A growing number of incels are NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training). That should concern us all.
See full article...
See full article...
Why incels take the “Blackpill”—and why we should care
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Keep it up. You're proving my point. David Hogg won an election. And the election was nullified NOT because of wrongdoing, but because he allegedly was an improper gender.
These forums are filled with calls for Republicans to call out Donald Trump, but when two Democrat women "of color" start spouting hate, suddenly that's not worthy of discussion.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
New York. Both city AND state. Chicago. Illinois. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Seattle, Portland... How many times do you need to actually IMPLEMENT those fixes?
Oh, wait. You did. You called it defunding the police. Funny thing that, because it came with a host of decriminalization efforts as well. How well has that worked out, hmm? How many more tries do you get to take at it before you try SOMETHING different?
Look, I can't stand the militarization of the police. Wanna fix that? Let's go. And I'm sure that's not the only place where (I expect) we agree.
But I know, as happened in Portland/CHOP, when police are held back from investigating actual, violent crime (a shooting), policing is not and never was the real intended target. Anarchy was and is.
So show me a REAL solution.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Cool. What I would like you to do, and this is a very simple request, is to quote him saying that so I can evaluate it. Because I have no idea what you're talking about.
He did say this:
Asked directly whether billionaires should have a right to exist, Mamdani, who identifies himself as a democratic socialist, told NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” “I don’t think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality, and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country.”
“And I look forward to working with everyone, including billionaires, to make a city that is fair for all of them,” he added.
But that's not what you're saying. So you must be thinking of something else. Please cite it, because I do not in fact believe you.
I 100% agree with him. We should not have billionaires, and our wealth inequity is a serious problem. Anyways, that's obviously not the quote you mean, since you're saying he's called for their elimination and taking away their wealth.
So please quote and source the one you mean, where he called for eliminating billionaires and taking away their money. I would hate to find out you were going around saying "duck, dodge, and deny" to people and you couldn't back up your words.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
Hold up a moment there. For real. You know I had a friend - a good friend who's dead now because he was shot in the back by a cop? Yet I don't hate all cops because I know it's a hard job. Just the ones that don't play by the rules. I need to take break from this thread.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
No, just tax the fuck Out of the wealthy. Massively progressive taxation, like it was in the 1950s and the middle class could do more than survive.
Our Gini is well past the point historically where violent revolution redistributed wealth chaotically. They had rather it be done by law than by the mob beating them to death and taking all their stuff, which has happened plenty.
Color me unsurprised you're a temporarily embarrassed billionaire. You don't made that kind of wealth without massively exploiting your workforce, being massively selfish, and being a shitbag. Nobody needs a billion dollars.
Of course you'd come to the defense of the pieces of shit who are eliminating healthcare for millions so that they can be even more rich. They already have more money than they can spend in ten lifetimes, and you're okay with them wanting more.
And socialism? Society is socialism. The fire department. The police. Roads. Schools. Plenty of healthcare, too -- and ours is the shittiest system in the western world. We spend far more for far worse outcomes, because the parasite class thinks they're worth tens or hundreds of million dollars a year.
Then again, I'm not surprised you're okay with parasites. You're a caricature of that "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" simping for the ultra rich and not even recognizing that we already have plenty of socialism.
Society literally is socialism. And when the USA actually had a real middle class, we taxed the fuck Out of the ultra wealthy.
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
And you're proving everyone else's. Caught in a flat out lie about Ilhan Omar, you just danced around the fact that you used her as an example of the failure of DEI, when she's a duly elected official. Not "DEI" at all, except that she's a minority.
As you've done throughout this discussion -- you focus on micro details as some sort of gotcha, while ignoring macro truths that are inarguable.
And, of course, you pretend that people disagreeing with you is lecturing, hectoring,n dogpiling, etc.
Like with David Hogg: did anyone in this discussion actually defend that behavior? Say "yeah, that was a good thing they did"? No. No one said anything remotely like that.
Go on, though, keep simping for the ultra rich, and keep making stuff up about what people have said. You literally make up stuff about what's happening in this discussion, and then have the gall to wonder why no one trusts you as to what other people have said.
And, no, billionaires shouldn't exist. Tax the ever-loving shit out of them. It is wild to me that you're simping for the ultra rich and have taken the side of heteronormative white "Christian" patriarchy. I mean, you do you, boo, but I'm going to call a spade a spade. Always have, always will.
Like society == socialism. It's a matter of degree. In places with a better Gini, higher tax rates on the wealthy, outcomes are better for everyone. And nobody goes bankrupt because they can't afford their chemotherapy, or dies in the street because they're starving to death in the shadows of some billionaire's fourth Mega-Yacht. The safety nets? They make those whole countries better places to live for everyone. (Even the USA's inadequate safety nets make the USA a better place than it would be otherwise. But I'm not at all surprised that you'd rather return to the era when the elderly starved to death once they could no longer work.)
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
You're ranging far and wide to avoid what you yourself even quoted. How does a society "not have billionaires" when they already exist? While you quibble about whether he used those actual words or not, everything he says on the subject speaks to removing property and earning from people simply because he (or you) believe they have too much. How does one "work with" a group that one has openly declared should not exist? That's just Orwellian double-speak.
Look, you LOST. You've reached the point where, to you, even pejoratives like "incel" become a truth no one can shake from your vocabulary. In the meantime, even the loosest of allegations of "homophobia" gets those with whom you disagree either temp or perma banned. Don't deny that. You did it to me.
Your side lost support even among the very kinds of "oppressed" populations you claim to speak for. Because, it turns out, you've been doing a terrible job of speaking for them. It's reached the point when you've spent so much effort coddling the worst among us that even those you thought reliably "yours" are going to the other side.
Upvote
-3
(1
/
-4)
Oh come the fuck on, that's their description of themselves. I know plenty of people who don't have a girlfriend who don't describe themselves as incels.
The difference? They're working on themselves instead of blaming society and women for not just handing them a partner. You've got to earn a partner.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
What lie? I'm missing something. Ilhan Omar is an illustration of Democrats' attitude about DEI, to the point that she spouts stupidity like saying the USA is worse than Somalia.
Except that the lecture I pointed out was never in question. I accuse Mamdani of "full blown" socialism, though I acknowledge I misquoted him. What I got in response was some long-winded LARPing of a college professor engaging in remedial education.
Macro truths... that's truly comical. You want a macro truth? Your side lost votes across almost every demographic your side CLAIMS to represent. And NO ONE on The Left is even willing to acknowledge that, INCLUDING here in this forum. What -ism or -phobia do you intend to file that under?
No, you didn't. Interesting, though, that it took you three responses to say ANYTHING about it. The very party you voted for has gender-assigned ELECTED officers. You, were you to vote, can be told NOT to vote for the best candidate simply because that party wants X number of women in their leadership. And you don't think that's a quota. Or, at least, when it's pointed out, you refuse to acknowledge it. Hilarious.
Where did I say I wonder why? In fact, I get a little bit of entertainment watching the rampant hubris. Somewhat analogous to the boys in Georgia potentially being charged with a hate crime for ripping up a pride flag. While burning a USA flag is just First Amendment in action. They didn't do anything violent. Why are they being charged at all?
It's really no different here. When YOU do it, it's rational, logical. When others do it, it's simping, or whatever other word you want to make up for it. Rules for thee, but not for me.
There's that word again. It's impossible, according to you, to disagree. Your "logic" asserts that disagreement cannot happen, that there is a flaw or shortcoming in the other person simply because they don't see what you see or believe. You're calling an orange a spade, but go ahead and keep at it, Costello. Who is still on first.
Inadequate safety nets. Now that's the biggest laugh of all. Your safety net is a government-run Ponzi scheme demanding that children give up their money to fund the retirement of the older generation. I don't mind IRA's/410(k) accounts (and their variants). There's room to make them better, too. Let's work on doing THAT. Maybe minimum guaranteed returns, some loss of ability to trade directly from them. We can talk. BUT MAKE THE MONEY THE PROPERTY OF THE RETIRED. This boondoggle we call Social Security, it isn't security at all. It's quite socialist, though. And like a good socialist, NONE OF IT belongs to the retirees. Nevermind having expanded it beyond its original purpose. It's already down to less than three payors into Social Security for each payee. And headed for 2 to 1. THAT is the perfect illustration of how unamerican socialism truly is.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Upvote
-6
(0
/
-6)
Because they only exist in your mind.
Just like how "if a minority beats a white man for a job it must be DEI and therefore racist" is only in your mind.
Upvote
1
(3
/
-2)
There's really not much I could say to this anyway. I could say that I'm sorry it happened. That I believe you. But none of that changes how much it must hurt. If you come back to this AND if you read this, know that I'm all for holding that officer accountable. What follows may not help, so please, PLEASE understand that I am with you in getting rid of the bad cops. That is not in question.
In Chicago a few years ago, a delinquent (IMO) named LaQuan McDonald was shot and killed by officers. He was not a good kid (16, I think he was). He was holding a knife and definitely NOT cooperating with officers. But he did nothing to deserve being shot. I think it was 13 times. He didn't lunge at officers. Worst case, he was being a testosterone-fueled thug.
BUT, here's why I'm so much against the systemic indictments. It wasn't the system that allowed multiple vehicles with malfunctioning dashcams to be on the streets that night (video worked, sound did not, or was erased). It wasn't the system that fought for over a year to not release any of those dashcam videos. THE SYSTEM had a police oversight board. One in place since the 1960's, I believe it was. A review board that in over thirty years had NEVER recommended the termination of an officer's employment. And if the system didn't fight the release of those videos, who did? The DEMOCRAT prosecutor for Chicago. Anita Alvarez. As well, the DEMOCRAT mayor, and the DEMOCRAT city council supported that fight.
Do you really believe, in Chicago, that no officer since the 1960's had ever done anything worthy of at least recommending termination of employment? See, A SYSTEM was in place already. A system that should have seen and acted on police misconduct for decades. But all the way through that system and up into the city chief executive, the PEOPLE IN IT did not exercise their responsibility or their authority.
I do not believe this is a party problem. I believe this happens in Republican-controlled cities, too. The point, for me, is that THE SYSTEM can be changed from now until the burning out of The Sun and nothing will change until we start demanding better of THE PEOPLE in it.
Turn your eyes to Minneapolis and Derek Chauvin, ask yourself why is that Derek Chauvin felt comfortable enough with his knee on George Floyd's neck that he could straighten himself up and actually dare the crowd to do something about what he was doing. Do you really think there was no oversight SYSTEM in place?
Defunding isn't going to fix a system that isn't in use in the first place. And the only way to fix a system (whether it's good OR bad) that isn't used is to hold THE PEOPLE accountable who aren't using it.
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)
Something I've never said being assigned to me to make it into another personal attack.
Typical. And, also typical, nothing Conde intends to do anything about.
Upvote
-4
(0
/
-4)
Enough. Take a break.
You are lying about what he said, and when caught in that lie you are trying to attack the moderation to cover for it. I'm not interested.
You can argue your side here, but if you cannot stop lecturing people about their behavior, while at the same time making things up and blustering about the rules we can be done permanently.
What people say matters, and what you make up in your head doesn't. That's how this site functions.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
My first mistake was expanding an ignored poster on morbid curiosity, my second is replying...
Whether one defines "DEI" as "Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion" or "Didn't Earn It" neither can be applied to being elected to an office; she earned it, not hired nor appointed to add diversity. Her campaign convinced her constituents to vote in her favor more than her opponent.
If the party telling people how to vote meant that people had to vote for them, then how did "Your side lost votes across almost every demographic your side CLAIMS to represent"? If the party told me to vote for Sheev Palpetine, I'm still free to vote for his opponent, Cthulhu, third-party, Thanos not vote and let people excoriate me for being ok that the viable greater evil got elected.
Burning someone else's property is a crime, people who burn the US flag are usually burning one they purchased themselves...
Upvote
2
(3
/
-1)
I see that that O/Siris is taking a break now as well. As far as what happened to my friend, yes, it still hurts, and I believe that he does want to see officers that engage in misconduct punished. I'll write this as a separate comment. Perhaps he'll see it at some point.
I'll just quote this part of his reply, because I'm going to reference it later:
A brief note first: I'm probably a bit sensitive when it comes to this subject, because I've actually been thinking a lot about it the past couple of months, and I wasn't sure why. What I'm about to describe is a limited account of something that happened at least a few months before he died, maybe longer. It was something on the order of fifteen years ago. I'm a little uneasy discussing this, but I guess what it comes down to is I feel some responsibility to do so.
Note 2: At the time this happened, a company called Palantir was in the midst of a trial of their services to the city of Chicago, as a preliminary test in hopes of getting a long-term contract with the city, as I understood it from news reports at the time. The reports made it sound very futuristic, where they would use, e.g. aerial surveillance of potentially high-crime areas cross-referenced with existing data and processed using whatever passed for 'AI' at the time. And the results would be shared with law enforcement, so-called 'predictive' enforcement, whatever that meant. (I don't think they ended up getting that contract, but I can't say for certain.)
OK, a very brief description of the event in question. Me, along with my friend are under arrest in one of the gang unit buildings in the city chatting with three cops. [If that sounds scary, relax, it was totally stupid - a traffic stop combined with them finding a bit of weed. Personally, I think they were more curious about what the fuck these two were doing together, as to them it seemed 'incongruous'. The case eventually got tossed out.]
The cops had pulled out my friend's standard file and were going over that. (When you hear terms like 'known gang affiliation', be aware that in the inner city, young men often have at least some loose affiliation simply as a sort of social group that can also offer protection from being harassed. It certainly doesn't have to mean hard-core violent street gangs, though these of course exist as well.) Cops on the street know the difference. My friend seemed to place in the former category - just listening to the cops talking with him seemed to indicate that as well.
One of the cops reached into a different drawer and pulled another, smaller file (basically a single sheet as I recall). It had a title to the effect of "Supplemental report for xxx", though I don't remember the exact wording. My friend was looking at this over the cop's shoulder and said "What the fuck is this? Where did that come from? And what the fuck is it calling me? 'King' of the xxx [something super-hyperbolic and over the top, essentially]. He was a sharp guy, and also complained about the fact that everything 'official' about him was supposed to be in one file. IANAL, but presumably this was for legal purposes.
The cops were laughing and one said "I know, right, sounds like you got a big promotion, man!" One of them also told him "don't worry about it, it's just something we're supposed to be doing integrating this other information. It's a pain in the ass, because it's more paperwork for us." It seemed amusing at the time. Could I say with absolute certainty that it was the data coming from the trial? I suppose not, but it seemed to me that was the case, and I chalked up the massive discrepancy to either bias or incompetence or maybe both.
Back to O/Sisis' quote about accountability: how would either me or my friend have known about this supplemental report if we hadn't, by pure serendipity, found ourselves in this particular situation? How would anyone else whose case involved the 'integration' of such disparate data sources?
Fast-forward to today. Like I said earlier, this has been nagging at me, starting a couple of months ago and I couldn't figure out why. Then I thought about the Garcia case, and the goalpost-moving regarding his purported involvement and status within a gang. The involvement of the same company.
Only this time, it's not law enforcement that is intimately familiar with the communities and people they work with (for better or worse). It's a rapidly expanding force with barely any accountability already.
I thought about how my friend got killed. I am not saying that it had anything to do with the information I described. But it isn't hard to imagine a situation where an officer acts on the info he has, and if that indicates he's dealing with a vicious, high-ranking gang member, the use of force might be applied accordingly.
That's about all I want to put down for now. Will it make any difference at all on the 26th page of comments in an old thread? Doubtfully. But take it for what it's worth.
I'll just quote this part of his reply, because I'm going to reference it later:
A brief note first: I'm probably a bit sensitive when it comes to this subject, because I've actually been thinking a lot about it the past couple of months, and I wasn't sure why. What I'm about to describe is a limited account of something that happened at least a few months before he died, maybe longer. It was something on the order of fifteen years ago. I'm a little uneasy discussing this, but I guess what it comes down to is I feel some responsibility to do so.
Note 2: At the time this happened, a company called Palantir was in the midst of a trial of their services to the city of Chicago, as a preliminary test in hopes of getting a long-term contract with the city, as I understood it from news reports at the time. The reports made it sound very futuristic, where they would use, e.g. aerial surveillance of potentially high-crime areas cross-referenced with existing data and processed using whatever passed for 'AI' at the time. And the results would be shared with law enforcement, so-called 'predictive' enforcement, whatever that meant. (I don't think they ended up getting that contract, but I can't say for certain.)
OK, a very brief description of the event in question. Me, along with my friend are under arrest in one of the gang unit buildings in the city chatting with three cops. [If that sounds scary, relax, it was totally stupid - a traffic stop combined with them finding a bit of weed. Personally, I think they were more curious about what the fuck these two were doing together, as to them it seemed 'incongruous'. The case eventually got tossed out.]
The cops had pulled out my friend's standard file and were going over that. (When you hear terms like 'known gang affiliation', be aware that in the inner city, young men often have at least some loose affiliation simply as a sort of social group that can also offer protection from being harassed. It certainly doesn't have to mean hard-core violent street gangs, though these of course exist as well.) Cops on the street know the difference. My friend seemed to place in the former category - just listening to the cops talking with him seemed to indicate that as well.
One of the cops reached into a different drawer and pulled another, smaller file (basically a single sheet as I recall). It had a title to the effect of "Supplemental report for xxx", though I don't remember the exact wording. My friend was looking at this over the cop's shoulder and said "What the fuck is this? Where did that come from? And what the fuck is it calling me? 'King' of the xxx [something super-hyperbolic and over the top, essentially]. He was a sharp guy, and also complained about the fact that everything 'official' about him was supposed to be in one file. IANAL, but presumably this was for legal purposes.
The cops were laughing and one said "I know, right, sounds like you got a big promotion, man!" One of them also told him "don't worry about it, it's just something we're supposed to be doing integrating this other information. It's a pain in the ass, because it's more paperwork for us." It seemed amusing at the time. Could I say with absolute certainty that it was the data coming from the trial? I suppose not, but it seemed to me that was the case, and I chalked up the massive discrepancy to either bias or incompetence or maybe both.
Back to O/Sisis' quote about accountability: how would either me or my friend have known about this supplemental report if we hadn't, by pure serendipity, found ourselves in this particular situation? How would anyone else whose case involved the 'integration' of such disparate data sources?
Fast-forward to today. Like I said earlier, this has been nagging at me, starting a couple of months ago and I couldn't figure out why. Then I thought about the Garcia case, and the goalpost-moving regarding his purported involvement and status within a gang. The involvement of the same company.
Only this time, it's not law enforcement that is intimately familiar with the communities and people they work with (for better or worse). It's a rapidly expanding force with barely any accountability already.
I thought about how my friend got killed. I am not saying that it had anything to do with the information I described. But it isn't hard to imagine a situation where an officer acts on the info he has, and if that indicates he's dealing with a vicious, high-ranking gang member, the use of force might be applied accordingly.
That's about all I want to put down for now. Will it make any difference at all on the 26th page of comments in an old thread? Doubtfully. But take it for what it's worth.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Sadly, it's really easy for inner city folks to get gang-tagged. Things like "wears his hair in braids" can be a sign of affiliation. Tattoos. (And not, like "I'm a member of the eight-trey gangsta crips" tattoos, either, just regular tattoos.) Hanging out in gang territory. (It's all gang territory! Everywhere there's corner boys is someone's territory!) Getting stopped with a known gang member... or someone "affiliated," whether they are or aren't. The police don't pay any price for misclassifying..
And getting gang-tagged makes our already two-tiered justice system into a three tiered justice system: effectively, the white -> POC divide is about the same magnitude as the POC -> "affiliated" divide. It's so, so, so much worse for those who've been gang-tagged.
...
Okay, I realize this situation will in all likelihood not come up for 99.9% of ars readers, but just in case if you're in gang territory, don't ask someone "where you from?" if what you want to know is where they live. Ask "where you stay at?" The former is basically code for "what gang do you belong to?" and is a recipe for disaster. For serious disaster. Especially if there's people around -- because backing down from that sort of challenge can be suicidal. No, it doesn't seem like it should be a challenge. Yes, it absolutely is taken as a challenge.
...
And hey, everyone reading on page 26 is interested. Almost axiomatically. Will it change anything? Probably not directly. But it's another data point, and I can pretty well guarantee that anyone still reading pp 26 of a necro-d thread wants more data.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
That's basically never been true about anything, because that's not how public services or taxation work. They're services, not businesses
I know O/Siris has been thread banned, but I was curious if anyone else had any idea what "contortions" he was talking about? Because incel is a self-descriptor. The communities of those folks identify as incels.
And I do know some men who'd like girlfriends or wives, but they don't blame society or women for that being their truth. One? We've recently had a long talk: he had been one of those "she must be exactly this and exactly that" men. He wanted: someone 5'8" to 5'10", must have blue eyes, must have red hair, must have a C cup or bigger, must weigh between 125-135 pounds, must have scored 1450+ in the SAT, must have an Ivy League degree, etc, etc, etc. He had so many "must"s it was ridiculous. Sure, if you have tens of millions of dollars, I suppose you can be that exacting. (You'd be being stupid, but you've got your pick at that point.)
Austin, you're 5'11, a little on the pudgy side, balding, and have a weak chin. Your car is cool, but nothing like Ferrari cool. You graduated from UC Riverside. You make enough money to live in San Diego, but you don't make enough money to have a second home.You don't take international vacations. Etc. He's not a bad guy, he's just foolishly so attached to external beauty standards that he's eliminated 96% of women from the get. So of course when you're fishing in a much reduced pool, it's a lot harder to find someone special.
I think I got through to him -- he's going on a date Saturday with another friend of mine who meets none of his "standards," but she's a lot <<1>> of fun and has a sense of humor that wouldn't be out of place in WH40K's universe. Hopefully he can get over himself enough to realize that one should partner shop around brains and soul, not looks. Looks don't last. Every beautiful woman turns into an old woman eventually -- and not all of them are GILFs. 8
..
<<1>> in a lot of ways, she's my secret weapon for men who think their woman has to be "just so," because it's pretty rare someone has her type as their just so. She actually is "my type," except she's a Dawkins atheist actively hostile to religion which just doesn't work for me. Disagreement? Sure. Different tradition? Sure. But she doesn't even like my functionalist view of it. Even so, she's sex-positive, thinking... knowing, even... that sometimes "fucking is fun" is enough reason. And hot damn she can be fun. If nothing else I know she'll in all likelihood fuck some bitterness out of him.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Lying? I straight up acknowledged mea culpa on it. And for that, you say I tried to cover it up?
Moderation, indeed.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
/// OFFICIAL MODERATION NOTICE ///
As promised, we are done permanently.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia....ind-orchestra-auditions-really-benefit-women/
I think it's a good idea but the papers conclusions aren't reproducible allegedly.
See "Going Blind to See More Clearly." and
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/16/arts/music/blind-auditions-orchestras-race.html
Last edited:
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
Upvote
-5
(0
/
-5)