Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

Especially the incel guy, just going around to advertise how much of a loser he is. What sense does that make?

I think you're making his point.

He's not even making a point! Incel is, to my knowledge, a self-descriptor; a really utterly pathetic self-descriptor that betrays the speaker's self-hatred more than anything. I suppose you could use it as an insult, but then the political alignment of the insulter wasn't the deciding factor, it was the fact that they're an asshole. Even supposing Republicans never used that pejorative, does that stop them from thinking it? Incels aren't even a thing you could ever realistically discern from looking at someone, they're not a group you could single out, what's the point in going around with a sign?

I suppose my real question to the sign-holder is: What the fuck are you even thinking, young man? No one cares if you're an incel, but if you go around with a sign proclaiming it and then making a fatuous relation to political alignment, you deserve to be mocked.

Are people really going around with cringey signs like that? That blows my mind more than anything else. Especially the incel guy, just going around to advertise how much of a loser he is. What sense does that make?

I don't know the context of that sign - the other one in that image was the important one. Those were from the Lobby Day (the day designated to make your opinions known on end-of-term bills) protest against gun control last month in Virginia.

I realize that, I was just flabbergasted, I'll shut up now.

[Trekkin]

I suppose my real question to the sign-holder is: What the fuck are you even thinking, young man? No one cares if you're an incel, but if you go around with a sign proclaiming it and then making a fatuous relation to political alignment, you deserve to be mocked.

"Incel" is a relatively recent version of the "basement-dwelling neckbeard virgin" insult that is apocryphally thown around by the hypothetical radical feminists responding to presumed accusations of sexual promiscuity leveled at them by apocryphal conservatives in the war each side fights with their conjectures of the other. He's probably referring to that.

[wierd]

I have seen Incel lobbed as a pejorative, much like 'Red piller' is for MGTOW folks.

Both are used as self-descriptors, but also as pejoratives by their ideological counterparts. 


My understanding is that this guy does NOT self-identify as an "incel", but is called one pejoratively.  Being an asexual male, I could also potentially get stuck with that pejorative incorrectly.  In my case, it is simply because I find nobody else attractive, not because I have some ideological desire to be sterile, or to refuse being with somebody else for convoluted reasons. (and thus, not an incel). It would not stop a hot-head from refusing to acknowledge this difference however, and insist on the label, should the get hot and bothered enough.

[delphonso]

My understanding is that this guy does NOT self-identify as an "incel", but is called one pejoratively.  Being an asexual male, I could also potentially get stuck with that pejorative incorrectly.  In my case, it is simply because I find nobody else attractive, not because I have some ideological desire to be sterile, or to refuse being with somebody else for convoluted reasons. (and thus, not an incel). It would not stop a hot-head from refusing to acknowledge this difference however, and insist on the label, should the get hot and bothered enough.

And if they did...you could shoot them with your gun.

[wierd]

My understanding is that this guy does NOT self-identify as an "incel", but is called one pejoratively.  Being an asexual male, I could also potentially get stuck with that pejorative incorrectly.  In my case, it is simply because I find nobody else attractive, not because I have some ideological desire to be sterile, or to refuse being with somebody else for convoluted reasons. (and thus, not an incel). It would not stop a hot-head from refusing to acknowledge this difference however, and insist on the label, should the get hot and bothered enough.

And if they did...you could shoot them with your gun.

The gun I don't own, because I feel it is unnecessary when living within a city limits? 




Yes-- Sure.  My imaginary gun. I can shoot them with that. Yes.



My beef with the gun control angle, is that both sides are pathologically insistent on a "My way or the highway!" view.  The reality is vastly different--  People in rural Alaska kinda DO need high powered rifles to be safe from dangerous apex carnivores, like bears. (Polar bear has 4 inch thick skin. You kinda DO need a high power rifle with armor piercing capabilities.) People in cities really don't.


The ability to own a firearm should be controlled, but should also reflect the living conditions and availability of emergency services for the individual making the purchase.  I live in a city. I do not need a gun.  That does not mean the person in Alaska should not be allowed to own one. 

This is NOT that difficult.  The problem is unnecessary fear from both sides of the issue, preventing such a sensible and rational approach.

[WealthyRadish]

delphonso surely meant "you" to mean the guy with the weirdly unrelated incel sign at a gun nut rally, not referring to you, wierd.

The other signs are weirdly targeted as well. I'd speculate the organizers requested that attendants incorporate diverse themes into their protests in order to alleviate the negative association they have with alt-right militia/prepper types. Also, could the guy with the incel sign really not take off the barcode sticker?

[delphonso]

My beef with the gun control angle, is that both sides are pathologically insistent on a "My way or the highway!" view.  The reality is vastly different--  People in rural Alaska kinda DO need high powered rifles to be safe from dangerous apex carnivores, like bears. (Polar bear has 4 inch thick skin. You kinda DO need a high power rifle with armor piercing capabilities.) People in cities really don't.


The ability to own a firearm should be controlled, but should also reflect the living conditions and availability of emergency services for the individual making the purchase.  I live in a city. I do not need a gun.  That does not mean the person in Alaska should not be allowed to own one. 

This is NOT that difficult.  The problem is unnecessary fear from both sides of the issue, preventing such a sensible and rational approach.

I think this is actually where I tend to stand as well.

A real and serious issue is where gun laws are coming from. Removal of restrictions are coming from corporations which are looking at their bottom line. Limitation to gun ownership is coming from politicians who don't know anything about guns and are working off incomplete and usually sensationalized information. (Like California's pistol grip laws and the attachments you can purchase to ignore the restriction.) This is, however, a tangent from the original topic which I think is...gun advocates are racist? Kinda lost the plot, personally.

delphonso surely meant "you" to mean the guy with the weirdly unrelated incel sign at a gun nut rally, not referring to you, wierd.

Absolutely correct.

[wierd]

Pathological complacency is kinda endemic to the american culture.  Ignore the barcode, it means nothing. (It probably took all that guy has just to get outside with the sign!)


No, to me the real issue is the "my way or the highway" demands of both sides of the gun control argument.  Asserting that YES, people far away from emergency services with real potential for being harmed in mere seconds by a bear or other large carnivore with little to no chance of getting emergency services kinda really DO have a legitimate need to carry a "man killing" (ahem) grade weapon-- just cannot be fathomed by the extreme "NO GUNS! NO-- THERE IS ***NEVER*** A NEED FOR ONE! EVER!" crowd. Likewise the argument of "No, you literally have police patroling your streets at all hours, and are within easy reach of emergency services, you DO NOT need a firearm." does not sink in with the "BUT MUH RIIIIGHTS!! I WANTS MUH 50 cal submachine guhns!!!" crowd.

Because we have idiots on both sides polarizing the discussion to extremes that are just astoundingly stupid, there will never be such a sensible bit of legislation passed or enforced.

[Pancakes]

An issue with the whole 2nd amendment thing is that a lot of people seem to, at least to me, value the 2nd amendment over the other ones. I really don't ever see discussion on this. Like, are any amendments more important than others? IMO yes (1st amendment gang rise up!), but what is the consensus amongst people, and how does that change between demographics?

One of the best things about the US constitution is that it is meant to be flexible, and change over time. We have even gone back on some stuff, i.e. Prohibition. It's not like it would be impossible to go back on some stuff if it turns out that, hey, we were wrong... Albeit some things might be more difficult to go back on.

[Kagus]

I'm pretty sure a fair few people want their own guns precisely *because* the police are patrolling nearby at all times... But that's another matter.

[Trekkin]

Asserting that YES, people far away from emergency services with real potential for being harmed in mere seconds by a bear or other large carnivore with little to no chance of getting emergency services kinda really DO have a legitimate need to carry a "man killing" (ahem) grade weapon-- just cannot be fathomed by the extreme "NO GUNS! NO-- THERE IS ***NEVER*** A NEED FOR ONE! EVER!" crowd.

So you're saying we can win the gun control debate forever if we get PETA to pay for us to load rabies with a gene drive to replace ursine fur with overlapping sheets of that one ludicrously durable protein-goethite composite and disperse it among wild bear populations?

Because a debate that can be solved with a horde of super-rabid bulletproof bears seems more like an opportunity, frankly.

[wierd]

No, that wont actually solve anything because the afore mentioned extremists will not budge, even if you had literal manbearpig frothing at the mouth and raping underage kids pedobear style in the woods.

While a silly thought can be fun to think about, I am afraid that the level of stupid on display here exceeds all forms of reasonable comprehension.

[Trekkin]

The joke was meant to be more about how making dangerous animals bulletproof is among the worst ways to "solve" rural people needing guns to protect themselves from them. While fallacious, argumentum ad Ursus bulletsonlymakethemangryatus is surpisingly hard to defeat.

[JoshuaFH]

I hate to ask this and expose my naïveté, but was the incel guy I was railing against just a 'mock protester' that was just following orders and parading around with a sign of someone else's design? That is just for politically strategic reasons and not for genuine advocacy?

[dragdeler]

-