Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/01/canada-may-host-the-worlds-first-incel-show-trial/

Should they?

My thoughts are yes.

It also opens up questions about how he was radicalised on internet forums via Red and Black pillers.

What are your thoughts, terrorist or not?

What exactly would make him a terrorist? As the article stated, they hadn't found any premeditation or online postings hinting at violence as of yet. It seems, with the info we have, that some kid got pissed because he couldn't get sexual favors from a woman and killed her.

What is the benefit of labeling this terrorism?

Originally posted by socool8520
What exactly would make him a terrorist? As the article stated, they hadn't found any premeditation or online postings hinting at violence as of yet. It seems, with the info we have, that some kid got pissed because he couldn't get sexual favors from a woman and killed her.

What is the benefit of labeling this terrorism? if he was the only one going on these sites and then killing I'd agree and chalk it up to mental illness (which may still play a role). However since Rodgers so many have followed a similar pattern.

I live in Canada and actually had not heard about this. I live only a few hours away from Toronto.

Not really sure about this being an act of terrorism, but my definition of terrorism is somewhat hazy. Either way, he's a piece of garbage that should be going away for a long time. I'm not sure about an act of terrorism, though.

Would his punishment be harsher if it was considered an act of terror?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
if he was the only one going on these sites and then killing I'd agree and chalk it up to mental illness (which may still play a role). However since Rodgers so many have followed a similar pattern.

I don't think it's mental illness either. He's just a bad person who killed someone. Many people are upset that they can't get laid, but they don't go around killing people. This guy would have to be extremely schizophrenic or something like that for me to buy mental illness.

Originally posted by Trocity
I live in Canada and actually had not heard about this. I live only a few hours away from Toronto.

Not really sure about this being an act of terrorism, but my definition of terrorism is somewhat hazy. Either way, he's a piece of garbage that should be going away for a long time. I'm not sure about an act of terrorism, though.

Would his punishment be harsher if it was considered an act of terror? I don't know to be honest, I suspect his sentence might be used to regulate content if it is terrorism. Good to see you back btw.

Originally posted by socool8520
I don't think it's mental illness either. He's just a bad person who killed someone. Many people are upset that they can't get laid, but they don't go around killing people. This guy would have to be extremely schizophrenic or something like that for me to buy mental illness. Dont you think getting that Angry shows an imbalance. I mean **** it we all get angry in relationships all the time be it romantic, work etc. If we killed the people who pissed us off we'd have no one left

Originally posted by Trocity
I live in Canada and actually had not heard about this. I live only a few hours away from Toronto.

Not really sure about this being an act of terrorism, but my definition of terrorism is somewhat hazy. Either way, he's a piece of garbage that should be going away for a long time. I'm not sure about an act of terrorism, though.

Would his punishment be harsher if it was considered an act of terror?

Now that you said that, I do believe the penalties are more harsh if seen as terrorism. I still don't think we can just throw that out there.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Dont you think getting that Angry shows an imbalance. I mean **** it we all get angry in relationships all the time be it romantic, work etc. If we killed the people who pissed us off we'd have no one left

OK, but then by that logic, everyone who kills someone is mentally ill and thus there is no defense.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I don't know to be honest, I suspect his sentence might be used to regulate content if it is terrorism. Good to see you back btw.

Ahh, that is a good point. Good to be back, I pop in now and then to check things out but its mostly flaming and trolling now, something I am no longer particularly interested in partaking in haha.

Originally posted by socool8520
Now that you said that, I do believe the penalties are more harsh if seen as terrorism. I still don't think we can just throw that out there.

Interesting. If there is enough evidence for it then he should be but from reading the article I'm not so sure that I would classify this incident as an act of terror. I think he was most likely just a sicko.

Originally posted by socool8520
OK, but then by that logic, everyone who kills someone is mentally ill and thus there is no defense. Circumstance is always a defence, the heat of the moment, self defence even anger are defences. However, this, although I don't know all the details is a low threshold for such a reaction indicating mental instability, I read somewhere Steve Bannon aimed propaganda at these Incels because they are mentally weak. Thoughts mate?

It appears he hasn't actually been connected to the Incel community quite yet. Not that it lessens his act, but we throw around that term whenever some dude can't find romantic/sexual companionship. Incels are a pretty specific group.

Even Elliot Rodgers was mostly self-identified. I don't think he meaningfully participated in that subculture.

https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-targeted-incels-manipulate-cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-1468399

Here, it seems the far right uses propaganda to target Incels.

Originally posted by StyleTime
It appears he hasn't actually been connected to the Incel community quite yet. Not that it lessens his act, but we throw around that term whenever some dude can't find romantic/sexual companionship. Incels are a pretty specific group.

Even Elliot Rodgers was mostly self-identified. I don't think he meaningfully participated in that subculture. although ST he did become a figurehead for them, and the propaganda seemed to trigger him.

https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-targeted-incels-manipulate-cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-1468399

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
Circumstance is always a defence, the heat of the moment, self defence even anger are defences. However, this, although I don't know all the details is a low threshold for such a reaction indicating mental instability, I read somewhere Steve Bannon aimed propaganda at these Incels because they are mentally weak. Thoughts mate?

This would clearly fall into the anger category. He didn't get what he wanted so he acted in anger. I'm sure he was quite sane when he decided to kill the women that embarrassed/rebuffed him.

They more than likely are mentally weak, but not mentally ill.

Originally posted by socool8520
This would clearly fall into the anger category. He didn't get what he wanted so he acted in anger. I'm sure he was quite sane when he decided to kill the women that embarrassed/rebuffed him.

They more than likely are mentally weak, but not mentally ill. I'm going to say most crimes of passion involve the emotionally stunted and prone to stalk. They tend to follow patterns of behaviour which range from unstable to full on notion. But, we can't be sure he is or isn't. I agree the mental weakness is probably what puts them on the fringes and makes them needy.

So you needed to make another intel thread to troll the forum? Did you know about the mass banning warning or are you incapable of reading?

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
although ST he did become a figurehead for them, and the propaganda seemed to trigger him.

https://www.newsweek.com/steve-bannon-targeted-incels-manipulate-cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-christopher-wylie-1468399
Oh, definitely. It's astonishing how many Incels seem to be okay with his actions, even if they wouldn't act that way themselves.

I've recently delved into research on the Incel-world and found society has only just started formal investigations into this. The Dept of Homeland Security just gave a grant to a professor from my alma mater to study them. I'm currently following a podcast that interviews several from that community to gain knowledge about them. I've found some of them "cult-hop", which would explain why far right radicalization could stick for some. Even when they don't actively believe something, the sense of camaraderie or meaning will often make them stay. This isn't all of course.

I've also discovered the Femcels in the process. Female incels, although they don't seem to have inspired any outward physical violence.

They both have toxic views on the opposite gender. Incels hiding behind Black pill ideology, and Femcels hiding behind their brand of feminism. I also see a lot of self-loathing rhetoric though, and will admit to feeling some sympathy. I wish I could help them. I'm sure there are legitimate problems society has with "lookism" but it's hard to address that when you have to wade through the vitriol first.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Oh, definitely. It's astonishing how many Incels seem to be okay with his actions, even if they wouldn't act that way themselves.

I've recently delved into research on the Incel-world and found society has only just started formal investigations into this. The Dept of Homeland Security just gave a grant to a professor from my alma mater to study them. I'm currently following a podcast that interviews several from that community to gain knowledge about them. I've found some of them "cult-hop", which would explain why far right radicalization could stick for some. Even when they don't actively believe something, the sense of camaraderie or meaning will often make them stay. This isn't all of course.

I've also discovered the Femcels in the process. Female incels, although they don't seem to have inspired any outward physical violence.

They both have toxic views on the opposite gender. Incels hiding behind Black pill ideology, and Femcels hiding behind their brand of feminism. I also see a lot of self-loathing rhetoric though, and will admit to feeling some sympathy. I wish I could help them. I'm sure there are legitimate problems society has with "lookism" but it's hard to address that when you have to wade through the vitriol first. will reply later, this deserves a serious reply.

Wow you guys really don't like Whirly.

I'm barely even in this section of the forums and all it takes is a passing glance to see that "random article threads" are being made by a bunch of different members.

You're on different ends of the political spectrum. Shocking that you guys actively dislike each other.

Originally posted by Quincy
Wow you guys really don't like Whirly.

I'm barely even in this section of the forums and all it takes is a passing glance to see that "random article threads" are being made by a bunch of different members.

You're on different ends of the political spectrum. Shocking that you guys actively dislike each other. I dont dislike anyone, but yes, it is shocking isn't it how collectivism is taking place from a group of posters. Mildly amusing also. But as I indicated, I am not rising to bait or getting in flame wars or even resorting to adhominems. Not with the ban hammer hanging, I'll just stick to topics.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Other than Broly trolling Whirly, I don't know what you're talking about.

And Impediment specifically called out this type of behavior and it is part of why multiple members are on "thin ice."





There's close to 15 incel threads already including an incel master thread. Then we need a master Incel thread, of course you are unaware what he means DDM.

When I first saw this topic I was like "Oh shit I didn't know Bash lived in Canada and was a terrorist". But then I remembered he lives in New Jersey, so it's okay.

Phew. Close one.

Originally posted by Surtur
When I first saw this topic I was like "Oh shit I didn't know Bash lived in Canada and was a terrorist". But then I remembered he lives in New Jersey, so it's okay.

Phew. Close one. Come on Surt the ban hammer is hanging over the forum. I for one think we all need to show the mods we can get along. The forum has been dead the last few days. Let's cut the adhominems and the stuff that goes back years between people on here.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Oh, definitely. It's astonishing how many Incels seem to be okay with his actions, even if they wouldn't act that way themselves.

I've recently delved into research on the Incel-world and found society has only just started formal investigations into this. The Dept of Homeland Security just gave a grant to a professor from my alma mater to study them. I'm currently following a podcast that interviews several from that community to gain knowledge about them. I've found some of them "cult-hop", which would explain why far right radicalization could stick for some. Even when they don't actively believe something, the sense of camaraderie or meaning will often make them stay. This isn't all of course.

I've also discovered the Femcels in the process. Female incels, although they don't seem to have inspired any outward physical violence.

They both have toxic views on the opposite gender. Incels hiding behind Black pill ideology, and Femcels hiding behind their brand of feminism. I also see a lot of self-loathing rhetoric though, and will admit to feeling some sympathy. I wish I could help them. I'm sure there are legitimate problems society has with "lookism" but it's hard to address that when you have to wade through the vitriol first. I think you hit the nail on the head, these people want to belong (at least the mails do. I know next to nothing about femcels) so they will belong and take in these strange views for camaraderie. This is the crux of it, they will agree to belong. No matter how twisted the actions of members of their community are because they are outsiders.