Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
No, it may just mean that mitochondrial mutations don't matter much* but that Y chromosome mutations are often not compatible with life.
* there are a number of severe mitochondrial genetic diseases.
"Not compatible with life" means "Non-viable" surely.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
No, it may just mean that mitochondrial mutations don't matter much* but that Y chromosome mutations are often not compatible with life.
* there are a number of severe mitochondrial genetic diseases.
"Not compatible with life" means "Non-viable" surely.
It could simply be that one is more susceptible to mutation than the other, especially if it is a pattern repeated for all animals.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
No, it may just mean that mitochondrial mutations don't matter much* but that Y chromosome mutations are often not compatible with life.
* there are a number of severe mitochondrial genetic diseases.
"Not compatible with life" means "Non-viable" surely.
Yes, but if a mutation is incompatible with life then it dies out, whether mitochondrial or Y chromosomal. That mitochondrial mutations occur more often may well simply he that they are better tolerated and nothing to do with male or female fertility rates.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
It does? I would like a little more empirical evidence of that.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
Yes, they should jolly well shape up and follow the example set by exemplary fellows like yourself.
How long until unleaded hits £1.40 a litre?! Jesus Christ it’s extortionate. I swear everything is rapidly getting more expensive
Out-of-control inflation could be a serious problem for Sunak and Johnson.
Not according to Thommo.
He has corrected me on this on numerous occasions. I have very much been spooked by an increase in M3 being Iinflationary, but Thoomo says it's OK as it means the national debt is naturally eroded to nothing. This apparently means we no longer have to worry about expensive repayment.
The moral being there is no downside to Johnson spaffing the cash. Which is good.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
That's exactly the mindset. Every other group struggling are victims that need to met with endless compassion and understanding. Low status men are just to blame for all their own problems and need to sort it out themselves. They deserve no sympathy at all.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
And the animal kingdom consists only of mammals? Course it does.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
That people think they are entitled to things without reason.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
And the animal kingdom consists only of mammals? Course it does.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
That's exactly the mindset. Every other group struggling are victims that need to met with endless compassion and understanding. Low status men are just to blame for all their own problems and need to sort it out themselves. They deserve no sympathy at all.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
"Low status men" are only defined as such by themselves and by materialistic society. The answer is to be less status obsessed. Women are not status symbols, or possessions.
People have agency, including Incels. They can change if they want to do so, but it does require effort.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nah, that's not true. There has always been a promiscuous minority. Just walk down any high St on a Saturday, or go to a nightclub. There are plenty of ugly men with female partners.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
That people think they are entitled to things without reason.
You have no idea how smug and thick you are managing to sound about this. There are actually things which people are genuinely entitled to; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just for instance. I'd extend that to say that actually that includes the right to find someone to settle down and have children with, if that's what they want, and that if disproportionate numbers of young men are being disappointed in that hope, there's a problem there which we ought to be addressing. Your position seems to be that you personally happened to get lucky back in the 1970s or whenever, so it is inconceivable that anyone should have failed to do so, and if they have, serve them jolly well right.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
That's exactly the mindset. Every other group struggling are victims that need to met with endless compassion and understanding. Low status men are just to blame for all their own problems and need to sort it out themselves. They deserve no sympathy at all.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
"Low status men" are only defined as such by themselves and by materialistic society. The answer is to be less status obsessed. Women are not status symbols, or possessions.
People have agency, including Incels. They can change if they want to do so, but it does require effort.
And, of course, we could abolish the concept of status. It really isn't helpful to anyone. Whatever their status.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
That's exactly the mindset. Every other group struggling are victims that need to met with endless compassion and understanding. Low status men are just to blame for all their own problems and need to sort it out themselves. They deserve no sympathy at all.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
"Low status men" are only defined as such by themselves and by materialistic society. The answer is to be less status obsessed. Women are not status symbols, or possessions.
People have agency, including Incels. They can change if they want to do so, but it does require effort.
What total bollocks low status men are defined as low status by themselves they are defined by that by society. Changing is not easy for those that were never encouraged at school, got sent to a sink school , came from the wrong postcode. If someone said the same about bangladeshi's you would be up in arms about it and don't even try and deny it
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
And the animal kingdom consists only of mammals? Course it does.
I said mammals.
Sorry, so you did. Never seen the expression "mammal kindom" before.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
That people think they are entitled to things without reason.
You have no idea how smug and thick you are managing to sound about this. There are actually things which people are genuinely entitled to; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, just for instance. I'd extend that to say that actually that includes the right to find someone to settle down and have children with, if that's what they want, and that if disproportionate numbers of young men are being disappointed in that hope, there's a problem there which we ought to be addressing. Your position seems to be that you personally happened to get lucky back in the 1970s or whenever, so it is inconceivable that anyone should have failed to do so, and if they have, serve them jolly well right.
I am pretty sure most of us here in these of swipe left/right whichever it is would have found their dating more constrained than in their youth. I know when I went to college both sexes mixed and matched with maybe 500 or so possible partners and people got a rep if they did numerous one night stands, these days youngsters have 1000's to choose from via app and mostly won't have any info to go on from friends going....yeah just don't expect him/her to stay round
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nope, polygamy is illegal in the UK under section 11 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and in most of the world now outside of the Middle East and North Africa and few islands in Oceania.
Marriage is only between 2 partners for a reason, commitment to each other, not 1 good looking and/or rich man and multiple concubines
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nope, polygamy is illegal in the UK and in most of the world now.
Marriage is only between 2 partners for a reason, commitment to each other, not 1 good looking or rich man and multiple concubines
Wtf who talked about polygamy do you actually ever read any post before responding? A man who can get sequential one night stands and is happy with that is not polygamy now go troll someone else
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nah, that's not true. There has always been a promiscuous minority. Just walk down any high St on a Saturday, or go to a nightclub. There are plenty of ugly men with female partners.
Most of them will have some degree of status. You will not got that many ugly men in low income jobs among younger generations.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nope, polygamy is illegal in the UK and in most of the world now.
Marriage is only between 2 partners for a reason, commitment to each other, not 1 good looking or rich man and multiple concubines
Wtf who talked about polygamy do you actually ever read any post before responding? A man who can get sequential one night stands and is happy with that is not polygamy now go troll someone else
Many if not most people get sequential one night stands in their 20s at some stage, especially if they are better looking than average.
However by their 30s and 40s they settle down, marry and have children and it will not be 'I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%' as you state as polygamy is illegal and marriages will still be between 2 partners alone
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nope, polygamy is illegal in the UK and in most of the world now.
Marriage is only between 2 partners for a reason, commitment to each other, not 1 good looking or rich man and multiple concubines
Wtf who talked about polygamy do you actually ever read any post before responding? A man who can get sequential one night stands and is happy with that is not polygamy now go troll someone else
Most people get sequential one night stands in their 20s at some stage, especially if they are better looking than average.
However by their 30s and 40s they settle down, marry and have children and it will not be 'I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%' as you state as polygamy is illegal and marriages will still be between 2 partners alone
Stop responding about things no one is talking about it merely confirms you are the idiot most already think you
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
And the animal kingdom consists only of mammals? Course it does.
I said mammals.
Sorry, so you did. Never seen the expression "mammal kindom" before.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nope, polygamy is illegal in the UK and in most of the world now.
Marriage is only between 2 partners for a reason, commitment to each other, not 1 good looking or rich man and multiple concubines
Wtf who talked about polygamy do you actually ever read any post before responding? A man who can get sequential one night stands and is happy with that is not polygamy now go troll someone else
Most people get sequential one night stands in their 20s at some stage, especially if they are better looking than average.
However by their 30s and 40s they settle down, marry and have children and it will not be 'I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%' as you state as polygamy is illegal and marriages will still be between 2 partners alone
Stop responding about things no one is talking about it merely confirms you are the idiot most already think you
Clearly I have proved your argument to be complete rubbish, hence as usual you have to resort to abuse.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
That's exactly the mindset. Every other group struggling are victims that need to met with endless compassion and understanding. Low status men are just to blame for all their own problems and need to sort it out themselves. They deserve no sympathy at all.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
"Low status men" are only defined as such by themselves and by materialistic society. The answer is to be less status obsessed. Women are not status symbols, or possessions.
People have agency, including Incels. They can change if they want to do so, but it does require effort.
What complete crap. Men are perceived as low status by women. It is very rare for a woman to date a man earning substantially below themselves. You can make up for a small differential by height or charisma but only so much.
And as others have said, dating apps have made this so much more. Women now have the perception of access to a much greater number of high status men than ever before. Go and look at tinderdata on reddit to see the numbers most men are looking at. Even average, well dressed looking ones get destroyed.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
No one is entitled to friendship either but we still worry about old people sitting miserably in absolute loneliness.
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Well, "low status men" need to get their act together then. Self improvement doesn't require becoming smarter or wealthier necessarily.
That's exactly the mindset. Every other group struggling are victims that need to met with endless compassion and understanding. Low status men are just to blame for all their own problems and need to sort it out themselves. They deserve no sympathy at all.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
"Low status men" are only defined as such by themselves and by materialistic society. The answer is to be less status obsessed. Women are not status symbols, or possessions.
People have agency, including Incels. They can change if they want to do so, but it does require effort.
And, of course, we could abolish the concept of status. It really isn't helpful to anyone. Whatever their status.
Status is hard wired into human beings through millions of years of evolution. People cannot control who they are attracted to. You have as much chance of convincing women not to be attracted by status as you have of convincing men not to be attracted by looks.
As an aside, apart from my noninterest in the killer's sex life, I wish they wouldn't tell us anything about mass killers at all. When a famous person kills themselves, there are rough guidelines in place, per Samaritans, about not describing the method so that there aren't copycat suicides. I think that might also be wise for mass killings.
EDIT: As in, a news blackout on the identity of the killer and also the families.
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
And the animal kingdom consists only of mammals? Course it does.
I said mammals.
Sorry, so you did. Never seen the expression "mammal kindom" before.
And come to think about it, the whole point about mitochondrial dna is that it is passed solely down the female line. That being so, its makeup absolutely cannot be affected by male to female sex partner ratios. How could it? You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
Incels are a meme. There's twice as much genetic diversity in mitochondrial DNA as there is in the Y chromosome and AFAIK this is repeated throughout the mammal kindom.
Could you expand on that? Because I am only 95% certain it is utter gibberish.
We inherit mitochondrial DNA from the female and only the female, the Y chromosome can only be passed on from male-male. There is twice as much genetic diversity in mtDNA as there is in the Y chromosome. This means that twice as many women have produced viable offspring as male.
I highly doubt that is correct. You say it is "repeated throughout the animal kingdom" when there is actually no doubt that there is huge variation between say partridges which pair off for life vs elephant seals where one male breeds from 40 to 50 females. Secondly given the lip service, if nothing else, paid by almost all human societies to monogamy, it seems almost impossible that historically every man who has fathered anyone has on average had children by 2 different women. Thirdly if what you say is correct, it surely shows that incels are an actual thing rather than a meme?
Partridges aren't mammals.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
And the animal kingdom consists only of mammals? Course it does.
I said mammals.
Sorry, so you did. Never seen the expression "mammal kindom" before.
And come to think about it, the whole point about mitochondrial dna is that it is passed solely down the female line. That being so, its makeup absolutely cannot be affected by male to female sex partner ratios. How could it? You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
The ratio of diversity between mtDNA:Y chromosome can. Obviously?
As an aside, apart from my noninterest in the killer's sex life, I wish they wouldn't tell us anything about mass killers at all. When a famous person kills themselves, there are rough guidelines in place, per Samaritans, about not describing the method so that there aren't copycat suicides. I think that might also be wise for mass killings.
EDIT: As in, a news blackout on the identity of the killer and also the families.
There's a balance to be struck between not sensationalising it and providing factual information to the public about what has happened.
What IS an issue is the access to mental health services. It has been poor for decades, has been getting worse, and the pandemic has tipped it all into crisis. No one can know whether it would have helped or not. But if you can't get an appointment then no one will even be able to venture a guess. And there are vast numbers waiting, stewing, and liable to boil over. Of course, the wealthy can pay. But even they are hitting the limits as every single qualified therapist is full and exhausted from 18 months of pandemic trauma.
Post of the evening.
I think this is very important.
Also at present, a lot of us have really been taken to the end of our tethers by Covid.
Yesterday I was talking to a person with ahistory of mental health issues, who is normally resilient for months until something bad knocks them sideways - an example would be the loss of a job or a death of a relative. Then they easily end up in a mental health residential support unit for some time. Have often worked, but not during Covid-time, and has lost the main voluntary interest that kept them sane.
They said that had been, and may continue, to consider suicide, due to the pressures - and due to a pending loss of house due to serious rent arrears.
No idea how this will end, but it's really rough for all involved.
And there will be a lot more similar circumstances. Personally I will have scars from this time for life, but I have has enough cushions and people around me when I have needed them.
No excuse for the shooter of course; however one can understand that this is a time of intense pressure where things break down more easily for anyone near the edge.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
There is much commentary on here tonight about the Plymouth shooter. To be honest his behaviour was incomprehensible. Not just mentally deranged but an ****hole too.
My question is, who the **** needs to be licenced to use a pump action shotgun anyway?
Does it have any legitimate role? In sports shooting or in pest control (assuming he worked in that)?
"Pump action shotgun" is a little bit of journalistic inexactitude, because we think of something from a Hollywood film with 10 or 20 in the magazine for "pump action" shotgun - like Die Hard or similar.
In the UK two or three barrelled shotguns are used for pest control eg shooting pigeons, and a legally held pump-action shotgun has a similar limitation. If you have the three barrelled ones, it is not sustainable to prevent a one barrel 3 shot magazine version. I can imagine that being challenged in Court as the two are functionally equivalent with a legitimate use.
Also they are regulated to a minimum size (eg barrel length) to make them impossible to conceal easily, which is why "sawn-off" shotguns are completely illegal.
One of the principles used in the UK is to prevent legally held firearms being concealable.
Those misapprehensions will be used in the coming campaigns to scare people. "PUMP ACTION SHOTGUN" will be MAFIA GANGSTERS ON OUR STREETS.
The area we need attention is on mental stability, if anything.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
Are you sure?
Have there not been cases around disabled people and prison inmates and the right sex. Have there not been people in some prisons who have had prostitutes brought in? Scandinavia? Though TBF Sweden has now gone hang'em and flog'em on customers of consensual prostitution.
Am I right in thinking this incel guy was originally from the US?
The incel movement is from the US. The bloke who shot up half of Plymouth had a mild west country accent in the video extract I saw.
This incel thing might be a red herring, especially if Davison's original plan was to kill only his mother. The following murders seem to have been random killings after chance encounters.
Weird....
On his Facebook profile, Davison, an apprentice crane operator, claims to be from Phoenix, Arizona.
I don't know the truth, just heard sky news say this and thought he doesn't sound American. As Foxy says part of the weird fantasy?
I guess that we will know more in time, but he strikes me as a Wannabee Yank, with his desire for guns, Trumpist politics etc. It's as easy to be a fake American as anything else on the Internet.
Phoenix, Arizona:
It's a girl, sweet Lord, in a flatbed Ford, slowin' down to take a look at me
may be part of the thought process.
I doubt they are sophisticated enough to take it easy
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nah, that's not true. There has always been a promiscuous minority. Just walk down any high St on a Saturday, or go to a nightclub. There are plenty of ugly men with female partners.
Is the whole incel thing a subsection of the wider societial issue of the likes of social media boostering all these so called influencers appearing to have the perfect look, the perfect life, endless money, all the latest gear?
Back in the day you compared yourself with your mates and perhaps the old person you knew that perhaps had a flash car etc.
Now the lives of the rich is all out there to see and then you have all these fake influencer who make it apper they also have this perfect life.
An example of this is when I was building my home gym I did a load of research of which kit to buy. My social media even to this day is packed with steroid jacked men as clearly big tech super brain algorithms has equated me wanting gym kit with wanting to see endless pictures of roided up men.
It's a combination of two effects:
1) Men will marry up or down in economic status, but women insist on marrying equal or up.
2) Women now have the same access to economic opportunity as men, at least up to the age of 30 by which time most couples pair up.
The result is a surplus of unattached men at the low end of economic status and a surplus of women at the high end.
The second point i think is very pertinent. Mrs U has some single female friends, who are intelligent and self sufficient, they regularly complain about going on dates via apps and the men aren't successful or ambitious enough for them.
It isn't solely about the money, they aren't looking for a multi-millionaire so they can pack it all in and live a life of luxury, but they want somebody who is driven like them and can enjoy nicer things in life....but they absolutely don't want to be funding the man to do this, it has to be equal. They aren't interested in a nice guy who works in the supermarket and earns minimum wage.
Where as we know men will do this.
To be fair on women, there are a lot of unlovable men, and an unlovable man without even the compensation of money or other charm seems a lot worse than being single.
Who in their right mind would date these incels?
A lot of the violence throughout human history was probably caused or exacerbated by this problem.
I don't understand what you mean by "this problem".
No one is entitled to a companion or to sex.
I dont understand how you got that from Andy's post.
Sure, no one is entitled to such but most desire it, so a lack even by their own fault causes problems as people react to not achieving things they desire.
Even if you disagree with that theory I don't see how you got a presumption of entitlement from it. Person wants X but does not get it and so lashes out works far beyond matters of sex.
I simply don't understand what he is referring to as "this problem".
The five people who got shot in Plymouth yesterday could probably give you a clue, if they still could.
So what do you mean by "this problem"?
Well, the problem that people *think* they are entitled to a companion and to sex. Even if they are dead wrong about it.
So there is a problem of culture of entitlement?
What does that mean?
It should be noted most here are of an older persuasion and dated in pretechnology days. With the online dating becoming more and more common I have seen reports that 20% of men get 80% of dates.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
Nah, that's not true. There has always been a promiscuous minority. Just walk down any high St on a Saturday, or go to a nightclub. There are plenty of ugly men with female partners.
Police gave shotgun BACK to Plymouth gunman just a month before rampage after officers confiscated it and revoked his licence last year over an assault allegation
Presumably because the allegation was found to be groundless and they had no cause to revoke his licence. The article states the weapon was held on a shotgun certificate, not a Class 1, and this sounds quite reasonable to me.
The Guardian understands Davison had to attend an anger management course to get his licence back, and months ago was classed by police as being fit again to possess the three-shot shotgun, despite earlier concerns.
In 2020 he had a row with two youths and was reported to police, but he had no previous offences and agreed to attend the course, sources said. The police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), will formally investigate the handling of his gun licence by police.
Does having a row with two youths make you more likely to kill your mother and go postal? I don't think so. Just as the blanket "mental health" angle doesn't hold up either. A large proportion of the population has mental health issues at some time and it does not make them potentially murderers.
Default should surely be that noone has a licence to have a gun at home except for farmers (and then it needs to be convincing). Gun clubs sure, but have the gun under lock and key at the club where you go to shoot targets. What is the reason you give for having a gun when you like in a city like Plymouth?
Very few gun crimes in the uk are committed with licensed fire arms, unlicensed guns are a far bigger number
in 2019 there were 159,745 firearm certificates and 572,488 shotgun certificates on issue. There were however estimated to be 4 million guns in britain.
If you want a gun and dont care about illegallity they are relatively easy to come by. I am pretty sure if he hadnt had a gun license he would still have been able to obtain a gun. So all tightening up does is penalise people who aren't misusing them
Is it really that easy? The level of hunger crime would not seem to reflect that.
I can't see much pushback on further tightening. Most people dont have a gun or even know someone who does, even if your figure is correct, so they won't mind it being even harder.
That doesnt follow because hunger crime will result mainly in shoplifting and lets face it thats a slap on the wrist and back to continue mostly. Carrying a weapon would be counterproductive
Hunger was an auto correct error from fst fingers. It was gun crime, which is quite low, which surely would be higher if it were easy to get hold of them.
Comments
Of course, the group we are talking about here is low status men, which is the group society cares least about.
Monogamy isn't real.
The chat about incels has only popped up in the past few years, my argument is that for whatever reason, men are less likely to breed than women, possibly because men are more expendable than women as they don't carry a baby for nine months so they had to go off and do the dangerous stuff. It's not as expected that men breed.
He has corrected me on this on numerous occasions. I have very much been spooked by an increase in M3 being Iinflationary, but Thoomo says it's OK as it means the national debt is naturally eroded to nothing. This apparently means we no longer have to worry about expensive repayment.
The moral being there is no downside to Johnson spaffing the cash. Which is good.
Have I got that right? Hopefully I can be acknowledged with the privileged status of "ally" now.
This contributes both to lower status or more homely men finding it harder and to women holding out for better. I have no idea I admit how many meet partners online but it is going to be an ever growing number and increasingly you will find I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%
People have agency, including Incels. They can change if they want to do so, but it does require effort.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58207124
But, honestly, "monogamy isn't real." Adolescent cynicism fail.
Marriage is only between 2 partners for a reason, commitment to each other, not 1 good looking and/or rich man and multiple concubines
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9891873/63-people-Marthas-Vineyard-tested-positive-Covid-Obamas-60th-birthday-bash.html
However by their 30s and 40s they settle down, marry and have children and it will not be 'I suspect that 20% of males being reluctant to settle down with one woman and women more ready to wait to get their hands on that 20%' as you state as polygamy is illegal and marriages will still be between 2 partners alone
Goodnight
And as others have said, dating apps have made this so much more. Women now have the perception of access to a much greater number of high status men than ever before. Go and look at tinderdata on reddit to see the numbers most men are looking at. Even average, well dressed looking ones get destroyed.
EDIT: As in, a news blackout on the identity of the killer and also the families.
And come to think about it, the whole point about mitochondrial dna is that it is passed solely down the female line. That being so, its makeup absolutely cannot be affected by male to female sex partner ratios. How could it? You really don't know what you are talking about, do you?
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/24/women-men-dna-human-gene-pool
@BNODesk
·
51m
U.S. COVID update:
- New cases: 153,659
- Average: 128,680 (+3,147)
- In hospital: 81,183 (+1,918)
- In ICU: 19,856 (+585)
- New deaths: 886
Also at present, a lot of us have really been taken to the end of our tethers by Covid.
Yesterday I was talking to a person with ahistory of mental health issues, who is normally resilient for months until something bad knocks them sideways - an example would be the loss of a job or a death of a relative. Then they easily end up in a mental health residential support unit for some time. Have often worked, but not during Covid-time, and has lost the main voluntary interest that kept them sane.
They said that had been, and may continue, to consider suicide, due to the pressures - and due to a pending loss of house due to serious rent arrears.
No idea how this will end, but it's really rough for all involved.
And there will be a lot more similar circumstances. Personally I will have scars from this time for life, but I have has enough cushions and people around me when I have needed them.
No excuse for the shooter of course; however one can understand that this is a time of intense pressure where things break down more easily for anyone near the edge.
In the UK two or three barrelled shotguns are used for pest control eg shooting pigeons, and a legally held pump-action shotgun has a similar limitation. If you have the three barrelled ones, it is not sustainable to prevent a one barrel 3 shot magazine version. I can imagine that being challenged in Court as the two are functionally equivalent with a legitimate use.
Also they are regulated to a minimum size (eg barrel length) to make them impossible to conceal easily, which is why "sawn-off" shotguns are completely illegal.
One of the principles used in the UK is to prevent legally held firearms being concealable.
Those misapprehensions will be used in the coming campaigns to scare people. "PUMP ACTION SHOTGUN" will be MAFIA GANGSTERS ON OUR STREETS.
The area we need attention is on mental stability, if anything.
Have there not been cases around disabled people and prison inmates and the right sex. Have there not been people in some prisons who have had prostitutes brought in? Scandinavia? Though TBF Sweden has now gone hang'em and flog'em on customers of consensual prostitution.
In NI there is currently a judicial review on the consensual sex ban in prisons.
https://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2021/07/06/news/life-sentence-prisoner-secures-high-court-permission-to-challenge-alleged-ban-on-consensual-sex-within-jails-2376632/
An active area...