The mascot of the “beta uprising.”
Universities in the Philadelphia area were on high alert today after a threat directed at them was posted on 4chan’s /r9k/ board. The anonymous threat (everything is anonymous on 4chan) deliberately called to mind the threat/warning posted on the same message board last week, the day before a gunman shot and killed eight students and one professor at Umpqua Community College in Oregon.
“The first of our kind has struck fear into the hearts of America,” the writer of the new threat declared.
His cries have been heard, even by the president. This is only the beginning. On October 5, 2015 at 1:00 PM CT, a fellow robot will take up arms against a university near Philadelphia. His cries will be heard, his victims will cower in fear, and the strength of the Union will decay a little more. …
Martyr yourself for the cause or support those who have the courage to do so. We have the chance to make the world a better place for betas everywhere.
The deadline passed without incident — as did the deadline for a similar threat directed at schools in Edinburgh. Scotland, posted shortly after the Oregon shootings — but not without shaking a lot of people up.
Now the most malevolent trolls on the /r9k/ board, knowing that they have the attention of the world, are rhapsodizing about the coming “beta rebellion,” gleefully mocking the victims of the Oregon shootings, and posting threats aimed at an assortment of schools around the world, from Texas to the Netherlands.
And so, alongside more traditional /r9k/ topics as “Post your waifu” and “DAILY REMINDER THAT ALL FEMALES ARE DECEIVING SUBHUMAN WHORES,” the board today is filled with simultaneously ridiculous and chilling messages like these:
4chan being what it is, other anons are posting ironic “threats” aimed at, among other places, the moon, Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, and Whoville — the latter a reference to a news reporter who mistook the board’s meme mascot, a frog called Pepe, for the Grinch.
In the wake of a mass shooting that left ten people dead, this is all a good deal less than hilarious. Yes, yes, 4chan apologists, I know that the anons writing the “real threats” are most likely shitposters, like the anons joking about shooting up the moon, in that they most likely have no intention of carrying out their threats.
But at the same time it’s clear they do intend to terrorize real people with their probably fake threats. As they know well, we have to take them seriously, given that a similar threat on the same message board only a few days ago was followed by an actual, real-world massacre.
This isn’t shitposting so much as it is terrorism, a form of terrorism enabled and in some ways encouraged by 4chan’s anonymous nature.
It’s also clear that the “beta uprising” the /r9k/ regulars are joking about — and designing flags for — isn’t altogether a joke to them either.
Aside from the picture of Hitler, there’s not much deliberate irony in this discussion. These are two people discussing the future of a would-be political movement, in the wake of an act of terrorism that may be tied to the message board they are posting on. One thinks the terror caused by the shootings in Oregon will lead people to take their “issues” seriously; the second sees to think that continued violence is the only answer.
I’m not seeing a joke here.
![A Voice for Men publishes a post by racist blogger Pamela Geller, whose Islamophobic writings helped to inspire Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik [UPDATE]](https://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/subway-ads-jihad-jpeg-06a8b.jpg?resize=50%2C50)
Orion: If its the conversation I’m thinking of we were specifically talking about censoring computer generated child porn.
I would have to go back and look. That’s where it started, but I don’t think that’s where it ended.
I could be wrong though, I was busy and didn’t follow it closely.
Found it:
If you were charitable, you could say that this is only a call for “rape porn” to be outlawed, but that’s not generally what people mean when they want to take a “hard line on pornography.” And if “nearly all porn” has “elements of rape,” whatever that means, then it sure sounds like a call for pretty intrusive regulations. And that scares the hell out of me. It’s not about self-interest, either. If online porn went away entirely I would be just fine; I very rarely watch. It scares me because freedom of the press is not something a culture earns by having the right attitudes. It is a right that we enshrined for a very good reason.
There genuinely are undemocratic factions in the left. I don’t think they have a majority on this site — I assume that most of us are liberals. I’m just saying that those of us who are liberals should speak up about it. It doesn’t have to be a big deal, just a quick disclaimer. “Obviously the First Amendment is important; now back to talking about terrorists who claim the amendment protects them when it really doesn’t.” “Obviously “first amendment principles” dictate that corporations should, as a matter of morality, refrain from stifling dissenting speech. Now back to talking about how a lot of GG is posting violence, not dissent, and the moral duty to shut that down.”
There’s a Wikipedia article about the incel subculture now, if any of you are interested in contributing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incels
@Orion,
I pretty much agree with you about free speech. I would oppose any attempt to censor porn even though I never watch any. And I agree that American liberals should clearly state their support of free speech.
But, one thing you should remember, Orion, is a lot of people on the Internet aren’t Americans. You can’t reasonably expect people from Canada, England, Germany, etc, to post their support of the 1st Amendment. For one thing, a lot of them don’t support it. For another, it would sound kinda awkward since it’s not their constitution.
You can’t reasonably expect people from Canada, England, Germany, etc, to post their support of the 1st Amendment. For one thing, a lot of them don’t support it. For another, it would sound kinda awkward since it’s not their constitution.
For a third, a lot of them (or, rather, us) don’t agree that free speech includes speech intended to alarm, terrorise or spread hate. If free speech is important, it’s because it has power. Free speech is a weapon, and when speech is wielded against the vulnerable, society has failed them just as much as if they’d been physically assaulted.
The idea that you have to defend speech no matter what it is because if you don’t they’ll come for you next is laughable. We have no problem, in practice, with defending the principle of free speech, of debating in public where the line is and when the censor has gotten too aggressive, and they do back off because ultimately their job is to serve society’s standards. We aren’t afraid to make who we are and what we stand for as a nation a living conversation, not a cliche or an afterthought written on a dead tree.
On the subject of free speech:
We must bear in mind that speech is, in the mouths of the influential, often tantamount to giving an order. When Stephen Colbert urged his followers to vandalise wikipedia, they did so gleefully. Yes, each of those followers bears the responsibility for what they did, but it would be disingenuous to say that Colbert does not also bear responsibility just because he has no formal authority over the vandals.
“Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?”
What the fuck is a Beta, exactly? Another white boy that, instead of directing is anger of being bullied towards ending bullying, directs it towards being THE bully? Another white boy frustrated because every girl that he sees either doesn’t give him a blowjob (when he finds her “fuckable”) or doesn’t accept his insults (when he doesn’t)?
In sum, are Betas another boys who think they are owed the world, and get frustrated when they discover they are just another person?
I’m genuinely curious
@Futile:
It’s worse than that. The concept of alphas and betas relies upon the (unstated but unchallenged) belief that sex is a limited but fungible resource, like oil. Some nations have lots of oil, others don’t, and although this brings lots of benefits it is largely a matter of chance as to which sort one is born into.
Being a beta, therefore, means that one has been cursed through no fault of one’s own to be born with an inherent lack of sex.
Some people approach this issue in an inherently right-wing way, by trying to become alphas and therefore ensure their own sex supply, heedless of those who go without. Others approach this issue in an inherently left-wing way, by trying to share the sex out and ensure that everyone, no matter how downtrodden, gets a sufficiency. Recently, we’ve seen some take up a third option: to rise up in arms against the inherent injustice of the system.
Just like nobody asks the oil what it wants, nobody who believes this asks the women what they want, because they don’t believe that women have agency. Women, under such a mindset, are like oil wells in that they’re the mechanism by which sex accumulates to those who happen to have won the birth lottery.
As to why they believe this, I agree that it’s certainly partly due to entitlement issues. I think it’s also partly a case of being raised in a capitalist society and so applying its thought processes to places where they don’t belong; and partly due to being so poorly socialised that they cannot easily understand how humans work.
And like an oil well, the sex vessel, er, woman, is quickly depleted. So a woman who’s slept with many men is a worn-out slut, while a man who’s slept with many women is an alpha stud, and this doesn’t strike them as a double standard.
Which leaves me wondering: where do those alphas hoard all that sex they’ve unfairly obtained? Do they keep it in a tank in the garage? Bathe in it to maintain their alpha appearance? Burn it off while laughing dramatically?
I always wonder if men who think this way got a girlfriend and were having regular sex with her… well, at what point would she hit depletion? Or in their, um, logic, is depletion due to sex with multiple, different peni, so a woman having sex with only one peen (ie: his) would avoid the depletion event?
Or, what if she’d only had sex with other cis women? Does that lead to depletion as well, or does a peen need to be in play?
So many questions.
females are nothing like oil. The value of oil comes from age and decay, whereas the value of females decreases as they age and decay.
Interestingly, oil reserves don’t take too kindly to mistreatment. Try to extract the oil without the proper care and the reservoir collapses, meaning no more oil for you.
Anon,
Actually, for any gender wealth tends to increase with age.
Has anybody seen this article on incels in the WP?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/incels-4chan-and-the-beta-uprising-making-sense-of-one-of-the-internets-most-reviled-subcultures
@ignorantianescia
Well, that started out decently enough, but degenerated into “Autism!” (what utter bullshit, thanks for pushing the stereotype in the name of defending murderers, WaPo) and barely stopped itself before it started flailing about “CREEPSHAMING.” Eh.
Yeah, to say that the articles has serious issues is a massive understatement.
It did get me interested in looking up that study. Though that sample size. :/
Now the real question is: How do we tell legit threats from shitposters? Is there even a way?
I have an easy heuristic:
Stuff posted by people named “Aris” is usually trolling bullshit.
But seriously the answer is “we don’t have to” because ITS ALL FUCKING TERRORISM.
Period. Calling in a bunch of fake bomb threats because someone called in a real one isn’t “shit posting”, it’s FUCKING TERRORISM.
>>>Anon Here If you cant see the Irony you are right gtfo of /r9k/ and /b/ but why kill a site for a few bad apples. Do you really think anyone serious would post on 4chan now when a shooting just happened? Some of them might be retarded no one are that stupid.
How much do you guys and gals want to bet that this guy’s a Channer defending his own? Also, Anon, you’ll be quite surprised to know how foolish (“stupid”) those folks can get.
Somehow this comment section manages to be even edgier and more hypocritical than /r9k/.
….What?
To Anon: Okay. Say what you will on the hypocrisy bit (though I would argue that only three, four or five people here showed it), but edgyness, well, aside from C.S.’s (I guess), I didn’t see anything of the sort here.
“The first of our kind…”? Hardly. Check the website of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence: “Insurrectionism Timeline” and you’ll note that the latest mass shooting is more of the same NRA/Tea Party-inspired violence against women, minorities, gays, and liberals in general, spanning from 2008 to present:
http://csgv.org/issues/guns-democracy-freedo/insurrectionism-timeline/
If that doesn’t do it for you, check the website of The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights (IREHR): http://www.irehr.org/
Or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or simply just research right-wing white supremacist [Tea Party associated] groups and their views on women:
ABCNews: QUOTE: “That is, at least in part, because many white supremacist groups claim to be followers of a Christian tradition that includes clear division of roles for the sexes. Men are active in the world, while women are homemakers.
Women were recruited to join these groups for the purpose of carrying on the white race, and for many, that is apparently still sufficient.
Web sites for women’s organizations in the racist right show women have found a lot to do without getting involved in leadership.
“Children, they are what drives us to better ourselves and our people. It takes a very strong and deeply committed woman to be a part of the cause. She has to be a mother, partner, and warrior all in one,” one young woman, Tina Edwards, is quoted as saying on the Stormfront Web site. “She must understand that this is not a game nor is it for the faint of heart … It is about securing the existence of our race and a future for white children.” END QUOTE.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90982&page=1
Any of this sound familiar? As in MRA familiar?
We refer to this as “Intellectual” racism/historical revisionism: Judgybitch: “Hate speech, the Confederate flag and feminism”
http://judgybitch.com/2015/06/25/hate-speech-the-confederate-flag-and-feminism/
Like this: “Ron Paul’s Neo-Confederate “South Was Right” Civil War Speech With Confederate Flag”
Do you understand how/why the “men’s rights movement” is motivated by Tea Party white supremacy, which includes vicious attacks against women, minorities, gays, immigrants, liberals, multiculturalism, diversity, and social/economic egalitarianism?
Political Research Associates: “Behind the recent surge of nullification bills in state legislatures there is an ongoing battle for the soul of the GOP—and the future of the union itself. The nullification movement’s ideology is rooted in reverence for states’ rights and a theocratic and neo-Confederate interpretation of U.S. history. And Ron Paul, who is often portrayed as a libertarian, is the engine behind the movement”
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2013/11/22/nullification-neo-confederates-and-the-revenge-of-the-old-right/#sthash.QW4RoNOp.dpuf
This is right-wing Libertarianism. It has never been and is not now separate from the Religious Right. One can draw a straight line from the racist, far right fringe John Birch Society to the Tea Party: http://thepoliticalspectator.com/tag/ron-paul/
P.S. There are responsible organizations fighting this extremism. May I suggest that people of good conscience look into them, rather than waste more time arguing dishonest talking points with white supremacists?
An example: People for the American Way (actual progressives): “The War on Women
How the War on Women Became Mainstream: Turning Back the Clock in Tea Party America
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
The Battle Against Birth Control
The Contraception Coverage Debate
Intensifying Attacks on Choice
Stopping the Violence Against Women Act
Scapegoating Single Mothers and Working Women
Fighting Equal Pay Laws
Conclusion”
http://www.pfaw.org/media-center/publications/war-women
The “Men’s Rights Movement” is simply an extension of the above, battling to gain public support with thinly veiled liberal-sounding concerns, until one scratches just a centimeter below the surface. Right-wing propaganda at it’s finest… aimed at rolling back civil and political rights for us all.
Take the fight to the voting booth.
To be fair I do think a conversation about “Beta” males and “alpha” makes are important not because women are inherently evil but rather because there is clearly something wrong with some aspects of our society and feminism (no I’m not saying feminism is evil) The “Betas” have a small point about how we view men that happen to be virgin basement dwellers as scum because they live in the basement/virgins/no job/etc. problem is do we judge women for the same traits as well? Maybe we should judge Men and Women on how decent they are as humans beings instead on whatever superficial traits they have. Maybe we should be telling the “Betas” they don’t need girlfriends/wives to be happy and instead focus on making positive steps for themselves. You know the old “I’m a strong independent women who needs no man” how about “I’m a strong independent geeky dude who needs no women?” I don’t mean this in a women suck way. What I mean is why make a huge deal about whenether or not he happens to have a girlfriend or not? Instead of shaming them for being virgins who live with their parents, rightly call out their misigynistic actions out like any other guy.
To me it’s backwards thinking to think that Slut Shaming = Bad, but somehow Virgin Shaming = good. Shouldn’t it be Slut Shaming = bad and Virgin Shaming = bad?
Maybe I’m just a shitty ally but I dunno…