Censorship is tricky. Too much of it, and despotism arises. Too little of it, and chaos ensues. How much is the right amount, and how are incels affected by it?

Literary classics like 1984 and Brave New World have shown what might happen to a society that abuses its powers of censorship. Not as many authors however have explored the consequences of no censorship whatsoever – a wild-west scenario. In such a world, death threats could be sent to anyone and everyone, with no repercussions to be had. Military weapon schematics and blueprints for dangerous biochemical pathogens could be leaked, without a crime having been committed. Truth and falsehood would lose their meaning, for no law or taboo would exist to dictate any preference of one over the other.

Finding balance is not easy. The paradox of tolerance states that undesirable and dangerous ideals must be censored; otherwise, the intolerant might overtake society. However, increasing censorship is easy, decreasing it is not. We often see companies and governments give in to evermore censorship in the name of fairness, equality, or justice (e.g., the four horsemen of the infocalypse); yet, because censorship effects restrain over a person’s autonomy and freedom of speech, new rules and laws implementing further censorship should only be allowed when the majority agrees to such censorship.

In the case of incels, the community has always had a disdain for censorship. For one, they have been repeatedly banished from social media sites like reddit over the years due to their type of speech. In the case of the incels.co forum, domains have been seized and hosting space revoked, at times for little more than as a public relations maneuver. These events have only worked to fuel the desire of incels to retain their culture.

Secondly, incels tend to be realists. Their desire for the truth behind their situation as singles often demands a cold approach to our social dynamics, for the answer is often unpleasant and cannot be easily found in the mainstream narrative. As a result, incels often have little regard for politeness and so-called “politically correct speech”, and instead prefer to be blunt and straightforward. For example, “currycel” is a term sometimes used to refer to users who, at least partly, are involuntary celibate due to their Indian ethnicity. The term is used not because incels wish to mock Indians, but because it is an unambiguous and straightforward way to address a person’s situation in a single word.

As a result of these two points, the vast majority of incels wants to minimize censorship wherever possible, save for necessary rules banning the discussion of previous romantic experiences, bullying of other users, and spam. Outsiders to the community often shun away from terminology they deem offensive; incels on other hand embrace these terms and make them part of their culture.

If the incel community at large desires to maintain an ample range of freedom of speech, then it is those standards that should be reflected in the rules. The incels.co forum attempts to cater to these desires as best as it can, within the bounds of the law. If mainstream communities such as reddit desire to increase the pressure of censorship, then they are in their right to do so; however, it has been often the case that such a road is one-way only.

People reacted to this story.
Comments to: Censorship and
Incels
  • Avatar
    July 22, 2020

    Based blog post Sarge.

    On the issue of censorship, I’m surprised .co doesn’t maintain a hidden service (.onion address). This would help the censorship resistance of .co as onion addresses can’t be revoked in the way registries revoke domains and there isn’t the issue of SSL certificates. The onion address can be run in parallel to standard domains, linking to the same server (see KiwiFarms for an example).

    I would also suggest allowing registration through Tor. In certain territories such as China, Iran etc. many websites, including .co, are filtered and one of the only ways to get around this is to use Tor (with a bridge). Also in some countries, for example the United Kingdom, all internet service providers are required to log traffic, and with some of the strictest free speech laws in the world – in which saying “fuck women” could result in a conviction – this is quite concerning. I always considered joining .co but couldn’t justify risking it without Tor. I understand wanting to mitigate spam but when IT cucks can just switch off and on again their router for a new dynamic IP, this doesn’t make too much sense. Would a registration with Tor ever be considered?

    Reply
    • Avatar
      July 23, 2020

      Hi. I understand the points you’re making, but I don’t believe there’s enough justification to either bring an .onion service or allow Tor accounts.

      In the former case, no one wants to have to use Tor and sacrifice speed to use a site because it’s “edgy.” The forum is legal, and moving domains when and if censorship comes is a small price to pay for the liberty of being able to be around like any other site. Many users don’t know what onion services even are.

      In the latter case, I completely agree that it’s a loss to deny registration to people who are in countries where governments deny them the freedom of visiting what they like. The negative to allowing that, however, is that anyone who wants to avoid a ban, troll, cause false flags, or spam, is given entry on a silver plate. I do not feel at this time that sacrificing the restrictions that so many users have had to put up with over the years is a good move.

      We may change our minds on all of this at some point, of course, and I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point of view. Thank you.

  • Avatar
    July 22, 2020

    based.

    Reply
Write a response

Your email address will not be published.