Daniel Wood > DanielPeterson • 17 hours ago
For many people, it's not that funny or fascinating to have someone drop a vague reference comparing their group to a demonstrably controversial movement that (1) is upset that they're not having sex, (2) sees sex as their right, and (3) blames women for not giving it to them. It's not a popular group.
I don't understand why you're amused/fascinated by people reacting defensively to this. If you could clarify the non-controversial meaning of your comparison, that would be awesome. If it takes another entire article, so be it. You could also just clarify in a comment to me.
Edit: There are many non-controversial ways that I could compare you to an internet troll, and it would be fascinating if you understood my comparison defensively. I hope that's a fair way of making my point.
DanielPeterson Mod > Daniel Wood • 15 hours ago
my wife: "For many people, it's not that funny or fascinating to have someone drop a vague reference comparing their group to a demonstrably controversial movement that (1) is upset that they're not having sex, (2) sees sex as their right, and (3) blames women for not giving it to them. It's not a popular group."
The vagueness of my reference is important. I said absolutely nothing about (1) or (2) or (3) and observed that the incels represent a quite plainly extreme parallel. Ponder that.
And ponder what the parallel was that I had in mind. (Hint: I SAID what it was.)
my wife: "I don't understand why you're amused/fascinated by people reacting defensively to this."
Because I find hostile and unjustified misreadings psychologically interesting -- though, unfortunately, no longer very surprising.
my wife: " If you could clarify the non-controversial meaning of your comparison, that would be awesome. If it takes another entire article, so be it. You could also just clarify in a comment to me."
In a day or two or three, I'll return to the subject.
my wife: "Edit: There are many non-controversial ways that I could compare you to an internet troll, and it would be fascinating if you understood my comparison defensively. I hope that's a fair way of making my point."
It makes your point. But it's a misconceived point.
In a day or two or three, I'll return to the subject.
I find DCP'S attempt at a justification to be useless.
The vagueness of my reference is important. I said absolutely nothing about (1) or (2) or (3) and observed that the incels represent a quite plainly extreme parallel. Ponder that.
First of all, the points 1, 2, and 3 are directly out of the first three sentences of the hyperlink DCP linked to his phrase: "the online incel subculture."
And second, although DCP edited his original comment to note this is "a quite plainly extreme parallel," that argument does not obviate the comparison:
DCP's original statement:
A striking and extreme parallel to this phenomenon, in my judgment, is the online “Incel” subculture.
DCP's later edit:
A striking though plainly quite extreme parallel to this phenomenon, in my judgment, is the online “Incel” subculture.
And last, this:
DCP wrote:The vagueness of my reference is important.
His comparison and hyperlink to the online “Incel” subculture is inappropriate, both pre- and post-edit. His explanation as to how it is not, which will come "in a day or two or three," will be interesting, although he's spent far more time writing posts explaining how he will explain "in a day or two or three" than it would have taken to just explain.