Canada declares stabbing at massage parlor "incel terrorism"

First case in the world an incel has been charged with terrorism.
And he's a minor.
At least at 18 his record will be expunged... but wtf Canada, I'm ashamed to be a citizen at this point.
We can thank the leftist feminists for this one. True doh really is something.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
...
At least at 18 his record will be expunged... but wtf Canada, I'm ashamed to be a citizen at this point.
We can thank the leftist feminists for this one.
...
I can think of tons of reasons to be "ashamed to be a citizen." This would not even crack my top 100.

I mean, the guy killed random people because he couldn't get laid and was too spiritually weak to control his lust. He literally committed terrorism because he was an incel.

And I would not blame the leftist feminists as much as I would blame the general culture for promoting transient sexual relations and "getting laid" as the norm.

It's kind of like what me and others were saying in the Harvey Weinstein thread a few months back when we were discussing false rape allegations. If you're not a degenerate who gives in to lust (i.e. if you follow Biblical sexual morality), then you don't need to worry about being falsely accused of rape.

Same thing applies here. Incels are degenerate wannabe fornicators by definition (because otherwise they would be "volcels"). I guarantee you that no man who is voluntarily celibate and waiting for marriage would ever commit such a crime.
 
Organized crime is a big component in Canada. The Italian crime families, the Outlaw MC's, Lebanese, South Asians...organized crime is huge in Canada.

In the US organized crime is waning. Outlaw MC gangs have never had the power or influence in the US they do in Canada. Nor have certain South Asian groups had terrorist-linked organized crime syndicates like the Tamil Tigers.

Canada is mobbed up in some ways.
 

Ironside

Robin
First case in the world an incel has been charged with terrorism.
And he's a minor.
At least at 18 his record will be expunged... but wtf Canada, I'm ashamed to be a citizen at this point.
We can thank the leftist feminists for this one. True doh really is something.
It was done to a minor so that his name and description would not be released. The term 'incel' has been hammered into people's consciousness to be equivalent to a 'right-wing white male'. Now ask yourself, when was the last time a white person killed someone with a machete? Photos were taken during the arrest where you can clearly see that the perpetrator was decidly not white, but as we know the mob does not care for evidence.
 
^ Wow really?
Even I was assuming he's white. Mind blown! Thanks for pointing that out to me. I'm still glad he won't have a record, this doesn't change my opinion on the matter itself, but I'm disappointed in myself for making that assumption. Maybe I can say I did it to relate to him more, yeah that's it.... :sneaky:
 
I can think of tons of reasons to be "ashamed to be a citizen." This would not even crack my top 100.
The guy killed random people because he couldn't get laid and was too spiritually weak to control his lust. He literally committed terrorism because he was an incel.
Terrorism by definition is done to incite terror in the public. Not to unleash sexual tensions of adolescence.
I have to disagree with you on this. He committed murder, vengeance; not terrorism. It wasn't done to incite fear of incels. The news coverage spinning it this way, is more of a terrorist act--done to incite fear in the public--of young men.
Most news frames are presented with some underlying terrorist spin to incite public fear.

Also have to disagree with you on living a celibate life preventing false accusations. Women who falsely accuse are the type of women who can't possibly fathom a man living a celibate life. She won't be affected, and will accuse you if she wants to. It's actually become quite the weapon among certain types of rebellious young women.
You likely won't be found guilty if you're celibate, but you're just as likely to be accused by that type of vengeful woman if she doesn't like you. You may be less likely to be accused by other types of people who might respect you even if they don't share in the lifestyle.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
↑ You're missing the point.

Is there a lot of injustice in our leftist feminist world (such as men getting falsely accused of rape)? Yes, of course there is. I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying that as a society, we cant have -- and don't deserve -- a world without these injustices unless we go back to the norm of following Biblical sexual morality (no sexual activity outside of marriage, no contraception, etc.).

OK, so men are fornicating left and right and then some end up falsely accused of rape. Had they not been fornicating in the first place, they would not suffer this terrible fate. You play with fire, you get burnt.

Why would I reserve the majority of my sympathy for these fornicators who end up falsely accused? Yes, they are most likely victims of the feminist system (as they were not taught chastity), but so is almost everybody else in the modern world.

What about the fornicators who never get falsely accused of rape but instead spend their youth getting laid only to marry a slut, divorce, and end up with a broken family? What about the women and girls who are not taught to value their virginity and so they end up irreversibly damaging their souls at an age where they are too young to understand what is happening?

What about the women who become false accusers? Are they not just as much of a victim of this terrible system as the men they accuse? Will they not end up just as broken and far from God?

But Rob, the women who are false accusers are exercising agency and are not punished, whereas the men they accuse are innocent victims and are punished. Isn't that unfair?

First of all, the man is not innocent. Maybe by the libertarian definition of "innocence" he is, but he is choosing to fornicate and that violates God's laws, so he is very much guilty and not innocent.

Both the woman and man in these scenarios will suffer the punishment of not having Divine Grace (and will likely go through life without it and end up in hell). That is a way bigger deal than a few unlucky (but not innocent) men suffering the earthly punishment of jail.

Trying to fix this legal loophole (false rape accusations) is like trying to use a bucket to scoop water out of a sinking boat when the entire structure of the boat is riddles with holes and bound to sink anyway.

Men who get outraged by false accusations but are willing to accept and participate in "sexual freedom" (and I'm not saying this is you) should really question where their motives are coming from. Many men would be content with a 1980-ish world where society had "progressed" to the point of accepting sexual liberation but not yet to the point of the "MeToo" movement, and that's simply not how it works. You either have a moral society that follows God or you don't.
 
Last edited:
I can think of tons of reasons to be "ashamed to be a citizen." This would not even crack my top 100.

I mean, the guy killed random people because he couldn't get laid and was too spiritually weak to control his lust. He literally committed terrorism because he was an incel.

And I would not blame the leftist feminists as much as I would blame the general culture for promoting transient sexual relations and "getting laid" as the norm.

It's kind of like what me and others were saying in the Harvey Weinstein thread a few months back when we were discussing false rape allegations. If you're not a degenerate who gives in to lust (i.e. if you follow Biblical sexual morality), then you don't need to worry about being falsely accused of rape.

Same thing applies here. Incels are degenerate wannabe fornicators by definition (because otherwise they would be "volcels"). I guarantee you that no man who is voluntarily celibate and waiting for marriage would ever commit such a crime.
↑ You're missing the point.

Is there a lot of injustice in our leftist feminist world (such as men getting falsely accused of rape)? Yes, of course there is. I'm not saying there isn't. I'm saying that as a society, we cant have -- and don't deserve -- a world without these injustices unless we go back to the norm of following Biblical sexual morality (no sexual activity outside of marriage, no contraception, etc.).

OK, so men are fornicating left and right and then some end up falsely accused of rape. Had they not been fornicating in the first place, they would not suffer this terrible fate. You play with fire, you get burnt.

Why would I reserve the majority of my sympathy for these fornicators who end up falsely accused? Yes, they are most likely victims of the feminist system (as they were not taught chastity), but so is almost everybody else in the modern world.

What about the fornicators who never get falsely accused of rape but instead spend their youth getting laid only to marry a slut, divorce, and end up with a broken family? What about the women and girls who are not taught to value their virginity and so they end up irreversibly damaging their souls at an age where they are too young to understand what is happening?

What about the women who become false accusers? Are they not just as much of a victim of this terrible system as the men they accuse? Will they not end up just as broken and far from God?

But Rob, the women who are false accusers are exercising agency and are not punished, whereas the men they accuse are innocent victims and are punished. Isn't that unfair?

First of all, the man is not innocent. Maybe by the libertarian definition of "innocence" he is, but he is choosing to fornicate and that violates God's laws, so he is very much guilty and not innocent.

Both the woman and man in these scenarios will suffer the punishment of not having Divine Grace (and will likely go through life without it and end up in hell). That is a way bigger deal than a few unlucky (but not innocent) men suffering the earthly punishment of jail.

Trying to fix this legal loophole (false rape accusations) is like trying to use a bucket to scoop water out of a sinking boat when the entire structure of the boat is riddles with holes and bound to sink anyway.

Men who get outraged by false accusations but are willing to accept and participate in "sexual freedom" (and I'm not saying this is you) should really question where their motives are coming from. Many men would be content with a 1980-ish world where society had "progressed" to the point of accepting sexual liberation but not yet to the point of the "MeToo" movement, and that's simply not how it works. You either have a moral society that follows God or you don't.
I think you read too much into my point, which was this isn't a terrorist act. I understood your point clearly.
My point wasn't intended to side with the person who committed the crime. It was to point out the media is using an isolated incident to conflate the problem and make it sound far worse than this isolated incident.
But that's the media's job.
That was my point.

To clarify: on a side note I was pointing out the media has made the problem so huge that we now live in a completely imbalanced system which allows protective measures put in place to be abused and turned into weapons against men who might otherwise be perfectly Godly and celibate outside of marriage. Reputation doesn't defend against that.

I do however see more reason to want to be celibate instead of feeling like it's being forced on me.
 
Last edited:

Rob Banks

Pelican
I think you read too much into my point, which was this isn't a terrorist act. I understood your point clearly.
...
OK, that might be true. But so what?

That would be like me arguing that the cop who killed George Floyd should be charged with manslaughter instead of murder (which I do believe, by the way).

To focus on that misses the far bigger issues of (1) police aggression and brutality, (2) young blacks' propensity to riot and loot, and (3) the encouraging and using of these riots by the elites for political purposes.

But if I myself were a violent cop drunk on power, I can see why I would want to focus on the former issue (charges of manslaughter vs. murder).
...we now live in a completely imbalanced system which allows protective measures put in place to be abused and turned into weapons against men who might otherwise be perfectly Godly and celibate outside of marriage...
What do you mean by this? How would these men be celibate until marriage and Godly if they are fornicating with women broken enough to falsely accuse them of rape, or if they themselves are broken enough to commit murder because they can't get laid?
 
Last edited:

robinman

Pigeon
I think you read too much into my point, which was this isn't a terrorist act. I understood your point clearly.
My point wasn't intended to side with the person who committed the crime. It was to point out the media is using an isolated incident to conflate the problem and make it sound far worse than this isolated incident.
But that's the media's job.
That was my point.

To clarify: on a side note I was pointing out the media has made the problem so huge that we now live in a completely imbalanced system which allows protective measures put in place to be abused and turned into weapons against men who might otherwise be perfectly Godly and celibate outside of marriage. Reputation doesn't defend against that.

I do however see more reason to want to be celibate instead of feeling like it's being forced on me.
OK, that might be true. But so what?

That would be like me arguing that the cop who killed George Floyd should be charged with manslaughter instead of murder (which I do believe, by the way).

To focus on that misses the far bigger issues of (1) police aggression and brutality, (2) young blacks' propensity to riot and loot, and (3) the encouraging and using of these riots by the elites for political purposes.

But if I myself were a violent cop drunk on power, I can see why I would want to focus on the former issue (charges of manslaughter vs. murder).

What do you mean by this? How would these men be celibate until marriage and Godly if they are fornicating with women broken enough to falsely accuse them of rape, or if they themselves are broken enough to commit murder because they can't get laid?
Well most incels are not violent. It's only a very small minority that ever lash out with violence. I think that is what iOneindividual is referring to.

Labeling inceldom as a "terrorist ideology" instead of a condition, makes it easier to persecute non violent incels via the guilt by association fallacy.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Talking about and promoting "incel" ideology (or, for that matter, any sort of non-Christian non-moral view of sex) is bad for society and leads souls to hell. In the past, we would have had no problem with heretics and such being burned at the stake.

Yes, it is unfair and unjust that "incel" ideology might be prosecuted while feminist ideology is not, but that is a reason to fight against feminist ideology rather than to defend incel ideology.
 

robinman

Pigeon
Talking about and promoting "incel" ideology (or, for that matter, any sort of non-Christian non-moral view of sex) is bad for society and leads souls to hell. In the past, we would have had no problem with heretics and such being burned at the stake.

Yes, it is unfair and unjust that "incel" ideology might be prosecuted while feminist ideology is not, but that is a reason to fight against feminist ideology rather than to defend incel ideology.
Well a healthy society would be traditional. In fact I think many incels agree that society should enforce monogamy.

Of course, incels will talk about "Chads" or as this forum calls them "Alphas" (top tier men), and their envy of these men.

But "incel" is not even an ideology in the first place, it's a condition of low value men who want sex and relationships but can't get them. (can be due to looks or social skill problems). Either way, it's not an "ideology". The black pill and red pill are very close to each other, so calling "incel" an ideology opens the doors to labeling any black pill or red pill internet forum as being an "ideology".
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
↑ I would say "incel" ideology is more than just wanting sex and relationships. It is the desire to be a fornicator coupled with envy and resentment towards men who live that lifestyle.

It is very telling that the incels (on forums like PUA Hate or whatever) would direct their anger and envy towards men like Roosh (the old Roosh, I mean) and not towards monogamous family men.

If you're voluntarily celibate due to the fact that you're not married, than you're not an incel.
 

robinman

Pigeon
↑ I would say "incel" ideology is more than just wanting sex and relationships. It is the desire to be a fornicator coupled with envy and resentment towards men who live that lifestyle.

It is very telling that the incels (on forums like PUA Hate or whatever) would direct their anger and envy towards men like Roosh (the old Roosh, I mean) and not towards monogamous family men.

If you're voluntarily celibate due to the fact that you're not married, than you're not an incel.
If you're saving yourself for marriage, then yes, you're not an incel, you're a volcel.

But what about someone who simply wants a relationship but can't get one, how the fuck is that an "ideology"?

It's like if someone was poor and wanted to be rich, would that be an "ideology" because it goes against Christian teachings of not being greedy and covetous?

EDIT: not only that, but labeling them as terrorists makes it easier to shut down the manosphere in general, as Roosh wrote about before:
The busy bees at the media have been highlighting how “dangerous” incels are, often linking them to the manosphere
 
Last edited:

loremipsum

Kingfisher
↑ I would say "incel" ideology is more than just wanting sex and relationships. It is the desire to be a fornicator coupled with envy and resentment towards men who live that lifestyle.

It is very telling that the incels (on forums like PUA Hate or whatever) would direct their anger and envy towards men like Roosh (the old Roosh, I mean) and not towards monogamous family men.

If you're voluntarily celibate due to the fact that you're not married, than you're not an incel.
Roosh was very right saying how incels and fornicators are but the different sides of the same coin.
Neither are right in the head and both have really messed up views on sex and relationships that complement each other.
 
Top