bad history crackpottery empathy deficit entitled babies incels irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism white dudes comparing themselves to slaves

Incel logic: Black men “should be thankful for slavery” because their ancestors were bred for strength

This was good for black men, according to incels

By David Futrelle

Incels have a lot of opinions about slavery, mostly unburdened by even the tiniest understanding of history.

When they’re not comparing themselves to slaves, or getting mad at how easy they think female slaves had it, incels are stewing in resentment at dudes who are descendants of slaves for (allegedly) hoarding all the Stacies for themselves.

Indeed, some incels have squeezed their heads so far up their own asses on the whole slavery thing that they’ve somehow managed to convince themselves that slavery was a wonderful thing to happen to black people. Maybe not so great at the time, but great for black men today. Or at the very least for that subset of black men who qualify as “Tyrones,” the racist term incels use to signify black “Chads,” or alpha males.

[Serious] Most American Tyrone's should be thankful for slavery

Subhuman Filth
JoinedMar 11, 2018
Jun 1, 2018
They are the strong descendants of blacks that were specifically bred for strength and size. @Tellem-T would be and example of this. Although I suspect he had a white ancestor along the way because he has white features. 

Most black incels here are either majorly unlucky or the descendants of non physical working blacks. 

If only white people had specifically bred themselves for strength and size there would be a lot less incels today.

I would type out a long response to this but I think this brief video sums it all up more succinctly than I ever could.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

30 replies on “Incel logic: Black men “should be thankful for slavery” because their ancestors were bred for strength”

I try to not hate anyone because hatred is poison, but this fills me with loathing.

Speaking of eugenic breeding, have you seen today’s NYT article about Jeffrey Rapestein? Looks like he was really into that stuff. He wanted to start a “baby ranch” in New Mexico where 20 women at a time would have been impregnated with his sperm. Let’s hope he didn’t actually end up doing that. Why do so many eugenics advocates always think their OWN genes are the ones that are superior and should be passed on? That article definitely deserves a post here.

But… but… by incel logic, we’re selectively breeding for Chads *today*. Which will be good for future generations, right? They should be supporting that.

Incels, by not reproducing, you’re doing your part. Good work!

It’s funny that they don’t realize that what they’re suggesting is exactly what would have happened if their incel conspiracy theories were true. If women were mostly breeding with “Chads,” who are according to them big, strong macho men, then wouldn’t their eugenicist logic mean that everyone would eventually be big and strong?

Using that logic Incels should all be lusting after African American Women since slave owners bred them for looks.
Wait….are they?

@Michael Brew: Incels would generally agree with you, at least in the part where they’re some kind of dead-enders in the eugenics game. Which is why this is absolutely not fair, people should be forced to ignore their mating instincts because following mating instincts is degenerate… all so that they can freely follow their own mating instincts.

I mean, there’s probably a clearer and more amusing way of saying that, but their whole worldview is mostly one where the individual parts range from extremely questionable to outright wrong, but mostly not hypocritical, yet the whole is a hurricane of hypocrisy.

One moment they’re insisting that “Might Makes Right”. Two seconds later, they’re whining that strong people (the wrong sort of strong people) have an unfair breeding advantage.

The idea that African slave breeding programs contributed to black people’s present-day physical superiority is wrong, for several reasons. First, many African-Americans are no longer pure African. Many have some white, Asian, or Native American ancestors. Moreover, the effects of any “breeding programs” would quickly have been erased by free intermarriage during Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and segregation.

Second, in the absence of DNA testing, it would have been impossible to know for sure who fathered a slave baby. Rape was commonplace, and the mother could have been impregnated by the owner, a visiting house guest, an overseer, or another slave.

Third, it was common to break up slave families to pay off debts. When father, mother, and children are sold to different plantations, any sort of genetic research and sustained breeding program becomes impossible.

Fourth, nearly half of slaves died before their first birthday, which puts the lie to the idea of physical superiority. Caribbean slaves had an appallingly low survival rate (less than five years, in most cases).

You don’t need to invent some nonexistent breeding program (and demand gratitude for it) to explain why, for example, West Africans excel at sprinting. It’s the result of thousands of years of natural selection. Humans with recent ancestry from low latitudes tend to be more narrow, with slimmer pelvic bones and longer legs, which are advantageous in running and jumping. There’s an interesting hypothesis that as a defense against malaria, people from west coast of Africa evolved genes to protect against it. These genes reduce an individual’s ability to make energy aerobically, leading to a shift towards fast-twitch muscle fibers, which are less dependent on oxygen for energy production. More fast-twitch fibers mean more speed.

That hypothesis may or may not be correct, but it’s at least more plausible and doesn’t rely on dubious eugenics, racism, and “white people invented everything, including black people!”

Historically, white athletes dominated sprint and power sports only by systematically excluding black athletes. Now that sports (and academics) are opening up and becoming more diverse, it’s been interesting to see the panicky reactions of white supremacists as their lies are exposed by honest competition.

Mmmmkay, a lot to unpack there Mr. Incel…. I mean, do we start with the way this guy practically wears the angst of black male sexuality on his sleeve, the hideous eugenics, the body dismorphia…? One could write whole essays on this comment alone.

@Things Come Undone

Oh, they probably are, but being Nazi-adjacent, they’d never admit it.

Most black incels here are either majorly unlucky or the descendants of non physical working blacks.

??? I thought being an incel is supposed to be an accident of birth, and as such, majorly unlucky one by definition. Does it make you more unlucky as an individual (in “most” cases, that is) if you happen to belong in a racial group where incels are generally rare?

Also, apparently this guy thinks the modern descendants of house slaves are a separate population? Or more likely, that various male traits are only inherited from father to son.

Also, how does this supposed “size and strength” affect Black women’s sexual success? Incels already maintain that women effectively can’t be incels, but one gets the distinct sense that they (and various other misogynist dudebros) generally don’t consider the existence of Black women in any context ever. Including the thesis quoted in this post.


Funny how all the “slavery isn’t actually that bad” people are never particularly eager to become enslaved themselves.

But they already ARE enslaved! By their inadequate wrists and inability to get laid. Since they get three square meals a day, they’re obviously qualified to report on how slavery’s survivable.

They’re also enslaved by their obsessions, but they don’t seem to realize that.


They’ve acknowledged the existence of black women at least once, but I’d imagine that since most incels are racist, they probably have no attraction to black women and so don’t mention them much.

Related: I was arguing with a friend about whether not being attracted to people of a certain race meant that you were racist. I (attracted to people of all races) said that yes, you’re racist if you aren’t attracted to a people of a given race. My friend (cishet white male who is not attracted to black women) said that it wasn’t racist. Anyone have thoughts on this?


I’m not sure. I’m a cishet white man, and I’m attracted to women of all races, but I do generally find women of some groups more attractive than others. (For example, the three women I think are The Most Beautiful Women In The World are a Swedish/Danish/Ashkenazi woman, a Luo (Kenyan) woman, and a Czech/German woman. All for different reasons – apart from all three having beautiful eyes.)

But there are a few groups that I am – generally – less attracted to. I really don’t know if that constitutes a prejudice towards those groups or just the vagaries of attraction.

Which does remind me of how truly bizarre the PUA/Incel idea of the “Hot Babe Rating” is. How can someone’s attractiveness be objectively measured when attraction is so subjective?

Do they think that there is some Platonic Form of Hotness, and each women is rated on how close she gets to that Form? Like, oh, your tone is only three shades away from the Form, so you get +.75 compared to that other lady, whose skin is seven shades away?

Which is especially bizarre because one person can be attracted to different people for different reasons.

The rating of women is problematic for that reason among other reasons. They probably do think there is one ideal of hotness (their own ideal vision) and that everyone else is wrong. This is similar to the view expressed by Virginia Postrel, but more extreme.

As I thought.


I’m not sure that it is racist, you cannot change who you are attracted to because It’s biological. I’m asexual and not actually attracted to anyone, but I can appreciate physical attractiveness in lots of people regardless of gender and race but it’s on a purely aesthetic level, not sexual. It doesn’t mean I’m misogynistic if I’m not attracted to women, or misandrist if I’m not attracted to men, I’m equally non attracted to anyone. That’s biological, not personal choice.

you cannot change who you are attracted to because It’s biological.

Yes, but then again, not really. As far as orientation goes, yeah, that’s biological (this includes Ace peeps).

Everything else is social conditioning and learned preferences/biases.

@naglfar: it is certainly a sign of shallow thinking that can be bordering on racist or a slippery slope to racism. To say you aren’t attracted to any specific group seems to involve mental gymnastics to lump what is really a spectrum of people into groups and rule out everyone in that group. Someone I know would never date blondes. I couldn’t find out why, perhaps a blonde scared them when they were little, possibly they could see into the future and it is a reaction to the mess the UK is going to get into under Boris Johnson and the anti-blonde backlash that follows.

@Naglfar, the class “black women” contains a sizeable fraction of the world population, and is incredibly diverse, whether talking about skin tone, body type, personality, education, profession… any of the factors which influence whether one finds someone attractive. To me, saying “I’m not attracted to black women” makes about as much sense as “I’m not attracted to anyone whose name begins with any of the letters A through M”. I think the only sense in which this could be called not-racism is if you take the view that racism = prejudice + power. i.e. someone declining to date PoC is not directly part of a system of oppression (unlike, say, declining to employ them). But surely we can agree that it’s racial prejudice, by definition?

Oh, they probably are, but being Nazi-adjacent, they’d never admit it.

Katamount Forbidden just makes it hotter I suspect the ones who rant about race mixing the most are all secretly turned on, same with the ones who rant about same sex, sex.

@Things Come Undone
Maybe because it’s a turn on for them, the incels watch interracial cuckolding porn and that’s where they get their strange ideas about race and cucking from.

Once again, it’s blindingly obvious why nobody’s interested in these guys. It’s not their looks (average), their height (also average) or their wrist size (very average). It’s their fuckheadedness! Who the hell wants a fascistic, misogynous conspiracy mumbler who thinks black men were “bred” for their strength and virility in the slave era…and that this hideous rapey fuckery was GOOD for black folks somehow?

BTW, it’s not as if there aren’t any short black men around. Pygmies, for example…although they weren’t terribly common among those who were kidnapped and enslaved, I’ll give these bozos that. Guess there are also advantages to being small and delicate of physique…even if one happens to be black and male!

BTW, it’s not as if there aren’t any short black men around. Pygmies, for example…although they weren’t terribly common among those who were kidnapped and enslaved, I’ll give these bozos that. Guess there are also advantages to being small and delicate of physique…even if one happens to be black and male!

More an accident of geography. The slave trade was entirely a West African thing, and enslaved Africans came from what’s now Guinea, Nigeria, Niger, and parts of neighboring countries. The Saan peoples, often described as ‘pygmies’, live in Southern Africa, their territories beginning some 4000 miles from the Slave Coast.

@Snowberry (re incel psuedo logic& mating instincts):
How ’bout “sexual agency for me but not for thee”?

@Naglfar (re attraction):
I’m attracted 2 the person. Race and gender are secondary 2 me.

Just my 2 cents.

I love how these self-immolated human garbage fires don’t understand compound interest. Even if slavery meant that black men today were twice as strong on average (and it is just awesome that they rhetorically obliterate black women – not misogynists these clever boys!), that would be as nothing compared to blacks having 12% of the nations wealth instead of 1%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.