic is "worse than arbitrary".

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

..

I don't think that will work here. Too many crybabies in the membership. Just about every decision would be forwarded to an admin for review. I don't see how slow and democratic is "worse than arbitrary".

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make moderation a tedious popular vote process if the mod/admin team understand the site's rules and policies. Every vote should unanimous or very close to unanimous if everyone is onboard with the site's intended direction.

As for crybabies, the 90/10 effect applies....far less than 10 percent of the members of any given forum will be responsible for 90 percent of the problems it has to deal with. There. Are easy and effective ways of dealing with them that don't require a quorum or a simple majority.

 

[AlteredEgo]

..

My point was that it doesn't make sense to make moderation a tedious popular vote process if the mod/admin team understand the site's rules and policies. Every vote should unanimous or very close to unanimous if everyone is onboard with the site's intended direction.

As for crybabies, the 90/10 effect applies....far less than 10 percent of the members of any given forum will be responsible for 90 percent of the problems it has to deal with. There. Are easy and effective ways of dealing with them that don't require a quorum or a simple majority.

Interpretation can be subjective, and the original moderation teams were constantly accused of favoritism before it came out that most decisions were by vote. Now that the team is smaller, I assume more of them have to vote before a minimum number of votes is reached. Some types of issues get instant response by the first mod to see. Others, even if a mod notices for himself or herself, still go to the mod forum for discussion. There is more I could say about the process, having been a mod here, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to, and I don't know how much of the previous program the current squad uses.

This is a very high volume site. Dozens of reports are made daily, not counting the ones sentin by mods. This is just how it is. I would advise folks to just keep enjoying the free site, and volunteer to mod the next time they ask.

 

[LaFemme]

I can relate what has worked well for the site where I've moderated forums for over 12 years. Each sub-forum has an assigned moderator. He or she handles all issues in that forum. If a member has a disagreement with a moderation decision, the site admins can be contacted, but unless there's an egregious error in judgment, the mod's decision will stand.

Typically, members who frequent a given forum and are seen as stable and fair minded are offered the responsibility to be a moderator. These members know the regulars, know the unique culture of that forum, and set expectations for behavior. But ultimately, the site's rules and mission are the guidelines the moderators work with.

The site has a private "Office" forum where admins and mods can update each other on issues, handle coverage during an absence, and post things like banned member lists. Because I'm a member first and moderator second, I participate and communicate with everyone, so I'm not an unknown quantity....they know how I'll react to an issue, and often the regulars "self moderate" the place.

It's run smoothly the entire time I've been a member, and issues don't linger unresolved, members aren't confused by silence, and there are few complaints. Seems successful, but I also know every site is different, so there may be reasons this wouldn't work here.

The site I used to moderate, did it that way as well. Or in a quite similar way. Each forum had a set of moderators and we kept it covered. Moderators were members, but were anonymous to avoid being targeted by the membership. For example, the Women’s Issues Forum Moderators could all operate under the handle Wifo Mod Goddess; Sex with a Large Penis Moderators could all operate under the handle SexLP Mod God. Or something like that. Simple decisions are made easily by one person. Bigger ones are between forum mods (two or three people max). Big ones go to the “office”.

We rarely had problems. But I guess each to their own.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

Interpretation can be subjective, and the original moderation teams were constantly accused of favoritism before it came out that most decisions were by vote. Now that the team is smaller, I assume more of them have to vote before a minimum number of votes is reached. Some types of issues get instant response by the first mod to see. Others, even if a mod notices for himself or herself, still go to the mod forum for discussion. There is more I could say about the process, having been a mod here, but I'm not sure I'm supposed to, and I don't know how much of the previous program the current squad uses.

This is a very high volume site. Dozens of reports are made daily, not counting the ones sentin by mods. This is just how it is. I would advise folks to just keep enjoying the free site, and volunteer to mod the next time they ask.

I'm not seeking details so don't say anything more, I understand there are details that shouldn't be made public. The site I mod was extremely high volume, actually the largest site in its type worldwide. The moderation team is dozens, all members, and there are about double the number of sub forums lpsg has, as well as extensive content pages. For years I split my day between my actual work (in IT) and mod'ing my little corner of that forum site. For a few years I was a paid author writing product reviews. The site changed ownership and traffic dropped in conjunction with the penetration of other social media.

Anyway, you asked my suggestion, and that's what has worked well.

 

[ItsAll4Kim]

The site I used to moderate, did it that way as well. Or in a quite similar way. Each forum had a set of moderators and we kept it covered. Moderators were members, but were anonymous to avoid being targeted by the membership. For example, the Women’s Issues Forum Moderators could all operate under the handle Wifo Mod Goddess; Sex with a Large Penis Moderators could all operate under the handle SexLP Mod God. Or something like that. Simple decisions are made easily by one person. Bigger ones are between forum mods (two or three people max). Big ones go to the “office”.

We rarely had problems. But I guess each to their own.

Same here, no real problems and very few complaints other than the constant problems with vBulletin, which should refund every site that uses it imho. We not only weren't anonymous, but most of us, myself included, used our real names as member ID's. Not an issue, and it keeps us mindful that we are writing to other real people in the real world. But that would NOT work here, obviously.

And definitely, to each his/her own. Their site, their system.

 

[5104]

Yesterday in Paul Joseph Watson's YouTube channel, he talked about incels in his video titled "The Truth About Incels". Wondering if anyone here seen it, and what yall think? I don't know how to attach a link to that video.

Yeah, I saw it. It didn't answer much, but was pretty clever.

I don't remember anyone like an INCEL until I read that manifesto by whats his name that killed all the young people in Santa Barbara.

People who weren't cool in JR High and HS knew it and knew why. From where did this entitlement factor come? Why are these people so bold now? The one murderer claims he approached 40 girls? Where do they get the guts? Is it just a symptom of autism?

Maybe the vaccines really cause this. I wonder how Robert Kennedy Jr. is doing on that issue.

 

[MickeyLee]

Please stop throwing Autistics under the bus. These people are not mentally ill, they are not Autistic... They are entitled assholes who have been taught that as white, heterosexual men their needs take priority over other people's right to live.

Toxix privilege, toxic masulinity, and toxic entitlement. These are problems that stem from American culture. We need to stop blaming subsets of disinfranchised people for the actions of fucking assholes.

Statistically, the mentally ill and neuro-nontypical are far more likely to be the victims of violence than they are to be perpetrator of violence.

 

[englad]

@MickeyLee covered the reason why it is wrong and stupid to try to throw autistic people under the bus. Now let me hone in on the last section of your post.

Maybe the vaccines really cause this. I wonder how Robert Kennedy Jr. is doing on that issue.

VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM.

The man who suggested that they might in a highly misleading article was struck off the General Medical Council in the UK 8 years ago for dishonesty and failing to put the interests of vulnerable child patients first.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/24/andrew-wakefield-struck-off-gmc

 

[950483]

@MickeyLee covered the reason why it is wrong and stupid to try to throw autistic people under the bus. Now let me hone in on the last section of your post.



VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM.

The man who suggested that they might in a highly misleading article was struck off the General Medical Council in the UK 8 years ago for dishonesty and failing to put the interests of vulnerable child patients first.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/may/24/andrew-wakefield-struck-off-gmc

Nobody knows what causes autism. Just imagine how much money the government would have had to pay out if the link between the MMR vaccine and autism had been proven. Doctors have done far worse and not been struck off, which does make me slightly suspicious. I don't expect to find out what the cause of autism is in my lifetime, but it's good that people are trying to find out and trying to come up with anything that will help.

My son has Asperger's, and is not an incel or a terrorist btw @LloydBaker . I do not blame the MMR vaccine, I just resign myself to the fact that I don't know. No, this doesn't mean that I wish to engage in conversation with you Lloyd , you are just being ignorant as usual, and I am simply pointing it out that's all.

 

[englad]

Nobody knows what causes autism. Just imagine how much money the government would have had to pay out if the link between the MMR vaccine and autism had been proven. Doctors have done far worse and not been struck off, which does make me slightly suspicious. I don't expect to find out what the cause of autism is in my lifetime, but it's good that people are trying to find out and trying to come up with anything that will help.

My son has Asperger's, and is not an incel or a terrorist btw @LloydBaker . I do not blame the MMR vaccine, I just resign myself to the fact that I don't know. No, this doesn't mean that I wish to engage in conversation with you Lloyd , you are just being ignorant as usual, and I am simply pointing it out that's all.

I disagree with the idea that doctors have done far worse. It's tough to top fuelling a public health crisis (measles incidences went from 56 in 1998 to 1400 in 2008) due to a false correlation between the MMR vaccine and autism, and then subsequently it transpires that he was paid £435,000 by the lawyers of parents who suspected a link to the vaccine, to undermine the MMR vaccine. He also did invasive tests on children without the necessary ethical approval.

Surprise, surprise! Andrew Wakefield was paid by lawyers to undermine the MMR vaccine - RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Andrew Wakefield: autism inc

Not a single study since has found any link between the two. Honestly the only doctor in the UK, I could genuinely describe as being even less ethical at the end of the twentieth century/beginning of the twenty first would be Harold Shipman.