• MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Technically you can have an incel who isn’t a misogynist. Incel just means involuntarily celibate, most incels are misogynists, but some aren’t, and just don’t talk to people at all because of other mental health issues that don’t get treated making that person completely solitary and unable to communicate with others.

          The term incel was coined by a woman who has been involuntarily celibate and saught to create a supportive community for people like her. The problem arrose later.

          Edit: Spelling.

            • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              10 months ago

              No problem. I just thought it was an important distinction because an anarchist country cannot exist by definition, while there is nothing in the definition of incel that requires them to be misogynistic. Though considering how meaning of words change over time, you could make the case that by the modern way we use the word incel, we don’t mean to include all who are involuntarily celibate, but only the toxic people who blame their situation on external factors. Even then, there surely are at least a handful of gay incels who blame other men for not being interested in them, and therefore wouldn’t be necessarily misogynistic.

                • MrFunnyMoustache@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Yeah, it’s not easy to come up with something that is absolute like that, and also make it immediately understandable to a wide audience without needing to explain it.

                  For example I can say “an anarchist country is like saying an unarmed interstellar spaceship”, a lot of people wouldn’t know that it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship, so this defeats the purpose of the comparison because it requires an additional explanation.

                  I can’t think of any example right now that is absolute and that is also ubiquitous knowledge to be immediately understood without relying of specialised interest knowledge or explanation…

                  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    it’s actually impossible to have an unarmed interstellar spaceship

                    Since this subthread had already stepped into the realm of sidetracked internet debate, I’d like to challenge that claim.

                    I understand that the reasoning behind this statement is that interstellar travel requires some properties that disqualify the ship from being considered “unarmed”:

                    • Interstellar travel requires ridiculous speed, which makes the ship itself a kinetic weapon.
                    • The ship will need formidable defensive mechanism to survive cosmic radiation and impact with particles at the speed it is traveling.

                    I see two problems with this argument:

                    1. The spaceship could use some sort of FTL travel, which may or may not bypass these requirements entirely.
                    2. Regular cars have enough kinetic energy to kill people, and they are reinforced to a certain degree so that they won’t break from the strains of the speeds they travel in. Would you also say that it is impossible to have an unarmed car? One could certainly make such a claim, but that kind of drains the meaning out of the term “unarmed”…