The story of your incel – an inconvenient truth

submitted by Caamib_ from web.archive.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]greybeard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Seduction is inherently worthless. Being “sexy” alone doesn’t mean anything. In many societies throughout history extreme obesity was a status symbol. Being attractive means nothing on its own.

So you assume that "sexyness" is hardcoded, but general attractiveness is arbitrary (besides what other women find attractive)

Of course, Argentina and Mexico are different, the difference being that Argentina became promiscuous about a hundred years ago while Mexico had been promiscuous far longer.

This section could've used some sources. This is a compelling theory and would explain very much but I'm not historically literate enough to confirm it. (edit: I see you are coming back to this later in the article with some more examples)

When it comes to economy competition usually increases the quality and decreases the price. But competition among men for women destroys trust, which makes men stab each other in the back and become scumbags. It's probably very hard to get good data on this since pre- and post omega societies would be so radically different so you can't just check for a correlation between promiscuity and wealth.

Great quote. Energy wasted on unnecessary competition besides giving results that better your environment is wasted.

I'm now 25% and so far it's an interesting read. It's a bit confusing that you redefined alpha,beta,omega, but after a bit of accustomization it's no problem. One question: Is this the essence of neoreactionary thinking? That things right now are not perfect, and that in some periods in the past they were better? I can't really find a good definition online except by people who already dislike reactionaries.

[–]greybeard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, to /u/fschmidt : Is this part of your framework when you talk about that you can get incels wives? That it is an omega-culture and that some incels could be higher status in other (co-alpha or alpha) cultures?

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, but archive.org is down (another modern software turd) so I can't get the context.

[–]Caamib_[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you assume that "sexyness" is hardcoded, but general attractiveness is arbitrary (besides what other women find attractive)

I wrote that text 8 years ago so I am not sure when certain words were used but I don't think I used "sexyness" much. If I did I probably used it as almost synonymous to "attractive". Right now I believe some traits are naturally sexy to a point in that they were almost universally attractive ( things like muscles or height) but nowhere near to a point these modern incels (post 2016 incels) believe them to be. In other words, these traits were attractive in most societies in the past and today but not exclusively so.

This section could've used some sources. This is a compelling theory and would explain very much but I'm not historically literate enough to confirm it.

As far as I can remember, that post described Mexico as more sexually loose than Argentina based on the fact that Argentina was 4th in GDP of countries in 1930, while Mexico was always a backwater.

One question: Is this the essence of neoreactionary thinking? That things right now are not perfect, and that in some periods in the past they were better?

I haven't read all of neoreactionary writings but, yes, the essence of our thinking is that things were better before and are bad now. This doesn't mean there was ever a perfect time/society. Also, one thing people always talk about erroneously is that they mention the level of technology in describing best societies. This is wrong. The level of technology in a society doesn't mean that some society is automatically more successful. For example, of course that Europe in 1500 AD had less developed technology than Europe in 2020 AD but that doesn't automatically mean it was more vital and successful in 2020 AD. Technology being developed took a lot of time and effort and today's world is living on borrowed time from better times when such technology could develop.

Sorry for the late reply. Tell me if you read the entire article and do you have some opinions or questions?