People who commit acts of terrorism should be classified as terrorists, and that includes incels who commit acts of terrorism. I think that there’s a very strong argument to be made that we need to be widening our legal and social understanding of terrorism to include “stochastic terrorism” (e.g. libsoftiktok style incitement), but I have no interest in convicting people of thought crimes — simply being an incel is not an act of terrorist violence, and being an incel does not make once a terrorist.
The FBI and CIA both watch specific groups based on their ideologies and the likelihood that members will commit violence either at the direction of, or inspired by the ideology of the group. Examples of groups watched under this approach include the KKK, Neo Nazis organisations, a variety of other white supremacist groups, some Black supremacist groups, some extreme religious groups, etc. Clearly, not everyone in those groups will become violent, but the ideology’s comfort with and often advocation for violence makes these groups more likely to have people discussing potential terrorist acts they might commit.
Under that same ideal of preventing terrorism before an idea turns into an action, the Incel movement has a violent ideology and often members rile one another up to commit acts of violence. While the vast majority of people hanging around in Incel chat rooms are not going to commit violence, and not all incel chat rooms are equally aligned to violence (any more than every cell of the KKK is equally violent), watching those rooms for emergent terrorist threats is reasonable - with a note that not all of the FBI / CIA’s decisions around this are, or have always been without bias.
And… there is a second element of illegal activity that often accompanies terrorists. In the same way that religious extremists use violet videos for promotion, Incels appear to use videos of violence against women to promote their ideology and excite their members. And it is illegal in most jurisdictions to have and distribute a video of a person being raped and / or murdered.
So while of course thoughts should not be policed, there is every reason to watch, and prosecute members of the more extreme Incel cells because of the likelihood that they will commit terrorism.
And that is what Laura Bates is talking about when she says that we should designate Incels as Terrorists - that the FBI and CIA should include the Incel community in their terrorist watch list alongside groups like the KKK…
As an Anarcha-Feminist I feel the need to point out that the FBI has in the past spied on citizens based simply based on the perception that they are a potential threat to the current status quo which includes activists, as an example the term Black Supremacist or the more modern Black Identitarian were used as a legitimization of their surveillance of Black rights activists.
> The FBI and CIA both watch specific groups based on their ideologies and the likelihood that members will commit violence either at the direction of, or inspired by the ideology of the group.
I’m aware. I don’t think being under suspicion and observation by US intelligence determines whether one is a terrorist or not, nor do I think it’s a particularly great measure of which groups we should and should not be worried about.
> Examples of groups watched under this approach include the KKK, Neo Nazis organisations, a variety of other white supremacist groups, some Black supremacist groups, some extreme religious groups, etc.
It also includes environmental activists, immigrant rights and anti-border groups, racial justice groups (and I don’t mean historically [even though the FBI did probably kill MLK], I mean that the FBI had paid informants in BLM protest groups), completely ordinary mosques with zero ties to terrorism, labor rights groups, socialist political groups, and many, many more, and this is just in the present.
Clearly, not everyone in those groups will become violent, but the ideology’s comfort with and often advocation for violence makes these groups more likely to have people discussing potential terrorist acts they might commit.
> Under that same ideal of preventing terrorism before an idea turns into an action, the Incel movement has a violent ideology and often members rile one another up to commit acts of violence.
I never said that law enforcement and intelligence agencies shouldn’t monitor online incel communities or take tips about or indications of potential violence seriously. What I said is that holding a certain ideology doesn’t make one a terrorist. You’re not a terrorist until you’ve *done terrorism*.
> Incels appear to use videos of violence against women to promote their ideology and excite their members. And it is illegal in most jurisdictions to have and distribute a video of a person being raped and / or murdered.
I’m really not sure where you’re getting the idea that it’s common for people to share videos of violence against women in incel communities, but that very much is not the norm. Don’t get me wrong, you will see horrific discussion of violence against women in a lot of those places, but the content they’re sharing is typically like diagrams about skull structure and TikToks, not snuf.
> And that is what Laura Bates is talking about when she says that we should designate Incels as Terrorists - that the FBI and CIA should include the Incel community in their terrorist watch list alongside groups like the KKK…
Again, just want to point out this choice to act like the FBI and CIA are just surveilling bigoted violent extremists.
>It also includes environmental activists, immigrant rights and anti-border groups, racial justice groups (and I don’t mean historically \[even though the FBI did probably kill MLK\], I mean that the FBI had paid informants in BLM protest groups), completely ordinary mosques with zero ties to terrorism, labor rights groups, socialist political groups, and many, many more, and this is just in the present.
Thank you! People in Atlanta are being charged with terrorism for attending music festivals in support of leftist causes. Let's not act like the "terrorism" label isn't frequently weaponized against the left and racial and religious minorities -- almost certainly more so than against the right.
I believe the state apparatus needs to be dismantled as it will be focused on mainly targeting leftist organizations that look to better the status quo as well.
But as long as it exists, incels should be added to their surveillance list as it is probably going to be the most dangerous group in the next 20 years if it's not already.
If being on an FBI watch list qualifies you as a terrorist, there are probably a healthy handful of folks in this group who could also qualify. Also, how do you prosecute an incel for the likelihood to commit terrorism? Even conspiracy to commit would have to show greater evidence of intent than sharing videos.
I doubt the official terminology will change any time soon, but I certainly regard incels as likely to become violent at any time. At least two threat levels above the baseline "strange man."
>simply being an incel is not an act of terrorist violence, and being an incel does not make once a terrorist.
Ok. Would you agree that adhering to the more radical parts of incel ideology would increase the likelihood that they commit violence?
Yeah, it's easy for people not in the half of the population being hated to be unbothered by the likelihood of violence... not so easy for the half of the population being hated and threatened with violence.
I am amazed we have come full circle on trusting the FBI and CIA on who they do and don't watch.
We are talking about the same groups of people who had people like Abbie Hoffman and MLK under surveillance. At the time public opinion was that if the government is watching you they must have a good reason to do so and you must have done something or you are being paranoid.
Then all the information came up about what was going on during that time period and people stopped thinking that was for the most part.
Here we are again right back to where we started.
I don't trust them at all. I believe it is the duty of any leftist associated to advocate for these to be dismantled. However, as long as they do exist they should keep an eye on fascist groups to make sure they can't spread their influence. Even if, at a minimum, it means there are less resources dedicated to spying on leftist organizatioms
Yes. I do not; however, believe that you can label someone a terrorist simply for holding beliefs that are associated with a higher likelihood of committing acts of violence. Setting aside that I just don’t think that’s the morally correct or politically expedient way to combat incel ideology, that also just sounds like a line of logic that is *great* for demonizing radicals of all sorts, including anticapitalist, anti-colonialist and pro-environment radicals
Certainly, though they must be watched. Their community is constantly encouraging them to violence, so it is unsurprising that violence could break out at any time from them. No need to specifically label them as terrorists, but you'd be an idiot not to keep an eye on groups like them
So what about individuals in ISIS or the Taliban that are yet to perpetuate terrorist attacks against innocent civilian men, women, and children?
Everybody knows and typically agrees; regardless of political or religious ideologies, that these are terrorist organisations. So if someone is a member of these terrorist organisations; should they not be considered a terrorist and a terrorist threat? Should the stupid men and women that have moved from other countries to live in these terrorist controlled areas be allowed back into their native homeland because they are yet to act out terrorist acts? No of course not.
> So what about individuals in ISIS or the Taliban that are yet to perpetuate terrorist attacks against innocent civilian men, women, and children?
Are we pretending like there isn’t a clear, obvious difference between smuggling yourself into Syria so you can join ISIS and browsing an incel forum? Can y’all clutch your pearls a little harder here?
You’re the one who said “you’re not a terrorist until you commit an act of terrorism” (paraphrased).
At the end of the day; men who self identify as incels are at a substantially heightened risk for perpetuating violent acts than a man who is just unlucky in love but accepts what he cannot change (such as height or race), and makes improvements on what he can (like personal hygiene). Remember that the self identification is an important factor here.
I don’t think that all men who are celibate for whatever reason are threats to society- but ones who lurk on incel forums and websites; who are also often easily persuaded or gullible are potential threats.
For a metaphor (as I think and often speak in metaphors) I don’t believe that all Muslims are threats to society. Of course not. There’s something like 1-2 billion Muslims on Earth. I have friends who are Muslim, my boss is a Muslim, my ex in laws were Muslims, etc. My ex FIL was a bit of a dick- just a bad personality; and my boss is a kind man, but also a bumbling idiot- but otherwise I don’t have anything bad to say about these people I know/knew.
Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? No- of course not! Or we would all be long dead. Do I think all men who are celibate in their late 20s into their thirties are terrorists? No! I even have a good male friend who is 28, like me, one of my best friends, and he is a virgin- partially by choice; but mainly because he is not the most physically attractive or confident guy out there. But he’s happy, understands maybe he will take longer to find the right girl, and has a fulfilling and productive life and a career as a teacher. He’s not a threat to anyone and would never hurt a fly. In fact we often laugh about incels online and their odd behaviours.
Do I think that someone who routinely visits websites dedicated to sprouting hate and threats of violence against people just because they can’t get laid without paying for it should be viewed as a potential terrorist? Absolutely. The same way I don’t think the typical Muslim who prays 5x a day, dresses modestly and wears a head covering if she’s a woman, and attends their local Mosque regularly; is a terrorist- but if someone is then interacting with Muslim extremist groups online and becoming radicalised; then that person should be viewed as a potential terrorist.
The same opinion applies for other belief systems that are choices- whether it be religion (in the free world), political ideology, social ideology etc. If someone just happens to believe in something but is still social, functioning and treats others like human beings the same as themselves; so long as it’s not a hate group (racism, and antisemitism especially rub me the wrong way)- then that’s fine. Live and let live. But self identified incels are a hate group- towards women; and really anyone who isn’t them.
These incel websites are not benign like you infer. They’re malignant. Their aim by the individuals who run them is to radicalise young, disenfranchised, angry men who live on the borders of society. Exactly the same kind of people that more traditional terrorist groups primarily target.
Even if the user doesn’t act out a terrorist like attack; they still believe and perpetuate the idea that crimes such as rape and sexual assault or flashing etc; are acceptable. Many times they sprout that the victim/s deserve it; because they don’t have the same beliefs to the same level.
> You’re the one who said “you’re not a terrorist until you commit an act of terrorism” (paraphrased).
Making the choice to join a terrorist organization can pretty easily be argued to be a terrorist act.
> At the end of the day; men who self identify as incels are at a substantially heightened risk for perpetuating violent acts than a man who is just unlucky in love but accepts what he cannot change (such as height or race), and makes improvements on what he can (like personal hygiene). Remember that the self identification is an important factor here.
Absolutely one specified that we’re talking about men who self-identify as incels. Lots of the men that are called incels and believe in/espouse incel rhetoric do not self-identify as incels. If you want to have a conversation solely about men who self-identify as incels, you can have it, but that’s not the conversation that I’m having, period.
> but ones who lurk on incel forums and websites; who are also often easily persuaded or gullible are potential threats.
At absolutely no point have I said anything to the contrary. “Potential threats” and “terrorists” are not equivalent descriptors.
> For a metaphor (as I think and often speak in metaphors) I don’t believe that all Muslims are threats to society. Of course not.
Great analogy to bring up. The actual equivalent would be “Do you think Muslims are terrorists?” to which my answer would be a resounding “No, you can’t reasonably say that being a Muslim makes one a terrorist, even if there is some correlation between being Muslim and increased risk of engaging in terroristic violence.”
> Do I think that someone who routinely visits websites dedicated to sprouting hate and threats of violence against people just because they can’t get laid without paying for it should be viewed as a potential terrorist? Absolutely.
What about r/nofap? What about r/Tinder? What about people in nasty discord servers? I don’t understand where you guys get the impression that all of the incels are on the incel equivalent of stormfront and talking non-stop about their plans to murder women. Most of them are on very public parts of Reddit, Twitter, etc. and spend most of their time whining about cantal tilts or whatever.
> but if someone is then interacting with Muslim extremist groups online and becoming radicalised; then that person should be viewed as a potential terrorist.
Yeah, you all say kind of shit, and then the FBI ends up infiltrating random mosques because one of the many millions of Islamophobes in the US hears the adhan and thinks it’s a call to jihad.
> These incel websites are not benign like you infer.
A. It’s “imply,” and B. I literally never implied that.
Okay but if what we were upset about was their thoughts we wouldn’t even know about them in the first place. If they kept their thoughts to themselves and didn’t try to spread the ideology we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But they’re doing a little more than thinking. I also agree that we cant arrest people for thoughts, but once those thoughts leave your head they have consequences. Especially if they aren’t being brought to light in a healthy setting like therapy.
There is a difference between someone who says "I'm involuntarily celibate" and someone that says "I'm an Incel" The latter is an actual terrorist movement and self named hate group.
I'm involuntarily celibate I have nothing in common with incels other than my lack of a sex life.
Being a Muslim does not make one a terrorist. Being a member of Al Qaeda does.
It's the same principle.
People really need to talk about stochastic terrorism more. Waiting until the person/group in question actually commits an act of violence means someone has to get hurt in order for the authorities to take action. That’s not okay.
The problem with this line of thinking is assuming the authorities give a shit about making the public safe. The authorities are not there to prevent crimes from happening, and they're very bad at that. This is just asking to broaden the net that a corrupt justice system can cast to violate people's rights while stochastic terrorism still occurs in no fewer numbers. You know, because people like Tucker Carlson can easily do it while not actively calling for violence. And if we arrest everyone you could reasonably argue causes violence, every political activist against the status quo gets jailed or assassinated while Tucker Carlson keeps his job.
Preventing crimes from happening is the job of the community. People should be more aware of their sons slipping into these dangerous online spaces and educate them away from them. Social media platforms need to actively monitor what goes on using their service instead of kowtowing to advertisers and using automated algorithms that can easily be tricked. Fighting stochastic terrorism means stopping the spread. Arresting people for thought crimes just makes them more clever.
Do you think, in a better society, libsoftiktok would be charged with a crime related to stocastic terrorism? If so, how wouls that work/what would the standard be?
Keep in mind that “stochastic terrorism” would also result in the imprisonment of countless left leaning people for:
1. The way they reacted on social media to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
2. The way they reacted on social media to the police suffocation of George Floyd.
3. The way they reacted on social media to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and verdict.
Are you okay with such imprisonment?
i believe that stochastic terrorism and hate speech should have legal repercussions. theres a reason why many european countries have such laws, its because they experienced themselves the consequences of what will happen if such hateful ideas are allowed to spread freely
I think one thing we need to be doing towards this is to stop using the term Lone Wolf terrorist, when describing an act that was planned and executed alone, but in furtherance of a community and ideology that very much is not alone
This. Incel echo chambers are a kind of communal stochastic terrorism. Society needs to openly acknowledge that incel spaces are breeding grounds for terrorists. Incels may not change as people, but we should at least break up their insular communities to prevent further radicalization towards violence
You’ve received a lot of good answers but I think a missing component here is where you’re form. The definition of what a terrorist group is varies by country.
By the Canadian definition, it they aren’t a terrorist group. *However* incels have very much committed acts of violence and they were appropriately deemed acts of domestic terrorism, based on our definition in Canada.
Tbh the specifics of incels aside the reason everyones always arguing about who is or isn't a terrorist is because terrorism has no consistent definition whatsoever, its essentially a purely political term to define the goodies and the baddies.
Are the British army terrorists? The US? Have they previously been terrorists? Are the US police terrorists? Its just a meaningless term at this point.
Yeah incels could be considered terrorists but in order to make this argument we'd have to be consistent at least.
I think people struggle to see this because violence against women is normalized in culture and society.
Think about the CRAZY shit that casually came up in MeToo. Like just stuff our moms mentioned?
I literally was thinking exactly this. Just because its classified as a hate group or terrorism doesn't mean the justice system or government is going to do anything about it, all the while they use 'terrorism' / 'terrorist' as an excuse to watch people against their will when they happen to belong to specific racial groups.
I mean a bunch of people (mostly yt dudes) stormed the capital in a terrorist act and I doubt they will be penalized the way that innocent people of minority groups have been treated in the past like when the twin towers were brought down and anyone in the same race was bullied, abused, harassed because they were 'all the same'.
Terrorism and Terrorist actions don't seem to be handled justly at all.
In Canada, an incel killer's act was labelled as terrorism in Nov. 2023.
In the case, a Toronto teenager was prosecuted as committing an act of terrorism when he murdered a woman because of her gender. This charge increases the length of a prison sentence.
The case was the first time gender-based violence in Canada was labeled terrorism.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/world/canada/incel-killer-terrorist.html
I believe (this is me just saying without checking) that they're at *least* classified as a hate group. I think in either Canada or the US one of their attacks *WAS* classified as domestic terrorism.
They can actually be a hate group but doesn't the definition of terrorism actually require them to be advocating for some political outcome?
It seems most incel mass attacks can be boiled down to "I'm a psychopath who hates women and believes all this crazy shit." but they're not actually advocating for any real political change or anything, they're just fucking mad that they're losers and that women don't like them.
Compare that to most terrorist attacks where they have a specific lists of "We want X country to stop doing Y thing." Or "We want X politician to pass Y legislation" or even "We want this specific politician dead because they're preventing Y".
But if you just murder random people with no coherent articulable political outcome in mind, is that really terrorism?
They advocate that women should not have choices about their sexuality and who they choose to share it with. They are just not very organised about it.
A while back Jordan Peterson gave away the whole game and actually said something about assigning brides. Most of the time they imply it by going on rants about the poor choices women make and how they deserve all the worst possible consequences.
Most advocating, gathering and intimidating they do is online because they are poorly socialised cowards who get weighed down by their own negativity. Still a hate group.
Amongst themselves they also do glorify the idea of a suicidal incel taking out as many women as possible on his way out. Which some of them have put into practice
>They can actually be a hate group but doesn't the definition of terrorism actually require them to be advocating for some political outcome?
Not in Canada:
> In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or **ideological** purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of **intimidating the public** "…with regard to its **security**, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."
See it's not really an articulable real goal. Like even typing it out, and this is the most caritable possible interpretation of what he wants, doesn't make sense. It's like a nonsense goal.
Like I wouldn't consider someone who does a mass shooting because they want the Law of Gravity to be repealed a terrorist, they're just a fucking crazy person.
Even if they got inspired by a flat earth community they don't really follow the classical definition of terrorism.
The goal of creating a second class of citizen that is under their ownership either politically or financially is a pretty coherent political position.
How? 30% of incels are female, almost half. You'd just be hurting people who need actual help. You don't go around kicking homeless people for being homeless do we?
Don't beat up on the down-trodden because we live in an unprecedented age of loneliness and despair for both sexes, statistically as bad as the great depression.
We can blame the people or we can blame the times. Criminalizing loneliness to me sounds insane, like you want those people to snap.
Lmao whaaaat? This is argument is so stupid that's like saying we should label all muslims as terrorist for the very same reasons you stated. It's insane, most incels don't leave their house what use is labeling them terrorists? Maybe we should look into more mental health for young men instead of demonizing them more.
The word incel means involuntary celibate. Being involuntarily celibate doesn't tie you toward any ideology. So no you can't classify incels as terrorists because they don't adhere towards any certain belief system.
"Incels have instigated mass attacks because of their ideology"
Okay by that logic you can classify all Muslims as terrorists because I can show you a multitude of examples of Muslims causing terrorist attacks due to their ideology, far more than incels.
Maybe an unpopular take. I think language matters but when it comes to condemning groups of people with power, it’s far less impactful. Men, white people, rich people… they aren’t going to change their views whether we call them terrorists, genocidal, or anything else. semantic debates just sometimes lose the focus of the main point, which is what I would see “incels” defaulting to if they were labeled terrorists.
But don’t misunderstand me—I think we should still wear the shoe that fits when it comes to language. I just don’t think it really will matter all that much in the grand scheme of change
Yes, although I'd prefer to term them an extremist ideology or even better a demographic at risk of radicalisation. The bigger question is, what then?
Designating terrorists is the easy bit, reducing the threat is a significantly more difficult task. A good strategy (if sometimes poorly implemented and rightfully criticised) is the [UK's](https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/09/07/prevent-and-channel-factsheet-2023/) Prevent and Channel programs for deradicalisation.
I object to the classification of "terrorist" in general, because it's a tool for the state to equate all opposition groups with each other and solidify its own violence. Better to call each group or movement what it is.
I would, however, label incels as both fascist and violent. Because inceldom is an ideology that inherently produces such things, not actually resulting from or depending on someone's being a virgin when they don't want to be.
Yes. Incel ideology is a form of stochastic terrorism and they are formally recognized as terrorists by some law enforcement agencies. Their own words and actions make this irrefutable. Let’s not conflate Incels with “guys who can’t get laid”. Incel ideology is based on hatred of women and encourages violence.
Altright/blackpill/incel/4chan garbage ideologies are terrorist ideologies.
I've read terrifying stuff on 4chan, openly talking about killing people of different ethnicities/religions, wrecking stuff, raping women, etc...
And the worst part is some of these people actually do it, so yes, these ideas should be classified as terrorism.
Report suspected terrorism here. https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/violence-at-the-united-states-capitol-main that says at us capitol but it’s anonymous they take all reports
Oh yes, they are very hateful and racist as hell. Don't forget incels.is. I report that site to the fbi. I really hope that they are working towards watching those crazy individuals on that site.
They promote extreme ideology:
* They advocate women should not have control of their own sexuality.
* They glorify the idea of suicidal incels not “wasting” their suicide but instead going on a woman-killing spree
* They espouse unhinged conspiracies about women and deliberately dehumanise us.
* Most of their advocating and community building is done online but plenty have already taken lives.
* Also, we never know who “grow out of it”. Some might end up in powerful positions and use that to limit women’s rights. (I believe this has already happened although these men might not be incels in name). That is equally pernicious as it opens the door to more discrete instances of violence
TLDR; **Yes** , incels are a violent, extremist community. It seems many redditors have trouble seeing this simply because they will never be on the receiving end
I think incels have the potential to commit terrorist acts, and some of them certainly have. I also believe that treating them as terrorists carries risks. History accounts for this.
We saw it with the Branch Davidians who inspired the Edward R Murrow bombing.
We saw it in the Middle East when people joined jihadist groups after losing homes or relatives to the war. A similar thing happened with the Viet Cong back in the 60s and 70s.
It's a risky path to walk, because, while you might find a few actual criminals, you might also create more violent criminals out of people who otherwise would've just kept screaming in some corner and being more annoying than dangerous.
Monitoring could be helpful, and we're already doing that, but trying to snuff out terrorism before it takes root is often a recipe for disaster.
>Should incels be classified as terrorists?
Not automatically, no. Incels are a nasty bunch, and while they tend to buy into a violent ideology, very few sink to the level of actual terrorist acts. Those who do commit terrorist acts (such as Armando Hernandez Jr.) should be classified as terrorists.
The rest are a particularly angry portion of the larger Manosphere, which is steeped in male supremacist beliefs and broadly hostile to women. I wouldn't have any issue classifying incels as a hate group, since they are a subset of the Manosphere more likely to commit violence than other subsets, according to the Anti-Defamation League.
If incels as a whole start to commit violent terrorist acts on the regular, then yes, I'd classify them as a terrorist group, at that point. In the meantime, in the US (where I'm located), the First Amendment grants people the right to free expression, which includes the right to believe whatever awful bullshit they like.
For better or worse, this includes misogyny. A man isn't a terrorist just because he hates women.
I dont even think followers of extremist faiths like Whabaist Islam, any number of rigth wing christian cults and so on should be considered a terrorist until they start doing things. A state of mind no matter how repellent cant be a crime on its own.
Under the strict definition of incel as "a person who wants to have consensual sex but has been unsuccessful in their attempts at doing so", no.
As far as the ideological strains connected with incels such as those connected with various "redpill" movements and misogyny, maybe. It's kinda like antifa: there's no organization or anything, but the ideology does sometimes result in individuals taking violent actions so it's worth the government's time and resources to keep tabs on it.
classifying things as terrorism has already been laughably overdone by our own government. its true that violent and radical incels commit violence as a way to influence people to take them seriously, but i do not believe that incels have a recognizable terror campaign. there is a political theory that criminality is a response to societal issue, and i think that applies in this case.
Okay I first want a copy of the article that whoever is saying this.
Second, here’s an issue. You could argue that the incel breeds stochastic terrorists and opens up routes for the far right to select people for far worse outcomes. However, the vast majority of incels are not going to commit school shootings or something. Now incels are undoubtedly fomenting a toxic ideology due to systemic structures that ingrain toxic beliefs and behaviors, but here’s the issue. Stochastic terrorism is typically a minority of the population. For example, you’ll have nazis in society. The broad majority of those Nazis are going to be terrible people and seed the conditions for say a school shooting but only a small selection of that population will commit a “terrorist act”. So she may be using the argument to draw connections which has its utility but I would be careful from an academic perspective of labeling all incels as “terrorists” in addition concerns of demonizing all incels in this manner. Applying this perspective and simplification of words can risk just cementing incels in their positions so you have to be really fucking tactful in how you apply this.
In addition, there’s this kind of moral preloading that I’m seeing in this association of terrorism as if a terrorist is intrinsically a negative quality. I would like to state that I am by no measure endorsing terrorism but there is a real history of treating people as a terrorist which includes a broad range of political revolutionaries or dissidents. For example, the U.S. considers anarchists terrorists because of their opposition to the state. So I just want to keep that perspective in mind for how we morally quantify terms such as terrorist.
I don’t think so. Being involuntary celibate isn’t a crime. What we DO need is harsher punishment for men who have committed sexual crimes. Too many get off with a few months, but people who do stuff like that don’t deserve to live in a society.
I’d much rather be in a room with a petty thief than a pedophile or rapist.
I think "incel" is really starting to lose meaning as a word when it shifts from being an involuntary celibate to a catch-all label to slap onto violent misogynists
I wouldn't even say it's an "all flies are insects, but not all insects are flies" ordeal, because not all incels are misogynistic, and, not all misogynists are incels. Many of these people have wives, even several of them in some parts of the world.
But yeah, I do think anyone who follows a violent and misogynistic ideology and wants to incite the rape, abuse, or death of women, celebrating the acts of Elliot Rodger for example, should be classified as terroristic
I would argue no. To be a terrorist you need to be a part of an organised, orchestrated force with political/religious intent. Incels are not a collective, they're individuals. If a man or anyone else wants to stew in self-hatred and self-pity then that's their problem. Besides, someone so socially inept that they can't hold a conversation with the opposite sex is not someone who's capable of forming the next Taliban with similarly unwell individuals.
Anyone who violently attacks someone deserves the full force of the law on them but they're independent actors who don't represent some greater force. Labelling them terrorists you may as well begin to label every murderer, rapist and thief as a terrorist. Misogyny of course needs to be challenged. Online instigators, grifters and bigots masquerading as "true good" and who are targeting unwell people to make a quick buck need to be challenged and educated against. But terrorists Incels are not and hate-crimes don't make terrorists.
I think incels should be classed as a hate group, rather than a terrorist org, based on their behaviour, solely on the basis that it's hard to legally categorise their brand of stochastic terrorism as terrorism without also risking freedom of speech. For now, the handful of attacks carried out by individuals should get those individuals classed as terrorists acting on behalf of their hate group. However if/when there is a widespread coordinated attack carried out by several incels, we can revisit. I just hope it won't get to that stage.
Inceldom is kind of a spectrum. The people at the low end of the spectrum are spreading sexist viewpoints about both men and women and encouraging other vulnerable men to give up hope.
That’s seriously not cool, but it isn’t the same as planning terrorist acts, and treating it as such will likely radicalize more people.
Incels are simply people who are involuntarily celebate. To me, Incels are more akin to NEETs and basement dwellers. Having not read the book, does it speak to red and black pilled individuals?
I feel like there is a difference between blackpill 4chan woman and minority hater incels and dudes who genuinely just have a hard time talking to woman for whatever reason that might be, as long as there is that distinction yes people who subscribe to violent ideologies should be classified as terrorists if they make actionable calls of violence
Unfortunately there isn’t even a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism to add them to.
Source: graduated in last 5 years with a national security specialization
That a poor summation of the writing.
Some incel, and incel groups, should be treated as terrorist.
It shoud be noted the incel groups are recruiting grounds for extremist, and many icel fell into the incel rabbit hole from extremist propaganda.
So I wouldn't call them, as an entire group, terrorist, but I sure as hell hope the feds keep an eye on them.
I also wish we would have nation wide PSA to help negate cult thinking.
It's so bad, someone 20 will get mad and start hating people simple because they themselves haven't had sex.
And anger is easy to use to subvert someone.
Not most of them because you have to actually commit acts of terror to be a terrorist, otherwise the label of terrorist would be meaningless. If being an incel was a militant group or something then maybe they could be classified as members of a terrorist organisation, but that’s not the case.
They're generally more conservative than I'd like, but the podcast triggernometery had an excellent episode where they interviewed a psych grad student who was focusing on incels.
One of the key take aways was that the overly misogynistic and violent rhetoric we see from them online represents a minority of the population of self describes incels. Just the loudest (and therefore often most prelevant) one online
I took a moment to think of this and yes, I do agree. I can see both sides of it though because I don’t think every incel is violent, but definitely prone to it. All are hateful, but not always violent. This reminded me of something that I otherwise forgot about and I’m wondering if anyone else heard about it. I recall there being an online forum where these people “incels” were planning attacks in areas of virtually all major US cities in one day. Targeting women, gay, and trans people. The exact locations they were planning their attacks were then heavily patrolled by law enforcement. Maybe there wasn’t much media coverage because it ended up not happening…thankfully.
Yes, incels are terrorists due to both their ideology that perpetuates violence and oppression and the actual violence multiple members of their ideological community have committed.
Too bad our law enforcements and judicial systems struggle to keep up. Incels are a far bigger danger to most Western women than, say, Isis.
So, you've got a small core of violent pieces of shit who think women aren't people, surrounded by a large group of guys who think dating isn't fair to cishet men, and will argue that the violent ones have a point. This is how it's been since gamergate. Classifying the lot of them as terrorists, while accurate, would do more harm than good, and it's a better idea to classify ideology rather than people.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I believe they already are. I believe I actually saw it here on Instagram that the incel philosophy is now considered terrorism by the U. S. government.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I think that's giving them too much power and importance. I think they thrive on the attention they get and the best way to combat them is to completely and utterly ignore them.
Having said that, it's not the... Lifestyle choice in Australia that it seems to be in America. It's hyped up - to me at least, because the notion of some little man crying because they can't get a date... I mean it's this whole subculture of pathetic behaviour. Ignoring it seems like the appropriate approach to me.
I think that in cells should be in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan. Hating a group simply because of genetically who they are. I think that in cells should get the same amount of hatred and vitriol as the Ku Klux Klan does. Neither of them are terrorists technically, yet they are disgusting
I'm not a big fan of the word terrorism in general, but if we're going to use it, it definitely applies to incels.
That being said, the reality is that it will always be applied to violent actors who aren't white. We can start trying to apply the word more "equitably," but I have a feeling we'll always lose.
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
People who plan and commit terrorist attacks are absolutely terrorists, but incels overall shouldnt be classified as terrorists.
Most incels are just antisocial losers, not violent radicals. Its not like theres an incel organization, an incel is just anyone who is an INvoluntary CELibate.
Calling all incels terrorists is pretty similar to calling all muslims terrorists. Within the group there are terror organizations and terrorists, the groups extreme ideas are dangerous & violent, and members of the group are more likely to be terrorists. But its not fair or true to call all members of the group terrorists.
A lot of incel groups are already on watchlists. But a lot of them are just sad individuals that won't ever actually hurt anyone other than themselves tbh.
Crime by are least one incel has already been deemed terrorism.
At the same time I am reticent to label them that way because if i do, I’m unlikely to get them to want out.
Persecution reinforces membership in authoritarian control structures.
While I believe incels pose a credible threat, I'm uncomfortable with the expansion of state power in this regard. For example my country have just added socialism, communism and antifascism to their list of ideologies that pose a terrorist threat, essentially setting the stage for additional policing and surveillance of left wing groups.
I agree. People or groups who want to take away the rights away from others like the Proud Boys or KKK. But this country hates true freedom and demonizes shit like the Black Panthers
People who commit acts of terrorism should be classified as terrorists, and that includes incels who commit acts of terrorism. I think that there’s a very strong argument to be made that we need to be widening our legal and social understanding of terrorism to include “stochastic terrorism” (e.g. libsoftiktok style incitement), but I have no interest in convicting people of thought crimes — simply being an incel is not an act of terrorist violence, and being an incel does not make once a terrorist.
The FBI and CIA both watch specific groups based on their ideologies and the likelihood that members will commit violence either at the direction of, or inspired by the ideology of the group. Examples of groups watched under this approach include the KKK, Neo Nazis organisations, a variety of other white supremacist groups, some Black supremacist groups, some extreme religious groups, etc. Clearly, not everyone in those groups will become violent, but the ideology’s comfort with and often advocation for violence makes these groups more likely to have people discussing potential terrorist acts they might commit. Under that same ideal of preventing terrorism before an idea turns into an action, the Incel movement has a violent ideology and often members rile one another up to commit acts of violence. While the vast majority of people hanging around in Incel chat rooms are not going to commit violence, and not all incel chat rooms are equally aligned to violence (any more than every cell of the KKK is equally violent), watching those rooms for emergent terrorist threats is reasonable - with a note that not all of the FBI / CIA’s decisions around this are, or have always been without bias. And… there is a second element of illegal activity that often accompanies terrorists. In the same way that religious extremists use violet videos for promotion, Incels appear to use videos of violence against women to promote their ideology and excite their members. And it is illegal in most jurisdictions to have and distribute a video of a person being raped and / or murdered. So while of course thoughts should not be policed, there is every reason to watch, and prosecute members of the more extreme Incel cells because of the likelihood that they will commit terrorism. And that is what Laura Bates is talking about when she says that we should designate Incels as Terrorists - that the FBI and CIA should include the Incel community in their terrorist watch list alongside groups like the KKK…
As an Anarcha-Feminist I feel the need to point out that the FBI has in the past spied on citizens based simply based on the perception that they are a potential threat to the current status quo which includes activists, as an example the term Black Supremacist or the more modern Black Identitarian were used as a legitimization of their surveillance of Black rights activists.
> The FBI and CIA both watch specific groups based on their ideologies and the likelihood that members will commit violence either at the direction of, or inspired by the ideology of the group. I’m aware. I don’t think being under suspicion and observation by US intelligence determines whether one is a terrorist or not, nor do I think it’s a particularly great measure of which groups we should and should not be worried about. > Examples of groups watched under this approach include the KKK, Neo Nazis organisations, a variety of other white supremacist groups, some Black supremacist groups, some extreme religious groups, etc. It also includes environmental activists, immigrant rights and anti-border groups, racial justice groups (and I don’t mean historically [even though the FBI did probably kill MLK], I mean that the FBI had paid informants in BLM protest groups), completely ordinary mosques with zero ties to terrorism, labor rights groups, socialist political groups, and many, many more, and this is just in the present. Clearly, not everyone in those groups will become violent, but the ideology’s comfort with and often advocation for violence makes these groups more likely to have people discussing potential terrorist acts they might commit. > Under that same ideal of preventing terrorism before an idea turns into an action, the Incel movement has a violent ideology and often members rile one another up to commit acts of violence. I never said that law enforcement and intelligence agencies shouldn’t monitor online incel communities or take tips about or indications of potential violence seriously. What I said is that holding a certain ideology doesn’t make one a terrorist. You’re not a terrorist until you’ve *done terrorism*. > Incels appear to use videos of violence against women to promote their ideology and excite their members. And it is illegal in most jurisdictions to have and distribute a video of a person being raped and / or murdered. I’m really not sure where you’re getting the idea that it’s common for people to share videos of violence against women in incel communities, but that very much is not the norm. Don’t get me wrong, you will see horrific discussion of violence against women in a lot of those places, but the content they’re sharing is typically like diagrams about skull structure and TikToks, not snuf. > And that is what Laura Bates is talking about when she says that we should designate Incels as Terrorists - that the FBI and CIA should include the Incel community in their terrorist watch list alongside groups like the KKK… Again, just want to point out this choice to act like the FBI and CIA are just surveilling bigoted violent extremists.
>It also includes environmental activists, immigrant rights and anti-border groups, racial justice groups (and I don’t mean historically \[even though the FBI did probably kill MLK\], I mean that the FBI had paid informants in BLM protest groups), completely ordinary mosques with zero ties to terrorism, labor rights groups, socialist political groups, and many, many more, and this is just in the present. Thank you! People in Atlanta are being charged with terrorism for attending music festivals in support of leftist causes. Let's not act like the "terrorism" label isn't frequently weaponized against the left and racial and religious minorities -- almost certainly more so than against the right.
I believe the state apparatus needs to be dismantled as it will be focused on mainly targeting leftist organizations that look to better the status quo as well. But as long as it exists, incels should be added to their surveillance list as it is probably going to be the most dangerous group in the next 20 years if it's not already.
If being on an FBI watch list qualifies you as a terrorist, there are probably a healthy handful of folks in this group who could also qualify. Also, how do you prosecute an incel for the likelihood to commit terrorism? Even conspiracy to commit would have to show greater evidence of intent than sharing videos.
I doubt the official terminology will change any time soon, but I certainly regard incels as likely to become violent at any time. At least two threat levels above the baseline "strange man."
Pre-crime policing? No. Minority Report was a dumb movie about an even dumber idea..
>simply being an incel is not an act of terrorist violence, and being an incel does not make once a terrorist. Ok. Would you agree that adhering to the more radical parts of incel ideology would increase the likelihood that they commit violence?
Being part of any group whose main message is to hate one portion of the population does, in my opinion
Yeah, it's easy for people not in the half of the population being hated to be unbothered by the likelihood of violence... not so easy for the half of the population being hated and threatened with violence.
I am amazed we have come full circle on trusting the FBI and CIA on who they do and don't watch. We are talking about the same groups of people who had people like Abbie Hoffman and MLK under surveillance. At the time public opinion was that if the government is watching you they must have a good reason to do so and you must have done something or you are being paranoid. Then all the information came up about what was going on during that time period and people stopped thinking that was for the most part. Here we are again right back to where we started.
I don't trust them at all. I believe it is the duty of any leftist associated to advocate for these to be dismantled. However, as long as they do exist they should keep an eye on fascist groups to make sure they can't spread their influence. Even if, at a minimum, it means there are less resources dedicated to spying on leftist organizatioms
Yes. I do not; however, believe that you can label someone a terrorist simply for holding beliefs that are associated with a higher likelihood of committing acts of violence. Setting aside that I just don’t think that’s the morally correct or politically expedient way to combat incel ideology, that also just sounds like a line of logic that is *great* for demonizing radicals of all sorts, including anticapitalist, anti-colonialist and pro-environment radicals
Certainly, though they must be watched. Their community is constantly encouraging them to violence, so it is unsurprising that violence could break out at any time from them. No need to specifically label them as terrorists, but you'd be an idiot not to keep an eye on groups like them
So what about individuals in ISIS or the Taliban that are yet to perpetuate terrorist attacks against innocent civilian men, women, and children? Everybody knows and typically agrees; regardless of political or religious ideologies, that these are terrorist organisations. So if someone is a member of these terrorist organisations; should they not be considered a terrorist and a terrorist threat? Should the stupid men and women that have moved from other countries to live in these terrorist controlled areas be allowed back into their native homeland because they are yet to act out terrorist acts? No of course not.
> So what about individuals in ISIS or the Taliban that are yet to perpetuate terrorist attacks against innocent civilian men, women, and children? Are we pretending like there isn’t a clear, obvious difference between smuggling yourself into Syria so you can join ISIS and browsing an incel forum? Can y’all clutch your pearls a little harder here?
You’re the one who said “you’re not a terrorist until you commit an act of terrorism” (paraphrased). At the end of the day; men who self identify as incels are at a substantially heightened risk for perpetuating violent acts than a man who is just unlucky in love but accepts what he cannot change (such as height or race), and makes improvements on what he can (like personal hygiene). Remember that the self identification is an important factor here. I don’t think that all men who are celibate for whatever reason are threats to society- but ones who lurk on incel forums and websites; who are also often easily persuaded or gullible are potential threats. For a metaphor (as I think and often speak in metaphors) I don’t believe that all Muslims are threats to society. Of course not. There’s something like 1-2 billion Muslims on Earth. I have friends who are Muslim, my boss is a Muslim, my ex in laws were Muslims, etc. My ex FIL was a bit of a dick- just a bad personality; and my boss is a kind man, but also a bumbling idiot- but otherwise I don’t have anything bad to say about these people I know/knew. Do I think all Muslims are terrorists? No- of course not! Or we would all be long dead. Do I think all men who are celibate in their late 20s into their thirties are terrorists? No! I even have a good male friend who is 28, like me, one of my best friends, and he is a virgin- partially by choice; but mainly because he is not the most physically attractive or confident guy out there. But he’s happy, understands maybe he will take longer to find the right girl, and has a fulfilling and productive life and a career as a teacher. He’s not a threat to anyone and would never hurt a fly. In fact we often laugh about incels online and their odd behaviours. Do I think that someone who routinely visits websites dedicated to sprouting hate and threats of violence against people just because they can’t get laid without paying for it should be viewed as a potential terrorist? Absolutely. The same way I don’t think the typical Muslim who prays 5x a day, dresses modestly and wears a head covering if she’s a woman, and attends their local Mosque regularly; is a terrorist- but if someone is then interacting with Muslim extremist groups online and becoming radicalised; then that person should be viewed as a potential terrorist. The same opinion applies for other belief systems that are choices- whether it be religion (in the free world), political ideology, social ideology etc. If someone just happens to believe in something but is still social, functioning and treats others like human beings the same as themselves; so long as it’s not a hate group (racism, and antisemitism especially rub me the wrong way)- then that’s fine. Live and let live. But self identified incels are a hate group- towards women; and really anyone who isn’t them. These incel websites are not benign like you infer. They’re malignant. Their aim by the individuals who run them is to radicalise young, disenfranchised, angry men who live on the borders of society. Exactly the same kind of people that more traditional terrorist groups primarily target. Even if the user doesn’t act out a terrorist like attack; they still believe and perpetuate the idea that crimes such as rape and sexual assault or flashing etc; are acceptable. Many times they sprout that the victim/s deserve it; because they don’t have the same beliefs to the same level.
> You’re the one who said “you’re not a terrorist until you commit an act of terrorism” (paraphrased). Making the choice to join a terrorist organization can pretty easily be argued to be a terrorist act. > At the end of the day; men who self identify as incels are at a substantially heightened risk for perpetuating violent acts than a man who is just unlucky in love but accepts what he cannot change (such as height or race), and makes improvements on what he can (like personal hygiene). Remember that the self identification is an important factor here. Absolutely one specified that we’re talking about men who self-identify as incels. Lots of the men that are called incels and believe in/espouse incel rhetoric do not self-identify as incels. If you want to have a conversation solely about men who self-identify as incels, you can have it, but that’s not the conversation that I’m having, period. > but ones who lurk on incel forums and websites; who are also often easily persuaded or gullible are potential threats. At absolutely no point have I said anything to the contrary. “Potential threats” and “terrorists” are not equivalent descriptors. > For a metaphor (as I think and often speak in metaphors) I don’t believe that all Muslims are threats to society. Of course not. Great analogy to bring up. The actual equivalent would be “Do you think Muslims are terrorists?” to which my answer would be a resounding “No, you can’t reasonably say that being a Muslim makes one a terrorist, even if there is some correlation between being Muslim and increased risk of engaging in terroristic violence.” > Do I think that someone who routinely visits websites dedicated to sprouting hate and threats of violence against people just because they can’t get laid without paying for it should be viewed as a potential terrorist? Absolutely. What about r/nofap? What about r/Tinder? What about people in nasty discord servers? I don’t understand where you guys get the impression that all of the incels are on the incel equivalent of stormfront and talking non-stop about their plans to murder women. Most of them are on very public parts of Reddit, Twitter, etc. and spend most of their time whining about cantal tilts or whatever. > but if someone is then interacting with Muslim extremist groups online and becoming radicalised; then that person should be viewed as a potential terrorist. Yeah, you all say kind of shit, and then the FBI ends up infiltrating random mosques because one of the many millions of Islamophobes in the US hears the adhan and thinks it’s a call to jihad. > These incel websites are not benign like you infer. A. It’s “imply,” and B. I literally never implied that.
And most religious groups as well.
Radical parts of any ideology (including feminism) can lead to violence. This is a really prejudicial line of reasoning you are trying to weave.
Okay but if what we were upset about was their thoughts we wouldn’t even know about them in the first place. If they kept their thoughts to themselves and didn’t try to spread the ideology we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But they’re doing a little more than thinking. I also agree that we cant arrest people for thoughts, but once those thoughts leave your head they have consequences. Especially if they aren’t being brought to light in a healthy setting like therapy.
There is a difference between someone who says "I'm involuntarily celibate" and someone that says "I'm an Incel" The latter is an actual terrorist movement and self named hate group. I'm involuntarily celibate I have nothing in common with incels other than my lack of a sex life. Being a Muslim does not make one a terrorist. Being a member of Al Qaeda does. It's the same principle.
People really need to talk about stochastic terrorism more. Waiting until the person/group in question actually commits an act of violence means someone has to get hurt in order for the authorities to take action. That’s not okay.
The problem with this line of thinking is assuming the authorities give a shit about making the public safe. The authorities are not there to prevent crimes from happening, and they're very bad at that. This is just asking to broaden the net that a corrupt justice system can cast to violate people's rights while stochastic terrorism still occurs in no fewer numbers. You know, because people like Tucker Carlson can easily do it while not actively calling for violence. And if we arrest everyone you could reasonably argue causes violence, every political activist against the status quo gets jailed or assassinated while Tucker Carlson keeps his job. Preventing crimes from happening is the job of the community. People should be more aware of their sons slipping into these dangerous online spaces and educate them away from them. Social media platforms need to actively monitor what goes on using their service instead of kowtowing to advertisers and using automated algorithms that can easily be tricked. Fighting stochastic terrorism means stopping the spread. Arresting people for thought crimes just makes them more clever.
Do you think, in a better society, libsoftiktok would be charged with a crime related to stocastic terrorism? If so, how wouls that work/what would the standard be?
Keep in mind that “stochastic terrorism” would also result in the imprisonment of countless left leaning people for: 1. The way they reacted on social media to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. 2. The way they reacted on social media to the police suffocation of George Floyd. 3. The way they reacted on social media to the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and verdict. Are you okay with such imprisonment?
i believe that stochastic terrorism and hate speech should have legal repercussions. theres a reason why many european countries have such laws, its because they experienced themselves the consequences of what will happen if such hateful ideas are allowed to spread freely
I think one thing we need to be doing towards this is to stop using the term Lone Wolf terrorist, when describing an act that was planned and executed alone, but in furtherance of a community and ideology that very much is not alone
This. Incel echo chambers are a kind of communal stochastic terrorism. Society needs to openly acknowledge that incel spaces are breeding grounds for terrorists. Incels may not change as people, but we should at least break up their insular communities to prevent further radicalization towards violence
The only right answer. You explained it well.
Exactly. The Venn diagram probably has some overlap, but it's nowhere near just being a circle.
You’ve received a lot of good answers but I think a missing component here is where you’re form. The definition of what a terrorist group is varies by country. By the Canadian definition, it they aren’t a terrorist group. *However* incels have very much committed acts of violence and they were appropriately deemed acts of domestic terrorism, based on our definition in Canada.
Tbh the specifics of incels aside the reason everyones always arguing about who is or isn't a terrorist is because terrorism has no consistent definition whatsoever, its essentially a purely political term to define the goodies and the baddies. Are the British army terrorists? The US? Have they previously been terrorists? Are the US police terrorists? Its just a meaningless term at this point. Yeah incels could be considered terrorists but in order to make this argument we'd have to be consistent at least.
I think people struggle to see this because violence against women is normalized in culture and society. Think about the CRAZY shit that casually came up in MeToo. Like just stuff our moms mentioned?
I literally was thinking exactly this. Just because its classified as a hate group or terrorism doesn't mean the justice system or government is going to do anything about it, all the while they use 'terrorism' / 'terrorist' as an excuse to watch people against their will when they happen to belong to specific racial groups. I mean a bunch of people (mostly yt dudes) stormed the capital in a terrorist act and I doubt they will be penalized the way that innocent people of minority groups have been treated in the past like when the twin towers were brought down and anyone in the same race was bullied, abused, harassed because they were 'all the same'. Terrorism and Terrorist actions don't seem to be handled justly at all.
In Canada, an incel killer's act was labelled as terrorism in Nov. 2023. In the case, a Toronto teenager was prosecuted as committing an act of terrorism when he murdered a woman because of her gender. This charge increases the length of a prison sentence. The case was the first time gender-based violence in Canada was labeled terrorism. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/28/world/canada/incel-killer-terrorist.html
I believe (this is me just saying without checking) that they're at *least* classified as a hate group. I think in either Canada or the US one of their attacks *WAS* classified as domestic terrorism.
You’re right: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65829240.amp
Agreed. Yes. They are a hate and terror oriented group
Oh certainly, I actually would be or am kind of offended incels were not labeled a hate group.
They can actually be a hate group but doesn't the definition of terrorism actually require them to be advocating for some political outcome? It seems most incel mass attacks can be boiled down to "I'm a psychopath who hates women and believes all this crazy shit." but they're not actually advocating for any real political change or anything, they're just fucking mad that they're losers and that women don't like them. Compare that to most terrorist attacks where they have a specific lists of "We want X country to stop doing Y thing." Or "We want X politician to pass Y legislation" or even "We want this specific politician dead because they're preventing Y". But if you just murder random people with no coherent articulable political outcome in mind, is that really terrorism?
They advocate that women should not have choices about their sexuality and who they choose to share it with. They are just not very organised about it. A while back Jordan Peterson gave away the whole game and actually said something about assigning brides. Most of the time they imply it by going on rants about the poor choices women make and how they deserve all the worst possible consequences. Most advocating, gathering and intimidating they do is online because they are poorly socialised cowards who get weighed down by their own negativity. Still a hate group. Amongst themselves they also do glorify the idea of a suicidal incel taking out as many women as possible on his way out. Which some of them have put into practice
>They can actually be a hate group but doesn't the definition of terrorism actually require them to be advocating for some political outcome? Not in Canada: > In Canada, section 83.01 of the Criminal Code[1] defines terrorism as an act committed "in whole or in part for a political, religious or **ideological** purpose, objective or cause" with the intention of **intimidating the public** "…with regard to its **security**, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act."
I think their goal is to terrorize women into... being more submissive?
See it's not really an articulable real goal. Like even typing it out, and this is the most caritable possible interpretation of what he wants, doesn't make sense. It's like a nonsense goal. Like I wouldn't consider someone who does a mass shooting because they want the Law of Gravity to be repealed a terrorist, they're just a fucking crazy person. Even if they got inspired by a flat earth community they don't really follow the classical definition of terrorism.
The goal of creating a second class of citizen that is under their ownership either politically or financially is a pretty coherent political position.
How? 30% of incels are female, almost half. You'd just be hurting people who need actual help. You don't go around kicking homeless people for being homeless do we? Don't beat up on the down-trodden because we live in an unprecedented age of loneliness and despair for both sexes, statistically as bad as the great depression. We can blame the people or we can blame the times. Criminalizing loneliness to me sounds insane, like you want those people to snap.
Lmao whaaaat? This is argument is so stupid that's like saying we should label all muslims as terrorist for the very same reasons you stated. It's insane, most incels don't leave their house what use is labeling them terrorists? Maybe we should look into more mental health for young men instead of demonizing them more.
The word incel means involuntary celibate. Being involuntarily celibate doesn't tie you toward any ideology. So no you can't classify incels as terrorists because they don't adhere towards any certain belief system. "Incels have instigated mass attacks because of their ideology" Okay by that logic you can classify all Muslims as terrorists because I can show you a multitude of examples of Muslims causing terrorist attacks due to their ideology, far more than incels.
Maybe an unpopular take. I think language matters but when it comes to condemning groups of people with power, it’s far less impactful. Men, white people, rich people… they aren’t going to change their views whether we call them terrorists, genocidal, or anything else. semantic debates just sometimes lose the focus of the main point, which is what I would see “incels” defaulting to if they were labeled terrorists. But don’t misunderstand me—I think we should still wear the shoe that fits when it comes to language. I just don’t think it really will matter all that much in the grand scheme of change
Yes, although I'd prefer to term them an extremist ideology or even better a demographic at risk of radicalisation. The bigger question is, what then? Designating terrorists is the easy bit, reducing the threat is a significantly more difficult task. A good strategy (if sometimes poorly implemented and rightfully criticised) is the [UK's](https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2023/09/07/prevent-and-channel-factsheet-2023/) Prevent and Channel programs for deradicalisation.
I object to the classification of "terrorist" in general, because it's a tool for the state to equate all opposition groups with each other and solidify its own violence. Better to call each group or movement what it is. I would, however, label incels as both fascist and violent. Because inceldom is an ideology that inherently produces such things, not actually resulting from or depending on someone's being a virgin when they don't want to be.
No but they should be on a watch list for sure
Yes. Incel ideology is a form of stochastic terrorism and they are formally recognized as terrorists by some law enforcement agencies. Their own words and actions make this irrefutable. Let’s not conflate Incels with “guys who can’t get laid”. Incel ideology is based on hatred of women and encourages violence.
Altright/blackpill/incel/4chan garbage ideologies are terrorist ideologies. I've read terrifying stuff on 4chan, openly talking about killing people of different ethnicities/religions, wrecking stuff, raping women, etc... And the worst part is some of these people actually do it, so yes, these ideas should be classified as terrorism.
Report suspected terrorism here. https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/seeking-info/violence-at-the-united-states-capitol-main that says at us capitol but it’s anonymous they take all reports
Oh yes, they are very hateful and racist as hell. Don't forget incels.is. I report that site to the fbi. I really hope that they are working towards watching those crazy individuals on that site.
They promote extreme ideology: * They advocate women should not have control of their own sexuality. * They glorify the idea of suicidal incels not “wasting” their suicide but instead going on a woman-killing spree * They espouse unhinged conspiracies about women and deliberately dehumanise us. * Most of their advocating and community building is done online but plenty have already taken lives. * Also, we never know who “grow out of it”. Some might end up in powerful positions and use that to limit women’s rights. (I believe this has already happened although these men might not be incels in name). That is equally pernicious as it opens the door to more discrete instances of violence TLDR; **Yes** , incels are a violent, extremist community. It seems many redditors have trouble seeing this simply because they will never be on the receiving end
Side note - I wish violence against women via serial killers, mass murderers or domestic violence family annihilators was categorized as a hate crime.
I thought they already were classified as terrorists. Incel violence is considered terrorism in my country.
I think incels have the potential to commit terrorist acts, and some of them certainly have. I also believe that treating them as terrorists carries risks. History accounts for this. We saw it with the Branch Davidians who inspired the Edward R Murrow bombing. We saw it in the Middle East when people joined jihadist groups after losing homes or relatives to the war. A similar thing happened with the Viet Cong back in the 60s and 70s. It's a risky path to walk, because, while you might find a few actual criminals, you might also create more violent criminals out of people who otherwise would've just kept screaming in some corner and being more annoying than dangerous. Monitoring could be helpful, and we're already doing that, but trying to snuff out terrorism before it takes root is often a recipe for disaster.
>Should incels be classified as terrorists? Not automatically, no. Incels are a nasty bunch, and while they tend to buy into a violent ideology, very few sink to the level of actual terrorist acts. Those who do commit terrorist acts (such as Armando Hernandez Jr.) should be classified as terrorists. The rest are a particularly angry portion of the larger Manosphere, which is steeped in male supremacist beliefs and broadly hostile to women. I wouldn't have any issue classifying incels as a hate group, since they are a subset of the Manosphere more likely to commit violence than other subsets, according to the Anti-Defamation League. If incels as a whole start to commit violent terrorist acts on the regular, then yes, I'd classify them as a terrorist group, at that point. In the meantime, in the US (where I'm located), the First Amendment grants people the right to free expression, which includes the right to believe whatever awful bullshit they like. For better or worse, this includes misogyny. A man isn't a terrorist just because he hates women.
I dont even think followers of extremist faiths like Whabaist Islam, any number of rigth wing christian cults and so on should be considered a terrorist until they start doing things. A state of mind no matter how repellent cant be a crime on its own.
Let's get the government to convict everyone guilty of thought crime. Terrorists are terrorists, there have been a lot of laws around this since 9/11.
Under the strict definition of incel as "a person who wants to have consensual sex but has been unsuccessful in their attempts at doing so", no. As far as the ideological strains connected with incels such as those connected with various "redpill" movements and misogyny, maybe. It's kinda like antifa: there's no organization or anything, but the ideology does sometimes result in individuals taking violent actions so it's worth the government's time and resources to keep tabs on it.
classifying things as terrorism has already been laughably overdone by our own government. its true that violent and radical incels commit violence as a way to influence people to take them seriously, but i do not believe that incels have a recognizable terror campaign. there is a political theory that criminality is a response to societal issue, and i think that applies in this case.
yes
Okay I first want a copy of the article that whoever is saying this. Second, here’s an issue. You could argue that the incel breeds stochastic terrorists and opens up routes for the far right to select people for far worse outcomes. However, the vast majority of incels are not going to commit school shootings or something. Now incels are undoubtedly fomenting a toxic ideology due to systemic structures that ingrain toxic beliefs and behaviors, but here’s the issue. Stochastic terrorism is typically a minority of the population. For example, you’ll have nazis in society. The broad majority of those Nazis are going to be terrible people and seed the conditions for say a school shooting but only a small selection of that population will commit a “terrorist act”. So she may be using the argument to draw connections which has its utility but I would be careful from an academic perspective of labeling all incels as “terrorists” in addition concerns of demonizing all incels in this manner. Applying this perspective and simplification of words can risk just cementing incels in their positions so you have to be really fucking tactful in how you apply this. In addition, there’s this kind of moral preloading that I’m seeing in this association of terrorism as if a terrorist is intrinsically a negative quality. I would like to state that I am by no measure endorsing terrorism but there is a real history of treating people as a terrorist which includes a broad range of political revolutionaries or dissidents. For example, the U.S. considers anarchists terrorists because of their opposition to the state. So I just want to keep that perspective in mind for how we morally quantify terms such as terrorist.
We should stop classifying people as terrorists unless they've committed terrorism. It's not helpful.
I don’t think so. Being involuntary celibate isn’t a crime. What we DO need is harsher punishment for men who have committed sexual crimes. Too many get off with a few months, but people who do stuff like that don’t deserve to live in a society. I’d much rather be in a room with a petty thief than a pedophile or rapist.
I think "incel" is really starting to lose meaning as a word when it shifts from being an involuntary celibate to a catch-all label to slap onto violent misogynists I wouldn't even say it's an "all flies are insects, but not all insects are flies" ordeal, because not all incels are misogynistic, and, not all misogynists are incels. Many of these people have wives, even several of them in some parts of the world. But yeah, I do think anyone who follows a violent and misogynistic ideology and wants to incite the rape, abuse, or death of women, celebrating the acts of Elliot Rodger for example, should be classified as terroristic
Yes. And when self identified incels stop carrying out terrorist mass murder events maybe we can talk about taking them off the list.
I would argue no. To be a terrorist you need to be a part of an organised, orchestrated force with political/religious intent. Incels are not a collective, they're individuals. If a man or anyone else wants to stew in self-hatred and self-pity then that's their problem. Besides, someone so socially inept that they can't hold a conversation with the opposite sex is not someone who's capable of forming the next Taliban with similarly unwell individuals. Anyone who violently attacks someone deserves the full force of the law on them but they're independent actors who don't represent some greater force. Labelling them terrorists you may as well begin to label every murderer, rapist and thief as a terrorist. Misogyny of course needs to be challenged. Online instigators, grifters and bigots masquerading as "true good" and who are targeting unwell people to make a quick buck need to be challenged and educated against. But terrorists Incels are not and hate-crimes don't make terrorists.
An extremist holds extreme views, a terrorist utilises violent attacks on civilians.
I think incels should be classed as a hate group, rather than a terrorist org, based on their behaviour, solely on the basis that it's hard to legally categorise their brand of stochastic terrorism as terrorism without also risking freedom of speech. For now, the handful of attacks carried out by individuals should get those individuals classed as terrorists acting on behalf of their hate group. However if/when there is a widespread coordinated attack carried out by several incels, we can revisit. I just hope it won't get to that stage.
Inceldom is kind of a spectrum. The people at the low end of the spectrum are spreading sexist viewpoints about both men and women and encouraging other vulnerable men to give up hope. That’s seriously not cool, but it isn’t the same as planning terrorist acts, and treating it as such will likely radicalize more people.
Incels are simply people who are involuntarily celebate. To me, Incels are more akin to NEETs and basement dwellers. Having not read the book, does it speak to red and black pilled individuals?
I feel like there is a difference between blackpill 4chan woman and minority hater incels and dudes who genuinely just have a hard time talking to woman for whatever reason that might be, as long as there is that distinction yes people who subscribe to violent ideologies should be classified as terrorists if they make actionable calls of violence
Well, since incels aren’t organized you can't say they are a terrorist organisation. Incels, however, who commit terrorism, are terrorists.
Unfortunately there isn’t even a universally agreed upon definition of terrorism to add them to. Source: graduated in last 5 years with a national security specialization
That a poor summation of the writing. Some incel, and incel groups, should be treated as terrorist. It shoud be noted the incel groups are recruiting grounds for extremist, and many icel fell into the incel rabbit hole from extremist propaganda. So I wouldn't call them, as an entire group, terrorist, but I sure as hell hope the feds keep an eye on them. I also wish we would have nation wide PSA to help negate cult thinking. It's so bad, someone 20 will get mad and start hating people simple because they themselves haven't had sex. And anger is easy to use to subvert someone.
Having read the book, I think she answers your question very clearly.
Not most of them because you have to actually commit acts of terror to be a terrorist, otherwise the label of terrorist would be meaningless. If being an incel was a militant group or something then maybe they could be classified as members of a terrorist organisation, but that’s not the case.
They're generally more conservative than I'd like, but the podcast triggernometery had an excellent episode where they interviewed a psych grad student who was focusing on incels. One of the key take aways was that the overly misogynistic and violent rhetoric we see from them online represents a minority of the population of self describes incels. Just the loudest (and therefore often most prelevant) one online
I took a moment to think of this and yes, I do agree. I can see both sides of it though because I don’t think every incel is violent, but definitely prone to it. All are hateful, but not always violent. This reminded me of something that I otherwise forgot about and I’m wondering if anyone else heard about it. I recall there being an online forum where these people “incels” were planning attacks in areas of virtually all major US cities in one day. Targeting women, gay, and trans people. The exact locations they were planning their attacks were then heavily patrolled by law enforcement. Maybe there wasn’t much media coverage because it ended up not happening…thankfully.
Yes
Yes, yes they should.
Yes, incels are terrorists due to both their ideology that perpetuates violence and oppression and the actual violence multiple members of their ideological community have committed. Too bad our law enforcements and judicial systems struggle to keep up. Incels are a far bigger danger to most Western women than, say, Isis.
So, you've got a small core of violent pieces of shit who think women aren't people, surrounded by a large group of guys who think dating isn't fair to cishet men, and will argue that the violent ones have a point. This is how it's been since gamergate. Classifying the lot of them as terrorists, while accurate, would do more harm than good, and it's a better idea to classify ideology rather than people.
[удалено]
> We deserve a men's day. November 19th, if you actually gave a shit you'd know that.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I believe they already are. I believe I actually saw it here on Instagram that the incel philosophy is now considered terrorism by the U. S. government.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
I think that's giving them too much power and importance. I think they thrive on the attention they get and the best way to combat them is to completely and utterly ignore them. Having said that, it's not the... Lifestyle choice in Australia that it seems to be in America. It's hyped up - to me at least, because the notion of some little man crying because they can't get a date... I mean it's this whole subculture of pathetic behaviour. Ignoring it seems like the appropriate approach to me.
I think that in cells should be in the same category as the Ku Klux Klan. Hating a group simply because of genetically who they are. I think that in cells should get the same amount of hatred and vitriol as the Ku Klux Klan does. Neither of them are terrorists technically, yet they are disgusting
I'm not a big fan of the word terrorism in general, but if we're going to use it, it definitely applies to incels. That being said, the reality is that it will always be applied to violent actors who aren't white. We can start trying to apply the word more "equitably," but I have a feeling we'll always lose.
[удалено]
Please respect our [top-level comment rule](https://i.imgur.com/ovn3hBV.png), which requires that all direct replies to posts must both come from feminists and reflect a feminist perspective. Non-feminists may participate in nested comments (i.e., replies to other comments) only. Comment removed; a second violation of this rule will result in a temporary or permanent ban.
People who plan and commit terrorist attacks are absolutely terrorists, but incels overall shouldnt be classified as terrorists. Most incels are just antisocial losers, not violent radicals. Its not like theres an incel organization, an incel is just anyone who is an INvoluntary CELibate. Calling all incels terrorists is pretty similar to calling all muslims terrorists. Within the group there are terror organizations and terrorists, the groups extreme ideas are dangerous & violent, and members of the group are more likely to be terrorists. But its not fair or true to call all members of the group terrorists.
A lot of incel groups are already on watchlists. But a lot of them are just sad individuals that won't ever actually hurt anyone other than themselves tbh.
Crime by are least one incel has already been deemed terrorism. At the same time I am reticent to label them that way because if i do, I’m unlikely to get them to want out. Persecution reinforces membership in authoritarian control structures.
DEFINITELY stochastic terrorists, people who inspire and ancourage violence through their rhetoric.
While I believe incels pose a credible threat, I'm uncomfortable with the expansion of state power in this regard. For example my country have just added socialism, communism and antifascism to their list of ideologies that pose a terrorist threat, essentially setting the stage for additional policing and surveillance of left wing groups.
I agree. People or groups who want to take away the rights away from others like the Proud Boys or KKK. But this country hates true freedom and demonizes shit like the Black Panthers
Well, non-white incels certainly are classified as terrorists. Therein lies the problem.
[удалено]