We really should be calling this an act of terrorism.https://twitter.com/BBCNorthAmerica/status/988834570115211264 …
Again, though—those are not *political* goals. The closest the incel scene has come to a political stance is the ludicrous fantasy that "God-Emperor" Trump would arrange for them all to be issued government-requisitioned girlfriends.
-
-
The goal of terrorism does not have to be specifically political. You know this. It can be ideological, religious or financial, and by its very nature, the violence is often indiscriminate and meant mainly to express outrage or sow fear.
-
It's generally in service of some goal or cause, though. And nobody—not even the killers themselves—could claim that they're advancing a cause. I'm not trying to diminish the horror of this. Far from it. But...
-
...I think if we're going to address it properly—and prevent future tragedies—we have to be clear what this kind of violence is, and what it is not. It's an expression of toxic masculinity; of alienation; of disaffection; and most of all, of a hunger for meaning.
-
You can dismantle terror cells by taking out leaders, and (most effectively) by infiltration. Incel violence, though, is leaderless—a legion of lone (and lonely) wolves, all self-radicalized.
-
"Incel violence, though, is leaderless—a legion of lone (and lonely) wolves, all self-radicalized." This increasingly describes post-Al Qaeda terrorism, though.
-
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? There's the intersection. Lone-wolf "ISIS-affiliated" attackers have pledged themselves to a cause; that's the key difference. But addressing male alienation would cut down on political and religious terrorism as well as misogynist violence, IMO.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.