My sex robot will always love me.
My sex robot will always love me.
remember that most of the people who self-identify as incels are kids in their teens and 20s. most just haven't found their footing yet in life, and these days they aren't exactly given the best start. there are a select few doomed to isolation and a lack of love for the entirety of their lives. but that is simply how it goes and most all who try to get the things they want in life will end up at least in decent conditions.
Incels seem to lack spirit. Young people have always been carried forward by the patriarchal-collective spirit of achievement and adventure. So the incels need to snap out of their victim mentality and gain that spirit. I don't think the lack of sex is the main problem because lack of sex doesn't make you identify as an incel.Originally Posted by Clarke
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I think that part of the problem is that incels are a type of people who don't have the patriarchal-collective spirit. In some ways, they might be like tomboys or non-feminine girls.
I think that incels tend to define themselves as incels due to lack of sex. Incel stands for involuntary celibate, which is the inability to get sex. Even if they don't self identify as an incel, by definition every incel is someone who's celibate without really having the choice not to be. Therefore, every incel should want sex. Otherwise, they'd be technically volcels.
Edit: So, I think that while what I said above is true, there are probably different shades of sex-wanting in the incel group. There are probably some who deeply want it and want to make society give it to them, and there are others who kind of want it, but aren't really willing to put the effort forth to try to get it. At least some people in the second might not really join an incel movement to force society to provide them with sex, maybe due to ethics.
This message has been brought to you by Jordan Peterson.
We need to make sure they're not conscious, and anyway, no one seems to be working all that hard on AI since math is the new farming and everyone wants to be above doing it.
If incels are like tomboys, what are "femcels?" There are a small number of female humans who also identify as incels, though it's definitely less common.
Basically, incels and femcels lack the male or female characteristics that would make them competitive in the sexual world. I used the tomboy comparison to try to explain that incels lacked masculine characteristics, but actually, incels aren't like tomboys because tomboys are masculine entities (incels aren't feminine entities). Incels and femcels are generally more of an androgynous group that has neither gender's sexual competitiveness.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-12-2022 at 07:18 PM. Reason: Clarity reasons.
Ideally, we'd have unconscious models that look like conscious people or conscious models that just have different desires than real people (maybe a desire to serve). However, if we did make them conscious, human-like beings, we could still help incels by increasing the supply of females in the sex market. They would be more likely to find the ideal female that actually values them, or maybe that would just lower female standards. The second probably has negative societal implications.
I actually think that a certain personality archetype is likely to like the incel (maybe they're compatible in a personality system or just have a compatible personality in general), so if you could make a sexbot that would be their perfect partner, the sexbot might want to stay with them voluntarily.
Edit: You could have it be a case where someone says "We'll make the ideal partner that has a high chance of loving you for who you are. If you mess up and they break up with you, it's on you.".
Edit 2: I realized that if you create sentient ethical robots, society will have an increase in femcels. You could solve this issue by giving femcels robot boyfriends, but ultimately, you've created a world where people are forced to have robot boyfriends/girlfriends because they can't get a real person. Given that some people don't see robots as human, I think that they wouldn't want to live in that society.
I'm thinking of alot of possible implications of this, mainly political, like that it could lead to people making anti-robot countries, and what political implications that would have. I guess I wasn't really thinking of implications before for some reason. It was almost like I didn't care about them.
I don't really think these implications are necessarily things that come from things that create original and novel views, such as maybe Ti or Ni. These are basically borrowed from concepts I have already internalized. I know that in 2016, certain people wanted to create ethnostates so that they could make sure that people of certain races married and weren't outcompeted by members of other races. I basically borrowed that concept and used it for robots.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-13-2022 at 12:08 AM.
If they lack spirit, how can they just "snap out of it" and pick one up? I'm not sure this is something you can just decide to do.
Also, what does adventure have to do with patriarchy? I would think the idea with adventure is that you're ceasing to be part of society for a while, including its social structures (patriarchy).
Basically, I think "snap out of it" means that they kind of throw away their view that they're hopeless and get the inner strength to try to get a girlfriend. In terms of adventure and the patriarchy, I guess that masculine individuals tend to be more adventurous. He was probably making a connection between the two.
I guess we could kind of say that the masculine part of society, which might be the patriarchy, expects its members to have a sort of boldness or adventure. Incels don't usually have those qualities, I think.
Last edited by Clarke; 11-13-2022 at 12:12 AM. Reason: Adding more information, clarifications.
I may be an incel, but I liked She-Hulk.
Incels have a 'fearful attachment style' due to neglectful parenting according to some psychologists; this study makes the case: https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...43609522015958 Incels score highly on paranoia, depression and anxiety.
I think that the Manosphere has actually moderated since its early days.
My sense is that, as Internet use became mainstream — sometime during the mid 2010's — a lot of esoteric movements were co-opted by mainstream politics via the innocent influx of ordinary people (and also, I'd suggest, by the coordinated infiltration of professional political operatives). The influx of traditional conservatives shifted the Manosphere to the discussion of how feminism is destroying marriage, that Western women are now less marriageable, and that people are having fewer children due to feminism, liberalism and the decline in Christianity.
MGTOW rhetoric used to be more adversarial (a niche that's been taken over by incels) and far less community-minded. MGTOW tended to believe that all women are hard-wired to exchange sex for resources (and that prostitutes are therefore the most honest women); that men should never get married, which is a trap concocted by women and society in order to extract resources from men; and that men should only engage with women in order to use them for sex (a point that was often reinforced using stronger and cruder language).
You can still find that, of course, along with the same sense of anger (it's also certainly not the case that these people couldn't be placed on some spectrum of adherence to traditionalist belief), but you do have to wade through content that complains about the lack of harmony between the sexes.
I think I found the prophet of that movement. He was the proto in cell..
I'd say it's more of the various "broken" attachment styles. Though to say that they more typify "Fearful-Avoidant"/"Anxious-Avoidant"/etc. that is a mixture of both Anxious and Avoidant styles is but 5% of the population.
The main reason why that is is normally the result of early and overt childhood physical/mental/sexual abuse. Thank Christ that it's not more than 5 percent given this data point because that'd mean things like abject child abuse and molestation were/are even more common than they already are!
Another fun fact? The most likely people who attempt to court such utterly broken individuals tend to be those who suffer from autism. Perhaps it's that utter apparent lack of emotion combined with that yet earnest desire for a real emotional connection that gets them to give them a try. A robot who cares about them as a person is at least somewhat likely to actually understand and care about them.
Problem for the autist: If they don't already know about how attachment works their pure seed A.I. logic protocols won't do jack shit!
A part of me feels sympathy and another part I don't. I can understand and place myself in their shoes and yet, I feel as though I would never fall into that darkness they willingly place themselves in. Sometimes at the end of the day it's really mind > matter.
Being an incel is more than being sexually frustrated. These are the people who hate the world and everyone in it, mainly women. They talk about murdering others for their own pleasure, raping children and the lists goes on. The whole "no sex no one loves me" thing is an act to illicit sympathy from others. They in truth actually do not give a shit and I'm tired of society not letting people like this take accountability for their actions.
They know what they're doing is wrong yet they're too cowardly to face the public eye. Why else do you think they hide away from the world and lurk on forums?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote