Scott Hoge (@Scott_Hoge)

**More Incel Scapegoating by Media** As a further example of how the scientifically illiterate, uncultured, uneducated, hopelessly stupid vermin kick dirt in our faces for being Incel, I point to this documentary of Nasen Saadi's killing of Amie Gray, and of how it's somehow representative of what "evil criminals" we Incels are as a group. (Source link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZPVQtyhMkE) To begin, the film's caption is, "The Incel." By exemplifying the fallacy of quantifier omission, the filmmakers leave undetermined whether the caption refers to *this particular* Incel, or to *all Incels universally.* The aim of the film is obvious: 1. Single out Saadi, as aforementioned, to be representative of all Incels. 2. Depict Saadi as an "odd boy with autistic traits," who "lives in a fantasy world" and wants to see himself as a sexy villain from a slasher film as a means of escape from reality. The film makes references to the symptoms and traits of Asperger's syndrome. 3. Put Incels at opposition with LGBTQ+. That is their divide-and-conquer strategy. They know Incels are next in line for civil rights, but they just think we're *so ugly* that we don't belong in that movement. That is shown in their description of Gray's lesbian status ("she had a wife") and in their depiction of a rainbow flag. 4. Blame Saadi for his own crimes and his own Inceldom. 5. Encourage the confinement of Incels and our disappearance from society, perhaps even in a wish that we commit suicide. Besides this *primary* aim, the film has the similarly obvious *secondary* aims: 1. Defend the so-called "right to privacy," by villainizing Saadi's knowledge of the daily routine of one of his alleged "stalking" victims. 2. Promote censorship, by discouraging "silly questions" and Internet queries of a certain nature. 3. Standardize the age of consent to 18, which is to lodge an American prejudice into the minds of all the world's countries. 4. Encourage "confidence" as opposed to doubtfulness, a trait by which one leaps to unsound conclusions. This keeps society stupid and exploitable. Despite their aim to depict us as dark, scary villains with Asperger's syndrome who live in a fantasy world, they commit routine, blundering fallacies. Their fallacies include rhetorical expressions, bandwagon appeals, negatively-evaluative language, straw man arguments, vagueness, causal oversimplification, appeals to authority, scapegoating and victim-blaming. As examples of oversimplification, scapegoating, and victim-blaming, just look at what they say: **Daynes:** *To put it bluntly, Nasen Saadi has no game when he's talking to women. He's got no ability to perspective-take, so he's not empathizing with them. [He says,] 'You're pretty. Do you want to go out? Do you want my number? So it* smacks of desperation. Daynes, besides her disparaging, low-brow reference to "game," refers to desperation as if it's evil. But desperation results from a threat of pain inflicted by others. If it's inflicted by *others,* why would the actions of the threatened Incel "smack of desperation"? Daynes needs to take a look at how uncool her statements are. **Shaw:** *That most toxic form of aggression and grandiosity come from that* vulnerability [...] Shaw takes our *vulnerability* as something hostile and horrible, lending itself to "violence" and grandiosity. Why would Shaw attribute so evil a role to such a *vulnerable* population? **Pippa:** *He was* making girls feel uncomfortable *on a daily basis.* How often have you been told you were "making people feel uncomfortable"? The stupidity of the accusation lies in the manifold contributors required to produce a feeling of discomfort. That includes not just what an Incel walks along and says, but the way the discomforted person was brought up, what their value system is, and what kind of society they live in. **Daynes:** *There are a lot of young boys who feel rejected and humiliated by* their inability to connect with *the opposite sex.* Daynes should have omitted the words, "their inability to connect with." But she had to turn the blame back around on us. At the end of the film, they show Saadi receiving a life sentence in prison for his killing of Amie Gray. Mrs. Justice Cutts, the judge of the case, asks: **Cutts:** *Why did you do as you did?* Questions of *why we do things* can never be answered in totality during a conversation. The brain is too complex an organ, and its signaling pathways, often nonverbal, are too numerous. To give a simple answer to such questions is to walk into a trap designed for fools. Cutts continues: **Cutts:** *It seems that you have felt humiliated and embarrassed by repeated rejections of any advancements you have made* [...] *which over time has* resulted in a deeply suppressed rage *directed toward society and women in particular.* Cutts attributes the cause of Saadi's rage not to society, but to Saadi's own humiliation. In doing so, she ignores every aspect of society designed to foster that rage, referring exclusively to what Saadi "has control over." The biggest, firmest, and most heinous causal oversimplification is exemplified by Shaw at the end of the film: **Shaw:** *Nasen Saadi,* in my opinion [...] -- In *your opinion!* **Shaw:** [...] *had this deeply-held rage, as the judge pointed out, but* he had created it entirely himself. **Shaw:** *He was completely,* in his mind [...] -- Oh, *just in his mind!* **Shaw:** [...] *a victim of circumstances, but those circumstances* were firmly created one aggressive message at a time by himself. **Shaw:** *So he* built himself this prison, *that he didn't have to live in.* Shaw repeats phrases of the form, "He does X to himself." That speech-pattern is characteristic of people who victim-blame and scapegoat. Besides the obvious scapegoating, the "professionals" make bandwagon appeals: **Knight:** *The university lecturer looked around the room and* all the other university students *looked confused.* **Shaw:** The people around him *are going, "That's pretty weird."* They hide the weakness of their arguments using rhetorical devices: **Shaw:** *Message lots and lots of girls and see if anybody* bites. *And if they do* bite [...] **Shaw:** *Hiding* [...] *is going to embolden him, especially if he has these thoughts* in his head [...] **Shaw:** *Or it could be that he really does know their routine, in which case, that takes him into a category that we call* "hunters" [...] Shaw falsely associates knowledge of another citizen with "being a hunter." She believes she can get away with what is so obviously a defense of the so-called "right to privacy." There is so much I can say about the rank, uninformed stupidity of these "films against Incels." After my analysis and review of the film, I don't have time to list every single fallacy they committed. But it is another example of how we Incels are treated like trash, mocked, made fun of, and turned into the villains of society by people who, in their childhood years, must have pushed kids out of their wheelchairs and stomped on them for having small genitalia. Occasionally, I retch at the sickening length they go to. Clearly, they have picked a fight with us. Let us stay alive, even through the worst of agony, to show them what cowardly, inhuman bullies they really are. #Incel #Incels #Inceldom