Are we going to declare incels terrorists or not yet? How many more homicides and rapes to start doing it?



Do you think we should declare “terrorists” all people who practice a certain religion, of a certain sex, within a certain age bracket, of a certain nationality, or who espouse a certain political ideology — just because they are overrepresented in stats about homicide and rape, compared to other religion, the other sex, younger/older people, other nationalities, or other political views?

@tripu That's not what I said at all. Please, read the article.

The problem is not belonging to any of the demographics you mention, the problem is them public and shamelessly threatening with violence. And then following up on that threat with real violence.


Yes, I read the article. I offer you this one in return.

I’m all about detecting mental health issues to treat them early, and preventing violence IRL. I just object to “declaring terrorists”.

My logic against that is: that study is about one specific online community only, there appear to be zero concrete links between discussions on that site and actual violence, the study seems week in some regards (eg, doesn’t seem to distinguish between hyperbole, humour and irony, and actual beliefs or intentions), and — most importantly — we have no idea what percentage of “incels” are represented on that site.

That is why I was comparing to other demographics. We don’t declare all self-declared “islamists” “terrorists” just because there are large online communities of islamists discussing, or even advocating, violence.

@tripu There are links between the violence and the threats. There has been several claimed attacks from incels. Starting with the 2014 Isla Vista killings, but sadly not ending there.

And that may be one community... the biggest, the one that is feeding the rest (which are just satellites), the one that is seriously leading the movement.


From the UnHerd article:

“Is there any correlation between all this nasty posting and real-world behaviour? There’s no data to support this bold assertion. In fact, a recent study into the incel community suggests otherwise. And so does the report itself: the main section includes a subheader titled ‘Links to Offline Violence’ that includes just one case of a man arrested for possession of an assault rifle and an ‘attempt to commit a hate crime.’”

I can’t seem to find the report to check that myself. But if it’s so, that’s extremely flimsy evidence of online discussions leading to IRL violence.

You say:

“There are links between the violence and the threats. There has been several claimed attacks from [COMMUNITY]. Starting with the [YEAR] [INCIDENT], but sadly not ending there.”

If we were to insert some other community there instead of “incels”, and some other outrageous attack attributed to a member of that community, and your statement still held true, would you be willing to declare all members of that other community “terrorists”, too? If not, what’s the difference, what are the other criteria? (Honest question.)

@tripu It's sad that that reporter couldn't find any link when they are lots of. This tells more about that article than about my argument.

This one, from two days ago:

Or go to wikipedia to look for the most famous ones (there are many more, just one search away):

@tripu If some other community had in their definition hate for another group, and shared how to perform violence against that hated group, and they shared manifestos on why that hated group shouldn't have any rights... Of course, yes.

If KKK was a real thing right now, please, mark them as terrorists.


This is the exact link between those cases and every other “incel” in the world. In that article:

“[He] declared himself a so-called ‘incel’”

An on the WP article:

“[People] have self-identified as involuntarily celibate, or whose statements align with incel ideologies”

ie, we would declare terrorists thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people who never hurt anybody just because a handful of them self-identified as belonging to the same loosely-defined group.


Another way to see how that logic is dangerous:

31% of British Muslims believe that apostates should be killed. Yet in the UK they do not label “terrorists” all Muslims.

In Egypt, that percentage more than doubles (64% favour killing apostates). And three quarters of Palestinians defend the stoning of women as punishment for adultery. That does not make Egyptians or Palestinians “terrorists” as a whole, of course.

Those figures above seem more alarming (and reliable) than any report I’ve seen about “incel” “communities” so far.

@delawen :

“Many Islamist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, have been willing to pursue their ends by peaceful political processes, rather than revolutionary means. Others, notably Qutb, called for violence, and his followers are generally considered Islamic extremists.”

That’s the approach I advocate.

Let’s condemn explicitly violent groups of any sort, be it incels, Muslims, Christians, conservatives, environmentalists, anarchists, whatever — without treating each and every individual who self-identifies with the label as a terrorist.


“The problem is them public and shamelessly threatening with violence.”

To put it another way: my issue is with that “them” above. Who is “them”? All self-declared involuntary celibates? Just those in the US? Only users of that forum? Female ones, too? What about the ones who are explicitly against violence?

How many are there in each of those categories above?

We shouldn’t paint with too broad a brush and label thousands or millions of people as “terrorists” like that. It’s a very serious accusation.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.