>If they do, then any group of people with a common set of complaints and frustrations has an ideology
I specified "internet incels" as they group together into a community online, rather than incels in the world, silently suffering. If a group of people who form a community because of a common bond remain a community for long enough, it will begin to have an ideology as most people in the group agree with certain ideas. A good example of this is black pill incels -- they believe themselves to be completely undesirable and instead of remaining hopeful, they turn to hate and try to convince other incels to "abandon any hopes of having a relationship with a woman because women are ACTUALLY the problem".
Sure, some people can come to this opinion without the help of peers egging them on, but if a group is trying to convince themselves and others of a certain idea, then that is an ideology after it remains in the community for long enough.
>apparently being frustrated that women won't sleep with you is fascism?
Reich (who the original article is about) believed the tendency toward fascism was related to the tendency to not being sexually satisfied. So in this respect, no, frustration does not equal fascism. What Reich might argue for is frustration leading one on a path to fascism, much like how hunger might lead a man on a path to highway robbery.
It's not like it's a cause so much as an observation that people who aren't satisfied in some way are more likely to seek that satisfaction somewhere else, and replacing one satisfaction for another is powerful.
When in doubt, put the word "online" in front of it, that way your bologna seems more palatable.
Personally, I think if you're going to rail against an "online ideology" it should be the hackernews ideology, where people come together online and agree that software is interesting.
Sure, because people following the HN ideology have been involved in shootings because they swallowed the black pill so hard they used their death as a manifesto of why interesting software is interesting.
Oh wait, no, that was an internet incel[1]. Hacker News doesn't seem to intentionally choose hate and push others to choose hate. Internet incels do.
In the 80's these things were blamed on D&D, in the 90's on video games, I guess nowadays it's "ideology".
regardless, you just moved the goalpost. HN meets your definition of ideology. It does so because your definition is flawed. You recognize this, which is why you've now added the requirement of murderousness.
I haven't moved any goalposts. I never said an ideology has to be murderous to be an ideology. Something being an ideology is not automatically a negative. I also never said that ideologies must be "railed against."
Regardless of what you think, or how I present my argument, the fact is that hateful incel communities tend to produce hateful, antisocial people. They do not attempt to raise each other up because they aren't there to be raised up -- they are there to feel one with a community that understands their pain. That pain is real, and it causes people to lash out. When these people DO lash out, the incel community often considers them a martyr.
If you can't recognize that as an ideology adopted because the people in pain gather together, it seems like it's either because you don't want to, or you aren't arguing in good faith in the first place. I recognize their pain. I recognize the human connection they crave and partially sate by being part of an online community of fellow lonely men. I recognize the powerlessness they feel when faced with society belittling them and their pain. Desperate, powerless people tend to make the most unhinged decisions because that's all they feel is left for them.
You don't like the community or its opinions and are stretching for any reason to blame them for things, this is why you call them having a common interest as an ideology but would not present a community of soccer enthusiasts the same way.
This is _why_ you moved the goalpost to needing some sort of hatefulness (note your switch to using exactly that word) because you discovered you needed to split that hair even finer than you already were.
>this is why you call them having a common interest as an ideology but would not present a community of soccer enthusiasts the same way.
You keep trying to hammer this point when the fruit of what comes out of a community matters when discussing what that community believes. However, instead of belaboring this further I'll just point to something[1] that carries more weight than my anonymous words, where they discuss the incel ideology because it actually exists:
"Across our quantitative analysis of the distribution and associations made with identity terms, we see evidence of an ideology where physical appearance determines human value, as has been found with prior work on incels (Maxwell et al., 2020; Baele et al., 2021; Pruden, 2021). This ideology essentializes social constructs, such as race and gender, as biological physical features impacting desirability, with controversy over the role of race."
>"Particularly pernicious is a black-pilled ideology that physical appearance determines human value, a reinforcement and extension of essentialized gender and racial hierarchies"
Firstly, are we done arguing whether incels have an ideology then? And secondly, no, physical appearance doesn't just matter, it's ESSENTIAL for them. Your value is pegged to your attractiveness. Nothing you do or change matters. Give up, lay down and rot, and hate.
>"An increasing politicization is reflected in this example post: “we don’t need society to completely accept the incel ideology, we just need to masquerade as normies and keep bashing women, jews and gays.”
The fact that you are minimizing all of the negativity that comes from the incel communities with snarky replies just underlines that you don't seem to be arguing in good faith.
Some Blacks commit murder, some blacks spout hate, therefore anyone who defends blacks as a group is trying to minimize the negativity that comes out of black communities.
The issue is that you dislike a _group_ of people and have tried to justify that dislike after the fact. That's what post hoc rationalization IS.
I wasn't aware there was a win condition to a conversation online.
>The issue is that you dislike a _group_ of people
I dislike a self-selecting group of people because of the things that self-selecting group believes and does. What other reason does anyone have for disliking anyone else? This entire time I have been talking about a specific, self-selecting group of people online, and you keep arguing as though I am talking about the entirety of every incel on the planet, whether they get online and take part in incel communities or not. That is clearly not what I am arguing for.
You didn't like me saying that online incels have an ideology. You argued I used that word wrong because you didn't agree with the scope as I described it, and instead expanded the scope yourself to try to point out how you think it's a ridiculous claim. Then we've been arguing about your expanded scope while you tell me I moved the goalposts because you didn't like where I "put" the goalposts in the first place. I get it, I'm never going to convince you. So have a nice day :)
I specified "internet incels" as they group together into a community online, rather than incels in the world, silently suffering. If a group of people who form a community because of a common bond remain a community for long enough, it will begin to have an ideology as most people in the group agree with certain ideas. A good example of this is black pill incels -- they believe themselves to be completely undesirable and instead of remaining hopeful, they turn to hate and try to convince other incels to "abandon any hopes of having a relationship with a woman because women are ACTUALLY the problem".
Sure, some people can come to this opinion without the help of peers egging them on, but if a group is trying to convince themselves and others of a certain idea, then that is an ideology after it remains in the community for long enough.
>apparently being frustrated that women won't sleep with you is fascism?
Reich (who the original article is about) believed the tendency toward fascism was related to the tendency to not being sexually satisfied. So in this respect, no, frustration does not equal fascism. What Reich might argue for is frustration leading one on a path to fascism, much like how hunger might lead a man on a path to highway robbery.
It's not like it's a cause so much as an observation that people who aren't satisfied in some way are more likely to seek that satisfaction somewhere else, and replacing one satisfaction for another is powerful.