At that point in-group is sufficiently flexible that you'd need to expend considerable active effort not to have one.
-
-
right. what happens instead is that really isolated and alienated people (e.g. incels) expend minimum effort and get an in-group that is really shitty and bad for them. they'll take a shitty, harmful in-group over no in-group because the pain of total isolation is that severe.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @0knaomi and
and it's a horrible trap that leads to tragic outcomes and years of suffering for most of them.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Alternate hypothesis: they have idiosyncratic partner preferences (both sexual and otherwise) and exotic beliefs, so it's less "alienation" and more "active self-selection into a very wonky weird community", like a flagellant monk order
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @0K_ultra @danlistensto and
and it could have been way way worse. It could have been a literal flagellant monk order. Or a literal death cult. Or a funny innovative combination of those.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
interesting thoughts. granted it could be worse, but it's already bad, how do we make it better?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I am not sure it is possible to make it better. I mean, it's both "ethically dubious" and empirically hard to "fix" someone's sexual and interpersonal interactions preferences. By same token you could try to "fix" high-victimity people (very un-PC idea!) or "religious nuts"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
definitely agree with you on the pointlessness of individual radical interventions. "conversion therapy" of all varieties is gross. what I mean by fix is more like "how do we create the social environmental conditions that ameliorate this issue gracefully over time?"
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I don't think "incels" are in their current shape a problem that needs active amelioration. They are mostly harmless. Maybe better mental healthcare availability could help some of those folks but I kinda doubt that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
mostly harmless to broader society. profoundly harmful to themselves and their friends in that "community". compassion for those who suffer is my guiding principle here. I'm not content to see them suffer and just shrug and say "as long as they keep to themselves I don't care".
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
but I'm not in a position to do anything about it. I like to discuss it as a kind of simulation of how I might want to think and act about situations I can control. Compassionate analogies, in essence.
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.