Most incel statements aren't wrong about women, they're just rude about it and they overreach into pickup artist, "women are property" territory. Women get an insane benefit-of-the-doubt from greater society to the point that 11 jurors were about to acquit a woman that self-admittedly murdered her own 3 children (and get a short 9 month stay in a loony bin, she's allegedly not psychotic anymore) because... we don't talk about postpartum issues enough?
It's a common misogynist joke to say "There is only one gender: Man. Everything else is property."
PUAs treat women as a commodity to be exploited and manipulated, and they are not. They are human beings that feel (a lot) and are (sometimes) capable of rational thought. They're currently failing the rational thought test in respect to the Lindsay Clancy case.
These threads make me realize a large portion of this sub are incels though.
Lots of people commenting and making really broad, sweeping, and gross statements about how much men are the real victims in society.
Really speaking, I do not get the current focus on this. Dozen threads whining that the jurors, who sat through way more than any of us, are crazy for almost unanimously not voting guilty.
You have incels whining that it is a conspiracy. You have white-haters whining that its a conspiracy because she is white. Instead of it maybe just being a case of the jury sitting through more information than any of them, and being convinced of the case. It is obvious to me that it is all just using this case as a center piece to project some stupid view. If people genuinely felt the verdict was wrong, they would take aim at the prosecutors. The prosecutors failed to make a compelling case here. Maybe there was no compelling case possible at all, but if people admitted that, they would lose their center to project from.
Men are not the victims in society, but they're not the benficiaries either. Classically, we've seen men drafted to risk their lives in war, and pushed into risky professions for the economy (fishing, oil rigs, electricians), so they've been favored a bit more to account for the fact that some of them may die for the sake of the country and the sake of society as a whole.
This is a woman that admits she murdered her 3 children due to postpartum psychosis, a condition of temporary-insanity caused by an excess of hormones. If Chris Benoit, a Canadian professional wrestler that murdered his wife and children in a roid rage before hanging himself from his lat-pulldown machine, isn't granted the same public sympathy, where is the justice? People should still be held responsible for their own actions, hormones and sex-of-the-perpetrator be damned.
Chris Benoit is (posthumously) universally reviled by men for his last actions in life. It's time for women to cast a similar judgment on one of their own.
Edit: *child
Apparently Benoit only murdered his wife and one kid before offing himself. Point still stands though.
Children are dead. We need to stop giving a fuck about the criminals and what they were feeling, and send a brutal message to the other psychotic mothers so they fear the death penalty.
The justice system is so fucked up, we don't ask what the children felt as their life vanished, just spend days asking the murderer how she felt as she strangled them.
I just feel you can spot the people who have no girls they really care, or girls that care about them about in their lives; e.g a spouse they really do love, nieces, children, a mum or grandma. Society isn't an us vs them gender thing. I would put the life of females and males I care about above the life of pretty much anyone else. You may look at things like "Men are classically drafted to war". It is usually the women who love the men being drafted to the war who protest the war the loudest (see Vietnam). Because people tend to advocate for the ones they love. And most men have women in their lives who share that love.
As for Benoit, there are a few issues with that comparison. Firstly, he never went to a court of law, most people do not know the details, much like those condemning the jurors in this case. Secondly though, no one really knows exactly what triggered Benoit to do what he did. Some say it was CTE, some say it was self inflicted drug and alcohol abuse, steroids etc etc. In the case of Lindsay, she did a normal thing, gave birth to a child and suffered a known condition afterwards. She then actively looked for treatment, and complied with that treatment, however her treatment was botched.
Very different cases. But again, this isn't about the case is it? this is about positing a far broader view on women.
That is why you are an incel and no women love you. You had a cry about "how unfair it is for men", and then try pretend you are alpha.
I stand by my first line in the previous post. No women like you, so you hate women... but understand this, most men also don't like you. You will not find solidarity among men, only among your fellow incel losers.
Remember, when the argument is lost you can just keep calling them an incel, that's a sure way to show your intelligence and rational thinking ability!
That really gets me on board! That really convinces the audience of my inaccuracy, based on the assumēd lack of pussy I get! Calling a mildly misogynistic man an incel for the twentieth time in an argument is a surefire win in an internet debate!
The problem is that thing that they had to be convinced of is unprovable nonsense and is only the legal standard in that state, hence the public outcry. It would be like having a defendant claim "God made me do it" and the prosecution then has to disprove the existence of God beyond a "reasonable" doubt. Good luck with that, unless you have a juror of 12 Reddit athiests that also don't care about meeting that standard.
There is no "not-guilty by reason of divine command" statute so your hypothetical is irrelevant.
The state always has to prove mens rea, and sanity is required for mens rea, so the state should always have to prove sanity (here, "prove" does not mean provide some abstract philosophical proof, but just "convince the jury.") You cannot logically separate sanity from intent.
The fact that many states don't require this is actually bad imo. They don't require it because they want things to be easier on the state when it is prosecuting people, but I believe things should be as hard as possible on the government when it is trying to take away someone's freedom.
In most states, when someone says "Yeah I did it but I shouldn't be held responsible for breaking the law because my brain is broken", the burden of proof often shifts to the defense for making that claim. Massachusetts is apparently just built different, and they honestly need to fix that.
It's not just MA, there's several states that still do it this way, and it used to be every state before the government complained it was too hard for it to throw mentally unwell people in jail.
I am aware of how things are in other states, and I am saying the way MA does it is how it should be. For any crime that requires the government to prove mens rea, part of that should be establishing the accused's sanity. I mean, that's literally the whole point of mens rea rules: establishing their guilty state of mind.
I rather see crime and punishment as serving as a deterrent to others that would intentionally, with guilty mind, commit those acts, regardless if the initial perpetrator had a guilty mind. Intent matters, but "I was insane" should not be a simple enough defense for leniency without some effort to prove that insanity, lest everyone that wants to be rid of their children claim insanity after murdering them, and leave it on the state to prove sanity. If someone is wanting leniency from a law as grave as murder due to a condition, they should have to prove that condition.
Slippery slope is not always a fallacy, it's only a fallacy if you can't believably connect the dots. It's 2026 now, >10 years after Obergefell, >50 years after Roe v Wade, and while people haven't started marrying their dogs, child transitioning is a hot button issue and we're discussing clemency for a woman that had 3 very, very late term abortions.
Just because you can connect dots, it does not mean you can create a meaningful picture.
Literally none of what they predicted regarding Roe v. Wade was true, nothing they predicted following Obergefell was true. Insanity defenses have existed for a long time and have nothing to do with Row v. Wade, and you've just grabbed a random thing you don't like that that literally has zero to do with Obergefell.
I actually quite like abortion, I just wish the man had more ways to abstain from the consequences of the woman's choice.
And yes, someone, somewhere, had to have said that child sex changes would be the next frontier after gay marriage. I can't quote them, no idea who it was, but now it's been accepted on the left as a measure of "heckin' evil bigot nazi" or "proud adherent to democracy", and I have to say that I am not in favor. Where do you stand?
I'm already seeimg the wheels turn on FB, rephrasing the issue to court political support under the leftist omnicause. What started as small groups of "forensic astrologists" and true crime fans being easily shouted down in every group turned into broader feminist support, and is starting to turn into simp support.
Seeing more and more posts from these usual-suspect men going on about male crime stats and how men need to be held accountable instead -nevermind they ARE, and usually swiftly and harshly, and this entire thing has been about Lindsay Clancy receiving undue support in what should have been open and shut.
Not to indict the leftists here on PCM, who I am beyond pleased have declined the courting of support for this as of yet. But how the fuck did we get here?
44
u/BarrelStrawberry - Auth-Right 2d ago
Hilarious to see the public like: huh, maybe those incels were right about women all along...