[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

This is called post hoc rationalization.

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.

just stop it.

[I_Am_Nous]

>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."

1. https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15745

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

oh snap, humans who think physical appearance matters!?!?! I'm shocked ... shocked I tell you.

[I_Am_Nous]

>"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.

[PH95VuimJjqBqy]

you can't win here.

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_Am_Nous]

>you can't win here.

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 :)