There was likely a time when “incel” just meant “involuntarily celibate,” without all of the baggage, but then two things happened together.

First, a significant number of “incels,” most notably on 4chan, fell into a specific set of essentially misogynistic coping behaviors - primarily blaming the supposed hypocrisy and shallowness of women for their own problems.

And second, a significant number of smugly self-righteous bigots saw an opportunity to hurl self-affirming hatred at an undifferentiated mass of people without suffering the backlash they’d get if it was directed at a group that essentially enjoys protected status, and leaped at the opportunity.

So now the popular conception is that all involuntarily celibate men are “incels,” with all that that implies - that they’re not just involuntarily celibate, but shallow, hateful, misogynistic losers and assholes.

It could potentially help if involuntarily celibate men who don’t share the misogyny of the “incels” had their own label, but honestly I don’t think it would make much of a difference in the long run, because there are now enough asshole bigots reveling in their hatred of “incels” that they’d refuse to let anyone get away. Just like all other more traditional bigots, they’d cling to their self-affirming conception that the mere fact that an individual is of a specific race gender sexual orientation relationship status means that they’re necessarily foul and loathsome, so their hatred of them is justified.

True, and I indeed should have said “reflex” instead.

Seriously, WHAT is THE DEAL with conservative disinformationists scattering ALL-CAPS WORDS throughout EVERYTHING they WRITE?

My THEORY is that it’s MEANT as a SUBSTITUTE for LOGIC and REASON - that in LIEU of saying things that are ACTUALLY logical, reasonable or true, they JUST say things really LOUDLY.

It MUST be TRUE because it’s so EMPHATIC, right?

And it PROBABLY triggers a PAVLOVIAN response in the DUNDERHEADS who READ it. “LOOK at all the CAPS! This is MY kind of TRUTHINESS!”

It’s just… WEIRD. And sort of PATHETIC.

I have no more right to interfere in someone else’s life than they have to interfere in mine.

Avoid people who don’t share that view.

People are almost more susceptible to simpler charts with race and IQ than they are to the really complicated stuff

Ironically enough, that’s because they’re stupid.

It amuses the hell out of me every time the conservatives whine about their brazen disinformation getting censored, since whenenver and wherever they get an opportunity (including, especially ironically, Facebook), they reveal themselves to be the most cowardly censorious people on the planet.

Everywhere, without exception, where conservatives have control, anything that even hints at undermining their comforting delusions is instantly censored.

But if anybody dares to censor anything they might want to say, including overt and deliberate lies, they wail and cry like the spoiled children they are.

I guarantee that the explanation for this would become very obvious if one were to simply, as the cliche has it, “follow the money.”

So the unspoken bit about RFK Jr. is that he’s a tweaker, right?

I mean, the details are all in the context of politically entitled progeny, but the underlying vibe I get from the stories about him is very reminiscent of the tweakers I’ve known over the years.

Who said anything about striving to be different?

That’s at least as cringey as striving to be the same, and generally even more so.

Strongly agreed.

I’m reminded of the scene in Groundhog Day in which they have that one day that just unfolds naturally and is so wonderful, and then the next time through, the Bill Murray character tries to duplicate it, and it’s just awful and cringey.

Lemmy, given the chance, will (continue to) develop its own norms and memes and traditions, and be that much better for it. Just trying to duplicate Reddit here is not only doomed to failure, but cringey.

“I think she’s beautiful — very beautiful! I find her very beautiful. I think she’s liberal. She probably doesn’t like Trump. I hear she’s very talented. I think she’s very beautiful, actually — unusually beautiful!"

I don’t think it’s with her popularity that the creepy old serial sex abuser is preoccupied…

And a billionaire singer who’s already such a common target for AI deepfakes that she’s quite likely the one person on the planet most ready, willing and able to sue someone’s ass off over them.

Wow - that was quite possibly the dumbest thing he’s done yet.

Reminder that Trump doesn’t live in reality.

He lives in a fantasy world in which he’s the rightful center of the universe, and his entire conception of truth and falsehood and right and wrong is based on how well or how poorly things or ideas or people fit into that worldview.

Interesting strategy there…

The exact and only point of overturning Chevronis to make it so that corporations (and apparently branches of the government?) will be free to destroy the environment in order to generate more wealth for the c-suite and the investor class, but it isn’t going to happen all by itself. It’s necessary for someone to make this specific challenge, so that then the wholly corrupt and compromised supreme court can rule in their favor, then the corporations will be free to pollute to their hearts’ content.

That isn’t a slam dunk though. The plutocrats have to be careful about who files the challenge, since a particularly egregious or unpopular corporation will likely draw too much attention to the scheme and generate opposition, which in turn will spotlight the brazen corruption of the supreme court.

So it’s an interesting strategy to not even use a corporation at all, but a branch of the government itself. On the one hand, it not only sidesteps the risk of the opposition it could face if it was a corporation with a poor reputation - by having it not be a corporation at all, it will potentially distract from the underlying fact that the whole thing is being done primarily to benefit corporations at the cost of the health and well-being of people, and of society as a whole. But on the other hand, as a branch of government, it could all be irrelevant, since it’s not necessary for the EPA to have enforcement authority - there are other mechanisms by which the Air Force can be held liable for the pollution for which they are self-evidently liable.

And maybe that’s the point. The Air Force can serve as the test case that will establish the desired precedent that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to enforce environmental law or to hold polluters accountsble for the harm they’ve done, but can then potentially avoid the demonization a corporation would rightly face for being the point organization in this blatantly destructive and self-serving and short-sighted scheme by going ahead and at least carrying out some token effort to rectify the situation, under some other authority. It’ll potentially serve as a way to minimize the clear threat - of making it seem to casual observers that eliminating EPA authority won’t make it so that polluters will be entirely free to destroy the environment, in spite of the fact that, in cases other than a branch of government that’s subject to other lines of authority, that’s exactly what it will do, and in fact exactly what it was intended to do.

Dastardly…

He doesn’t need to do it this time - he has a veritable army of fascists, a brazenly corrupt and compromised supreme court and a squad of billionaire plutocrats to do it all on his behalf, and not coincidentally they have a detailed blueprint in Project 2025 that tells them exactly what to do, step by step, to transform the US into a christofascist/plutocratic autocracy.

All Trump has to do this time around is just carry on being Trump, while all those other people do all the dirty work.

To “win?” No - not really.

But I don’t think that matters much.

Honestly, I think that Trump and the overt fascists and plutocrats who are backing him fully intend to get him into office or destroy the country trying - that if he doesn’t win legitimately, he’ll “win” through fraud, or through the machinations of the brazenly corrupt and compromised supreme court, or through violent revolution.

His backers - the Heritage Foundation and the rest of the fascists and Musk and Thiel and the rest of the plutocrats and so on - don’t just want to try to get him into office - they want to destroy American liberty and democracy. It’s not even so much about him specifically - he’s just the right combination of charismatic and shallow that they see him as their opportunity to impose the autocracy they want. And I don’t think they’re going to let anything stand in their way. So whether or not he actually wins the election isn’t even really relevant, other than to the degree that that will determine what other strategies they might have to, and will, implement.

I’m regularly struck by the literal insanity of politics, but this whole deal with Israel is a particularly notable example.

The fact of the matter is that we have no idea what Harris’s actual opinion of the situation is. Regardless of what it might actually be, she has to support Israel, which at this point means supporting a government of literal murderous psychopaths who are simultaneously carrying out a genocide in Gaza and a violent incremental illegal land grab in the West Bank while also brazenly trying to provoke, and drag the US into, a war with Lebanon or Syria or Yemen or Iran. And why does she have to support all of that patent evil? Because if she doesn’t, AIPAC will spend millions and millions of dollars trying to destroy her, like they already destroyed Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush, for daring to have principles.

And what’s the likely net result of that? To elect a Republican, which is to say, a member of the party of actual antisemites.

They accuse Democrats of being antisemites merely for calling genocide genocide, and meanwhile, the actual antisemites - the people who comtinue to hold to the notion of Jews as evil, money-grubbing vermin who are conspiring to take over the world, are Republicans, even including Republicans in high office, like “Jewish space lasers” Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Think about how insane that is - a politician has to publicly support a genocidal regime or face being called an antisemite and having an Israeli advocacy group spend millions and millions of dollars to destroy her and instead elect the candidate from the party of actual Jew-hating antisemites.

And as if that isn’t enough, we have Jill Stein in the middle of it all, who, with zero chance of actually winning, is free to take the position that any rational person should take, and the position that the majority of the Democratic base takes - that genocide is genocide and is rightly condemned. And that then introduces the risk that she’ll draw off enough Democratic voters, merely by taking the position held by the majority, so the position that the Democratic candidate should take, that it will hand the election to the Republican - the candidate of the party of actual antisemites.

The whole thing is bludgeoningly insane. I don’t think anyone could’ve created such a grotesquely dysfunctional and actuslly counter-productive system if they’d deliberately set out to do it.

And yet that’s the world we live in - the world we’re forced to live in - a world warped by the literal insanity of a wealthy and powerful few.

It boggles my mind.

Mmm…no

It’s “some random guy with a working moral framework, the ability to feel empathy, and some measure of respect for the rights of other humans and simple human decency calling a bunch of murderous xenophobic psychopaths murderous xenophobic psychopaths.” So it’s in fact nothing like that.

Right, nor did I expect a rating based an on individual article - sorry if that’s the way I made it sound.

It’s simply that the rating of high credibility accompanying an article that was so obviously little more than a barrage of loaded language cast the problem into such sharp relief that I went from being unimpressed by MBFC to actively not wanting to see it.