u/nullmaxai

There is an incredibly clear double standard in our society: we define male "incels" by their hostility and toxicity rather than their relationship status, yet the 4B movement is shielded from the "incel" label based purely on the technicality of "voluntary choice."

When society condemns incels, the main critique is not their lack of sex. The core issue is their psychological framework—specifically, their view of all women as a hostile and toxic monolith.

This double standard was proven completely true by an individual in my recent discussion. The moment the 4B movement was critiqued, they immediately deflected and weaponized the word "incel" as an insult.

The reality is that the 4B movement operates on this exact same psychological structure. While technically "voluntary," many members join out of involuntary resentment, trauma, or romantic disillusionment, ultimately adopting an ideology of absolute gender segregation.

If a group of men organized a collective movement to completely decenter women and brand them as an inherent threat to their well-being, society would instantly label them a dangerous incel hate group. To excuse the exact same collective radicalization and gender-hatred in the 4B movement simply because it is framed as a "choice" is absolute insanity. Voluntary prejudice is not morally superior to involuntary prejudice.

The 4B movement should absolutely be dismantled. While anyone holding this opinion is routinely smeared as an incel, the truth is that rational people are trying to stop both the male incel and 4B movements, because anyone supporting these extremes is actively contributing to societal collapse.

Definition of incel: involuntary celibate

If people call men incels for their opinions on women, most women on a certain sub related to the 4B movement - Wikipedia deserve to be called incels.

I was honestly taken aback. I guess I'm kind of sexist and thought the men vs women war was more one sided/self destructive. However, if you read some opinions of the women on that subreddit it's basically mirroring incel men.

Basically, it is popular to claim that incel men are the problem but clearly there are women who exhibit this behavior too.

https://preview.redd.it/ea1snff5nb9h1.png?width=1370&format=png&auto=webp&s=8b86799ea68201d7c8228cf16fea31ff032b185f

Multiple genes contribute to sexuality.~9% of people identifying as LGBTQ makes no sense. Like that's near the percentage of people that are left-handed.

Are some people misidentifying themselves as LGBTQ? Or do bisexual/pansexual people that make up a lot of LGBTQ have similar reproductive rates as cis people

In the dictator example, where red is "If I win, everyone who votes against me is executed,” we already recognize that anyone willing to make such a declaration is almost certainly a shit leader.

Likewise, in u/SirisC 's trolly scenario, we intuitively understand that standing on the tracks is dangerous.

I believe that the button question is very genius in a way... it preserves moral controversy in an unusually pure form.

From the standpoint of red pushers, the red button is the safe option, and the blue button is a RNG Suicide/Russian Roulette button: you only survive if over 50% of people press it.

From the standpoint of blue pushers, you need to have 100% of people press the red button for everyone to survive -> 100% impossible. Some people like children, individuals who misunderstand the scenario, impulsive voters, or simply those guided by moral conviction will inevitably press blue. Using that logic, it is morally obligatory to contribute your own infinitesimal 0.000000025% share toward preventing their deaths, especially because many thoughtful and intelligent people would likely arrive at the same conclusion.

I really think this problem at it's core is super interesting. It compares moral idealism to self-preservation. I personally believe that the original wording was written by a person who always thinks, and any rewordings should be an argument rather than an attack/proof. The full context of the question matters.

To red voters: This is not simply about your individual choice in isolation. Everyone else is making the same calculation at the same time. This is not just about game theory/logic. The problem is collective by nature.

To blue voters: Are you truly confident that more than half of the global population would risk their lives on a moral principle? Your life is not an abstract number in an equation. It is the only life you will ever have.

As a teenager, my prefrontal cortex whatever thingamajig is not fully developed. So, take my opinion with a grain of salt. I personally would pick red: I have much more left to live for and I genuinely believe that a world who voted red is still worth living in. I am not confident that in a worldwide scenario over 50% of people would press blue. My opinion is also statistically worthless... 0.0000000125% is just negligible. This means my fate depends on others if I were to vote blue, and I can't bring myself to take that risk for a nonexistent impact. I understand that if everyone were to think like I do, red would win and many innocent lives would be taken. Blue is morally correct, but I would vote red out of fear: this is not backing up my actions with money, time, actions... its backing up my actions with my life. I'm not willing to do that.

I finished all my APs yesterday, so I had some free time for these thoughts... But I really think people making death threats/calling people slurs over this question are crazy. This is just a hypothetical. A very interesting hypothetical, but still a hypothetical. It won't actually happen. Everyone should chill and have a civilized discussion.

Im only slightly better than illiterate, for the writing part do you just use normal pinyin keyboard where i can type phrases so i most likely dont have to proofread?

culture/listening/speaking is not an issue