Toronto atrocity and 'involuntary celibacy'

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. Should I just let this thread end as too morbid? It's still making me think of possible positive actions, and I accidentally noticed today's BBC World Service programme and online item about 'incel'. After thinking about those and  the discussion above, I accept that alienated autistic people without sufficient 'intellectual self-defence' might find themselves co-opted by the 'alt-right' (or as I think of them, the 'alt-universe right'). Some of the interviewed 'ex-incels' rejecting the label and ideology (Jack Peterson, who even has his own Wikipedia article, and 'Matthew') may have worthwhile things to say.

Unfortunately that programme, as part of the Trending social media series, looks at 'incel' almost entirely from its representation on the web. 'Emily' is invited to speculate about incel as a reaction to threat from gender equality (I'm pretty sure that's not what's motivating most individuals involved), apparently based solely on what she's read online. And when she says 'If you project love into the world, you'll receive love back', there's no recognition of what happens when people lose that faith, perhaps after repeated rejection, and come to see it as naive. In fact, someone can choose kind and compassionate acts even if they are destined to be alienated and abused their entire lives. There's no social contract. Life is unequal and unfair, and if you don't realise that, you can't make it better.

We should resist tendencies to 'distancing', distortion, conflation and stereotypes, although maybe that risks becoming uncomfortably close to the feared other (here we distinguish autistic people:incel:massacres as we do Muslims:political 'Islamism':ISIS). According to the Washington Post.

In 2001, two researchers at Georgia State University surveyed 82 self-identified incels they found through an online forum. Some were, as the stereotypes suggest, adult virgins who suffered from autism or another mental or physical illness.

Was I naive not to realise that such a stereotype existed? (This is not supported in the linked press release. I'm not sure what proper research has been done into autism and sexual relationships. There's research on sexual orientation and sex education, and I've just found this free-full-text paper: 'although people with ASD are social at heart, they do not have the social skills to realize their social needs'). Anecdotally, a lot of autistic people I have met are married or have partners, but that's less true of those with poor mental health, and 'anxious attachment style' may also add to relationship difficulty.

Unfortunately that Washington Post 'incel' article was prompted by an earlier massacre, in October 2015 in an Oregon college, where it seems the perpetrator, who killed ten people including himself, is reported as having AS and unspecified mental health problems, and again a brief stint in the military. (Then there's Sandy Hook in 2012, again AS with misogynistic overtones, plus possible psychosis. I'm not helping avoid stereotypes, am I?) WaPo investigates r/ForeverAlone, which seems to have a more constructive attitude:

“If you hate yourself and believe you’re unworthy of anyone’s affection … you won’t be worthy of anyone’s affection because nobody is attracted to self pity,” the Reddit mod said. “It’s a self fulfilling prophecy, but one that’s incredibly difficult to break out of. The loneliness is devastating.”... “We are different,” the Reddit mod said, with a sigh, “and people don’t like different.” Maybe that differentness calls for compassion — not another moral panic.

There's no mention in the BBC items about why people are 'incel' as a situation, rather than an identity.  However, there's a longer interview with Jack Peterson, the incel representative, on US website The Daily Beast, which I'd recommend as possibly the best article I've read so far: https://www.thedailybeast.com/sympathy-for-the-incel It's clear Peterson had social difficulties growing up and was 'extremely shy', bullied and abused, but not that he's autistic (contested diagnosis of schizophrenia instead), and after all the media attention has decided to break out of his trap. I hope what I've been writing here is working towards the same conclusions as the author, Mandy Stadtmiller This earlier article by Marni Soupcoff in the centre-right Canadian press has a similar sentiment:

doing something about it — just like doing something about incels — will require more from us than the easy condemnation that tends to be our first response to people who are doing or saying awful things

Doesn't mention restrictions on hire vans, or better mental health resourcing, but this earlier stage I mentioned of avoiding alienation. So I'm wondering whether to dive into the incels.me forum where Peterson was active and advocate a relaxing of their restrictive rules (against women and fundamentally against hope), and that 'other identities are available', including autistic, love-shy, 'volcel' and ForeverAlone. In mental health peer-support groups, I've found it useful to stress that some are aiming at recovery, for others 'recovery' isn't possible and 'coping' is the target: so long as people don't try to impose one model on the other 'side' and respect each other, dialogue is useful. Dialogue is harder online. I've ventured into hostile environments before and been banned. On the other hand, maybe it'd be a complete waste of time, I wouldn't find an audience, and have little to offer in the way of improving social success and happiness, even if it were accepted. Raising awareness of autism as one factor, one that may be manageable, is about all I could do...

Three more relevant articles, none actually mentioning autism, to general relief. These do however take a wider view of alienation and sex. I think the point that someone committing a crime like this tragically suggests how many more people are alienated and bear such bitterness, is valid. As with other instances of talking to terrorists, the act itself is not helpful to understanding, but the fact the suspect was captured alive and the subsequent process may be.

From a feminist angle we have Rola Kamaleddine in HuffPost:

there is something spine tingling bubbling behind the scenes which his attack has undoubtedly shed light on. Women are still not safe. Women are still not equal. ... Women are tired of owing just for existing.

In the process of trying to be inclusive, there's what seems to be a contradiction:

Let me clarify—I don’t think anyone should be denied the joys of companionship and the perks that come along with it. I sympathise with those who feel like they are not good enough or worthy of love, and I am here to tell you that you are. I’m sorry for every human who has bullied your confidence or self-worth down to the point where you believe there is something wrong with you. Every single person deserves someone who truly loves them as they are and wants to share the beauty of life with them. We all want to love and be loved. However, it is important to understand that this isn’t an entitlement—it’s earned. You earn love, sex, relationships and companionships by being a decent, kind and loving human being, and maybe with a little sprinkle of luck from Mother Nature, that you cross paths with the right person. You have to be deserving to truly earn someone’s love, and wishing women dead because you feel entitled isn’t how you earn it. We don’t feel sorry for your sense of entitlement.

The point is omitted that bullying is not the only reason people may feel they will never find love; also omitted are women who cannot find suitable men.

I find the distinction between deserves someone and entitlement a bit confusing. I'm not sure either word is helpful. Maybe we deserve respect, but not affection. We don't deserve, nor are entitled to, having a specific desire reciprocated.  But the contrast is with a society that tries to meet people's romantic needs somehow, regardless of their sexuality.

This links to other recent discussion from a different perspective of a 'right to sex' (in the sense of human right), prompted mostly by a right-wing economist. The best about this is the New York Times referring to commodification of sex:

Sometimes the extremists and radicals and weirdos see the world more clearly than the respectable and moderate and sane. ...Robin Hanson, a George Mason economist, libertarian and noted brilliant weirdo. Commenting on the recent terrorist violence in Toronto, in which a self-identified “incel” — that is, involuntary celibate — man sought retribution against women and society for denying him the fornication he felt that he deserved, Hanson offered this provocation: If we are concerned about the just distribution of property and money, why do we assume that the desire for some sort of sexual redistribution is inherently ridiculous? ...  as offensive or utopian the redistribution of sex might sound, the idea is entirely responsive to the logic of late-modern sexual life

Finally, this in the Indie also feels free to roam philosophically over the abstracts, and unfortunately implies that Minassian is representative of 'incels'. It again refers to sex as commodity, but also as a social good for harmony:

Involuntary celibacy is only one manifestation of our voluntary enslavement to the reign of the virtual.

Which is a contrasting conclusion to the NYT article talking about sex robots. I haven't seen much relating the violence to economic inequality and social inequality.  Nor to social disabilities.  Nor providing what I'd consider realistic solutions. Maybe it was just a freak event anyway that you can't draw conclusions from.  Maybe these immediate reactions could have instead drawn on what George Monbiot has been saying about loneliness.  There's nothing unique about autistic people's loneliness, but we are more vulnerable to its extremes, almost by definition.

Now here's an academic partly appealing to the media to be sensitive:

https://theconversation.com/toronto-attack-autism-does-not-increase-risk-of-violence-95636

I'm not sure mention of the mythical 'lack of empathy' is helpful, even though it's glossed over. It isn't in Allely's list of risk factors for good reason.

Maybe hoping for a sophisticated and realistic media narrative is unrealistic.  I've also seen articles pointing out such violence is usually by young males, which is fair enough but obvious: some would claim it is a biological fact true across societies (who is recruited to armies?)  Autism as such is associated with lower violence.  However, there may be an indirect link between ostracism, social isolation and poor support and dwelling on violent ideas.  Or is all speculation unhelpful?

Indeed. I was briefly in r/incel then realised just how dodgy it was and left before the sub was banned.

That's the group I'm particularly thinking of, yes, and one reason why inclusion is so important. Alana (further profile here) said it would include those lacking social skills, but also other reasons such as, just one example, people attracted only to horses.  However, the identity has recently come to embody bitterness and worse (this bonkers 'blackpill' thing). Alana says:

Members of the site spanned all ages and sexual orientations, contrasting sharply with what the so-called movement would one day become. “There were some people who were kind of socially clueless, some people who needed a bit of education and some people who had the attitude that women are objects,” she said. “It was not virulent hatred, it was just ignorance and objectification. There was nothing like the hostility, hatred and misogyny that is happening now.

There are various reasons for inadequate social skills. You might be born with less of a clue and need more education than most, or you may have grown up isolated, or abused, or in a different culture or in a very submissive position. Or you may have adopted a genuinely bad attitude, like the first definition in the urbandictionary that is the first Google hit for 'incel' (definitions 3 & 6 seem more straightforward and less politicised). We may be talking about a subset of social skills here: for instance, I would say my skills in mediation and conflict resolution are above average, and I have been described as charming and a good conversationalist... but if it's about me and you and potentially love, less so.  Not enough confidence, too much pain, try not to run away completely, awkward coping mechanisms. You can invent psychoanalytic reasons for this involving trauma, but seeing it as lack of positive experience has been much more helpful for me, even though since my diagnosis I realise I am unlikely to ever catch up with people who seem to be born with the right scripts.

I recall I'd previously been attracted by the 'incel' description ('late bloomer' too, maybe, and 'love shy' is OK), but when I checked online forums, I was put off by some of the comments and attitude. It had probably already become unhelpful. It's not a 'movement', it's a predicament, and one that like others takes either persistent courage or acceptance to escape from.  And a lot of people are probably unhappy for all kinds of reasons, get told by well-meaning people that they need a partner, but have no idea how to form a relationship or approach someone they might like. I have spent about a fifth of my adult life in relationships, but depression has often felt like the biggest barrier when I've not wanted to be alone.  Not taking care over personal appearance may have been a factor, but worries about work and property and mental health status probably contribute more. We don't need 'pick-up artist' material, but some instruction in the basics that most people seem to know could help. 'Just be yourself' is good advice for many, but for me that means being somewhere else.

There's nothing wrong with either Tinder or masturbation.

Back to my comment about 'incel' 

My conclusion is that refers to someone having inadequate social skills to find a sexual partner.  

I'm still following the media coverage on this intermittently. There seems to be little emphasis on Minassian's mental health, probably expecting that to come out in court. There's more on 'incel' and violence against women, and some on autism. Here are two of the former, and one on the latter:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/25/17279294/toronto-massacre-minassian-incels-internet-misogyny - a commentary bringing in sexism of mainstream society, and the idea that some men supposedly feel entitled to women's bodies, into the picture, possibly unhelpfully. Any recommendations aren't clear: it seems to be attacking '"free speech"' (in quotation marks) on the internet, but then concludes more that the problem is 'saying nothing' . I'd say it's more the latter. Possibly 'major internet platforms' (and minor ones too) could employ or give access to moderators with mental health training who could contribute?

More specifically about the violent aspects of incel culture: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/incels-alek-minassian-mra-mens-rights-terrorism-toronto-van-attack-a8323166.html

And this is not bad about the dangers of media coverage, again emphasising there is no link with violence: https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/04/26/were-not-a-violent-group-of-people-ex-classmate-of-alek-minassian-speaks-out-about-autism.html  Kyle Echakowitz seems like a good autistic advocate.

So it looks like the narrative that dominates may be one of autistic people being open to 'grooming' by those with violent ideas, with alienation a secondary theme. Would it be wrong to highlight the alienation more, since it affects many more people than reach the headlines?

Cassandro said:

I'm probably most interested in a norm of autism acceptance among young adults, which is something that should be promoted anyway, but might have met Minassian's social needs, protected his mental health, prevented a chain of beliefs that diverged from both peers and reality, found alternative expression or propitiation or dissuaded from violence. I could see why churches, mosques and synagogues might want to think about this seriously, as well as secular youth groups, where they haven't been closed down. I think I was also less interested in the (non-)connection, even in the public mind, between autism and violence, than in this self-concept of 'incel' hitting the headlines, and discussion of it eliding those who aren't necessarily sexist but are disabled. I suspect the notion could be reasonably reclaimed.

Yes.  A norm of acceptance should be promoted.  At one end, forums such as this - in spite of social distance - serve such a worthwhile function.  Much more, I think, could be done by community groups, as you suggest.  As we have it now - and as we often read on here - many with the condition feel isolated, misunderstood, resentful.  And events such as this - in spite of the non-connection we perceive and understand - only tend, in my view, to create further distancing through things like populist media distortions and stereotyping.  In a similar way to how fundamentalist 'Islamist' terrorist atrocities end up generating a climate of suspicion around all Muslims - or even non-Muslims who conform, in the public eye, to certain characteristics of skin colour, appearance, dress, conviction, etc.

Cassandro said:

But does religion open people up to beliefs that lead to idiosyncratic action and even violence? Or is that propensity already there, as you described among hunt sabs who wanted to go further? And did it really 'seem to relieve anyone of the requirement to think', or did you believe you were thinking for yourself and associating with those who saw the truth?

That propensity may already be there.  At the same time, progressive 'eye-opening' can, I think, radicalise people in ways that they might previously not have thought possible.  I'm non-violent by nature.  I detest violence in all of its forms.  But I admit there came a point during my involvement with animal rights when I was starting to believe that the systematic abuse of animals needed a more radical approach than simply waiting around for society and the law to change.  And whilst I never became involved in such activities myself, my hearing about others perpetrating them didn't trouble my conscience too much.  In that sense, surely that made me complicit.  And of course, as an Aspie who'd always struggled to gain acceptance with any group of people, it was empowering to me to be involved.  I didn't want to lose the respect of these people.  In the end, though, making that extra step myself would have been making one compromise too far.  I had enough rationality left inside me not to follow that line of accepting, as many did, that the whole of society is to blame, and that therefore any misgivings or moral doubts needed to be set aside in the pursuit of the 'higher' cause of complete animal liberation - whatever the cost.

I wonder about that 'relieving of the requirement to think'.  I consider it in relation to groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, who present a solid example of 'groupthink'.  Alternative viewpoints receive no critical evaluation, and are actively discouraged.  Witnesses who fall out of line risk being 'disfellowshipped' and shunned - losing contact with friends and family.  If they're indoctrinated into the Fellowship as children, they have little choice about these matters.  Their minds are conditioned.  They're brainwashed.  But if they come into it as rational, mature adults... are they not then surrendering their critical faculties, and effectively relieving themselves of the requirement to think?  To question?  No longer do they need to consider alternative systems of belief, because they've found the one that 'fits' for them.  And they understand that they need to accept it to the letter.  It's 'the Truth'.  Why should they need to think about it any further?

I wrote 'evolutionarily' because I was thinking of 'group selection', as expounded by Darwin, EO Wilson and so on. This hypothesis suggests there was evolutionary pressure to avoid extinction of small groups of humans, whether or not kin, and so behaviour that supports those around the individual is selected for. It's less about selfish individuals or selfish genes than selfish communities, and so rituals and stories that support group membership become part of 'human nature'. Harming the group is punished, and you can think of that as a type of ideological power by some group members, but it also explains why 'groupthink' is very powerful.

(For what it's worth, I'll put forward my own hypothesis that the tension between social conservatives and free thinkers is eternal, because they correspond to heredity and variation respectively, and that combination is necessary to produce a type of cultural evolution and adaptation analogous to genetic evolution.)  Groups nowadays may not be 'local' and instead consist of perceived interest groups, often based on ideology, and sometimes still based on gender, possibly explaining the 'incel' meme (I'm trying to relate all this to the thread I started).

I'd count myself as a secularist and a rationalist, but might argue that Abrahamic God is as real as other human fictions like money or government that you could say are 'means of social control', ways of regulating behaviour that may conflict with rationality but ensure a type of stability. I grew up in a Western religious tradition, but see it as having a two-way relationship with 'natural morality'. If it is shaped too much by hierarchy and control, the behavioural regulation can carry out atrocities, particularly against 'outgroups'.  You could see this in Abrahamic religions in in for example, the Lord's Resistance Army or Branch Davidians.  But does religion open people up to beliefs that lead to idiosyncratic action and even violence? Or is that propensity already there, as you described among hunt sabs who wanted to go further? And did it really 'seem to relieve anyone of the requirement to think', or did you believe you were thinking for yourself and associating with those who saw the truth?

The common picture you hear through the media now, presumably channelling that 'means of control' known as the Home Office, is of a 'pathway' to 'radicalisation', which they should really call violence. A radical idea is not itself violent, and meanwhile the global cult may itself be leading us over a cliff while believing itself to be rational. People claim to want to interrupt this pathway at some point, without having to, at the final step, ban cars from cities. An obvious protective factor throughout is social connection, in particular to neighbours and perceived outgroups, which is why ministers and advisers profess concern for those of us on a different social wavelength, even though we're no more prone to violence. I'm probably most interested in a norm of autism acceptance among young adults, which is something that should be promoted anyway, but might have met Minassian's social needs, protected his mental health, prevented a chain of beliefs that diverged from both peers and reality, found alternative expression or propitiation or dissuaded from violence. I could see why churches, mosques and synagogues might want to think about this seriously, as well as secular youth groups, where they haven't been closed down. I think I was also less interested in the (non-)connection, even in the public mind, between autism and violence, than in this self-concept of 'incel' hitting the headlines, and discussion of it eliding those who aren't necessarily sexist but are disabled. I suspect the notion could be reasonably reclaimed.

Cassandro said:

religion's main role evolutionarily as I see it is a local harmony

I'm not so sure.  The three main Abrahamic religions especially, as I see it, were founded more as a means of social control.  Primitive times, primitive understandings, primitive beliefs... and onto this imposed a system of rules of behaviour, with threats of extreme punishment to any who dare to flout them.  Natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and plagues used as evidence of the Divine One's wrath - and no other evidence available to prove otherwise.  I think it's quite easy to see how people could be controlled in those circumstances.

I'm not sure Voltaire was right. Quantum mechanics is absurd, but my physics teachers never induced me to threaten or harm anyone.  Instead sometimes the atrocities are from the details: believing that sometimes another government threatens lives and in principle violence can be justified to prevent greater harm may not be absurd, but convincing yourself that now is one of those times may be incorrect and also not intrinsically 'absurd'.

Yes, there were Crusades and religious wars, but religion's main role evolutionarily as I see it is a local harmony.  Yes, if we can forestall violent actions by providing better information, great.  Believing that is so, that light casts out darkness, itself should encourage trust and understanding. Unfortunately the idea that social divisions are down to 'information deficit' has been criticised as too simple.  People get more and more frustrated by failing to convince others, resulting in either name-calling of the other 'side' as 'stupid', or conspiratorial beliefs.  So how do we persuade someone like Minassian not to believe harmful untruths, whether or not some people see them as 'absurd', and give a better narrative for dealing with powerful feelings?

By the way, did anyone else find it creepy that Ben Wallace implied mental health services should have more 'safeguarding' roles, reporting people with 'extremist' views, when they are so under-resourced they don't even yet have the ability to identify the condition/identity he mentioned?

There's also talk of 'self-radicalisation'.  In some ways, I think it is right that we aren't just influenced at exceptional events that hit the headlines, which almost by definition will always occur, and try to integrate belief systems, religious, political and so on to the point where we can communicate and meet everyone's needs.  That communication shouldn't really be a function of government, but of society generally.  Among autistic people, most of whom unfortunately probably aren't part of an 'autistic community', Clare Allely and Lino Faccini (above) identified 'ASD' 'risk factors' for 'terrorist' attacks:

• fantasy
• Searching for
  • a “need to matter” 
  • social connection and support for someone who is alienated or without friends

(you may have noticed another active thread titled 'going postal', I hope itself just fantasy)... these don't seem peculiarly autistic, but the alienation and lack of support does.

Maybe I should just avoid the news. Maybe they'll start putting oxytocin in the water.

Indeed

Song said:

?Religion ?

Hehe!  I'd better not get started on that subject.  Suffice it to say that Christopher Hitchens sums it up pretty well for me!

basically, anything that seems to relieve anyone of the requirement to think

?Religion ?

A very insightful article in Elle.  I can identify with Alana in several ways.  I will not elaborate any further.

Elle magazine has the two most perceptive articles I've read on 'incel' and love shyness from 2016:

much of what he calls "love-shyness"—trouble reading signs, stubborn obsessions—sounds like Asperger's (the official name of which is now autism spectrum disorder). In fact, in later years Gilmartin estimated that at least 40 percent of love-shy men, himself included, had Asperger's.

https://www.elle.com/life-love/sex-relationships/a33782/involuntary-celibacy/

The other interesting stats in that article suggest that actually there are a very similar number of women who have no sex lives and have pretty similar feelings about it - rather like we're learning about autism.  It also seems the term 'involuntarily celibate' was coined by a woman:

https://www.elle.com/culture/news/amp34512/woman-who-started-incel-movement/

The misinterpretation that it is mostly a male situation, maybe from some oversimplified evolutionary psychology, might be the next stepping stone to the frustration taking on a misogynistic character.  The young man Minassian mentioned and may have been unduly influenced by, Elliot Rodger, who murdered six people in 2016, has been called a narcissist, not autistic, and apparently had come to believe that a $300 pair of designer sunglasses should help him be irresistible to women.

And money for sex workers... well, I've heard of volunteer schemes for disabled people, at least in other European countries.  The Outsiders Club may know about such things.

I was going to comment about the belief of absurdities but then I will be stuck in a loop of conversation about delusions

I think, perhaps, the sentiment goes for the mass of people who are drawn in by media propaganda, populist pundits, sales pitches... basically, anything that seems to relieve anyone of the requirement to think.

I only studied him at home but I thought the sentiment was appropriate to this general topic.