Well, speak of the devil.
I am sure that most of you expect me to scream bloody murder right now. I will once again surprise you by not doing that.
Unfortunately, deletion of the article on love-shyness was probably justified. Sure, it sucks, it’s a sort of a setback and it’s not like Wikipedia would be worse off with it but think about what I have to say on this.
Love-shyness is a scientifically unrecognized term outside of Gilmartin’s and Talmer Shockley’s writings. Worse, there was no real research by psychologists and psychiatrists on this outside of Gilmartin’s work and so term itself remained inadequate and reeked of pseudoscience.
The problem isn’t that love-shyness doesn’t exist, all of us with brains know it does. The problem is that it was failed to be properly researched by scientists – something that is not the fault or love-shy or incel people themselves nor any indicator that such a phobia doesn’t exist – of course it exists, and it is very simply and reasonably defined, in addition to a bunch of people talking about having it, and I mean that, EXACTLY THOSE SYMPTOMS AND NOT SOCIAL PHOBIA, everyday on incel communities.
If this were a sane world making progress I’d say – ball is in your court, experts. But it is not and I will make the prediction that worthless leftist academia will never take interest in this. Almost all of US psychiatrists are leftists and there is no way for them to talk about this openly. This has to do with what I’ll say next.
Let’s say there are (very) roughly four kinds of people in the world – smart ones, TAC, people stupid for other reasons than TAC and those somewhere in-between smart and dumb. Of course, this categorization is extremely crude and done completely ad hoc but read on. So, which of these four groups would be convinced that love-shyness is an actual problem based on nothing but a Wikipedia article, which says that one guy made up the term? I’d say a very small percentage of the fourth group, and I mean those much closer to stupidity. Intelligent people will understand that the definition of the problem itself means that it must exist and TAC or other dumb people… Well, they will remain dumb.
Deletion of the article on love-shyness subtracts nothing from the reality of the problem that millions of men and women are feeling nor does it subtract any of its theoretical and practical value. Those who don’t understand that are wasting our time.
As for the article on incel, well, that’s a different story. Frankly, I am disgusted by this happening. People discussing this on a talk page whose I link I provided above show either the usual ignorance. There are people describing incel as some sort of “wannabe mental disorder” (it is not) or comparing incel to lack of much less essential things in life and these types seem to be in favor of deletion. Other are just lacking the proper perspective of how much the term is used in both studies and groups of people so they propose merging it with another article.
Of course I had to throw in my two cents and say
Keep, please note that I am not familiar with all the rules of Wikipedia so these are just my thoughts as somebody interested in this issue. Involuntary celibacy was never described as nor was it supposed to be a medical or psychological condition. It describes a specific situation suffered by many people and frankly comparing something like a lack of romantic relationships and sex (the definition which includes just sex is also problematic but that’s another story) to not owning a home is both deeply demented and insulting. To relegate this to part of celibacy article would be highly problematic and would mean a loss of additional, much needed context and quality. Talking about involuntary celibacy in context or a bigger article on sexual abstinence would not dilute this but would place it in a context that it is not yet agreed upon – there are those who mention a lack of a romantic relationship in context of incel despite its semantic meaning. By merging it with sexual abstinence you would effectively decide its meaning when it is not yet clearly decided upon – what would in that case be the word for involuntarily single? Also, incel is a term not just used in scientific papers but in many online communities.
At the same time I’ve noticed that Wikipedia’s article on Brian Gilmartin was also considerably shrunk, supposedly mostly for uncited claims.
Now, all of this could just be a coincidence, revival of my blog and start of educational articles on it just happening simultaneously with Wikipedia cleaning its content to improve itself in the new year. I’d say I’m almost convinced that this is the case. I know that Wikipedia employs rigorous standards and that you can’t just close something you don’t like.
But what if there is more to this? What is this is actually an orchestrated attack, almost certainly not related to what’s been going on lately on my blog, but a kind of a backslash against topics of incel/love-shyness that’s been preparing for a while and is influenced by, among many things, my blog?
There are hundreds of millions of TAC members. It is safe to assume that not all of them write insane articles for cesspools like RationalWiki or GeekFeminism. Incel is a hated, despised topic and I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody did want to inflict harm to our cause. After all, Wikipedia had not been immune from such accusations at least once and TAC is just like any other malignant cancer – it wants to spread everywhere.
I don’t think that the harm will be too horrific even if the article on incel goes away too but you have to understand TAC – they are violent and simple-minded enough to consider a deletion of just one of these articles a victory and some kind of proof that what me and other love-shy and incel people are talking about are just fairies and flying spaghetti-monsters, despite facts obvious to a rapidly declining number of sane people.
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m completely deluded.
What do you think?