‘Incels are shit-post kings’: incels’ perceptions of online forum content

ABSTRACT

Research about involuntary celibates, or incels, has often relied on indirect texts such as internet forums and discussions as a source of data for qualitative analysis. Using direct qualitative data from interviews with incels (N = 14), this paper examines their beliefs about negative online behaviors such as shit-posting. From the data, we identified various themes, and participants stated that they may view this behavior as: 1.) one that is not specifically isolated to incels (or only a small fraction of the incel population); 2.) for attention; or 3.) a reflection of some truth or deeper emotion. Other explanations, however, suggested that shit-posting is: 4.) just a joke or not serious; 5.) annoying or a negative representation of all incels; or 6.) false flags by others outside of the community. Researchers in online behavior—and incel researchers in particular – should give special attention to the reasons why users may engage in reprehensible or vile speech and the rewards that such behaviors offer. Attention to the nuance and purpose of online behaviors can provide additional context for the interpretation and application of existing and future incel research, and it can inform policies and practices to make internet spaces less harmful.

KEYWORDS:

• Incels
• content analysis
• methodology
• online behavior

Introduction

Incels, short for involuntary celibates, have become an emerging area of concern among law enforcement agencies, and recently, researchers have begun to examine their online community and rhetoric. The online community and the violent attacks that are often linked with incels reflect broader areas of study, including criminology, gender studies, psychology/psychiatry, cyber-victimization, and domestic terrorism. Given incels’ often shocking online rhetoric, the ongoing associations with violence and misogyny, and their general disdain for journalists and academics, researchers often view them as a ‘hard-to-reach population’ (Shaghaghi, Bhopal, and Sheikh 2011), making direct contact and study participation seem like an unappealing or impossible feat. As such, many researchers have used indirect methods of studying the online community and identifying key areas of concern. The same challenges that make indirect methods seemingly requisite also make them vulnerable as a primary information source: they do not provide context for researchers to be able to judge whether this online communication can be taken at face value.

To construct a rich, reliable account of incel rhetoric, in this study we used a two-part qualitative research design to examine how incels approach shit-posting/trolling. The preliminary study consisted of a close textual analysis of publicly available posts by self-identified trolls; this exploratory analysis gave us a theoretical model of why people engage in trolling behavior. Building on these insights, the main study was comprised of direct interviews with self-identified incels. Each interview discussed aspects of shit-posting/trolling such as their attitudes toward it and how it affected their online community. Because we had the context of numerous publicly available texts to explain shit-posting behavior and the intimacy of direct interviews to examine incel perspectives about it, we are able to cross-reference our qualitative research and provide both reliable and rich data on the motives and behaviors of incels in shit-posting.

Incels and the incel community have been an emerging area of research, particularly as public concern about incel-related violence increases. While online, non-criminal rhetoric may not necessarily fit squarely in the criminological or criminal justice field, such research serves as a foundation to better understand online communities and individual beliefs which may ultimately lead to additional knowledge about potentially violent (or non-violent) behavior and risk factors. Knowing that law enforcement agencies and non-profit organizations have labeled incels ‘a new terrorism threat’ (Barcellona 2022, 170), we believe that exploring the meaning, function, and seriousness of online speech can better inform these practices. Given that the aim of this criminological or criminal justice research is often to influence or inform practice and policy related to the prevention of incel-related violence, it is important to examine the ways in which online rhetoric and behavior is perceived and explained by self-identified incels. Doing so may provide further insight about incels and their online activity while also providing additional, more nuanced context for content analyses of incel forums.

This article begins by providing a brief overview of incels and continues with a literature review of existing research, critically analyzing the most common methodological approaches that have been used to create a foundational knowledge of incels. This includes a preliminary study that identified the functions and purpose of online trolling behavior. We continue with an explanation of the main study, which used interview data from participants (N = 14) to explore the ways that self-identified incels explain, interpret, and even condemn shit-posting behaviors and content in online forums. We present the data in the context of the six emergent themes and conclude with a brief discussion about the results and implications for future research and policy.

A brief overview of incels

Incel is a portmanteau for ‘involuntary celibate,’ describing a person who desires a sexual and/or romantic relationship but is unable to find one due to factors including personality deficiencies, physical appearance, missed milestones, or mental health struggles. It is important to distinguish between people in the general population who experience social and romantic difficulties but do not identify as incels and those who are self-described incels. Even more, there is a notable distinction between individual incels, the broader online communities and forums, and the situation of being an incel (known as ‘inceldom’).

Incels are often associated with misogyny and violence due to their online content and recent high-profile attacks,¹ and they are positioned as a subgroup of the Manosphere, which Nagle (2017) describes as, ‘The many sites, subcultures and identifications associated with … [an] anti-feminist online movement’ (p. 86). Given the nature of many forum posts which utilize racist, misogynistic, homophobic, and violent language, there is little question about how these perceptions came to be.

This online behavior—coupled with high-profile news reports about incel-related violence—leads many to believe that they are a concerning online community that may likely lead to the online radicalization of users and subsequent violence, particularly against women. Screenshots of forum conversations are often shared on various social media platforms including Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook, while media reporting (e.g., Griffin 2021) and research articles (e.g., O’Donnell and Shor 2022) refer to cases of violence by alleged incels in the United States and Canada.

While a full discussion of the history of evolution of incels is beyond the scope of this paper (see Daly and Reed 2022; Ging 2019; Glace, Dover, and Zatkin 2021), it is necessary to examine the methodological approaches that researchers have used to study this population while also evaluating the effectiveness of these approaches.

Literature review

As incels are an emerging area of study, there is limited research on the specific online communities and individual incel behaviors, but most of the existing research excludes incel participants from the research, likely due to their status as a closed or dangerous population and their past skepticism of journalists and researchers. Such a designation makes their inclusion in research difficult, but labels like ‘hard-to-reach’ or ‘hidden’ also assume a homogeneity across members of a group or community (Shaghagi, Bhopal and Sheikh 2011).

Instead, researchers have often opted to use content analyses to examine incel beliefs, prevalent themes, and measures of vulgarity or hateful language. Fewer studies have directly interacted with incels, but some have aimed to quantify incel responses and provide descriptive statistics about their perspectives and experiences (see, for example, Costello et al. 2022; Sparks, Zidenberg, and Olver 2022; Speckhard et al. 2021). Even fewer to date have directly engaged incels to conduct interviews (particularly using a phenomenological approach) to offer a richer description of their experiences and perceptions. Daly and Reed (2022) shared results from interviews with incel respondents (N = 10) using a masculinities or hegemonic masculinity framework (similar to Ging 2019; Menzie 2020; Witt 2020). Using that data, they identified five major themes across the data, including shit-posting (or trolling) behavior. Related to that theme, participants shared that incels’ online behavior may be a manifestation of anger, a coping mechanism, or attention seeking behavior (Daly and Reed 2022), and the current study expands upon the initial data.

This section provides an overview of the existing qualitative methodological approaches² and individual studies which have contributed important perspectives aboutonline incel content to the body of knowledge about incels.

Incel research and content analyses

Most research related to incels has focused on toxicity and hateful speech on incel forums. The shocking content from forums and now-deleted Reddit sites (in the context of national stories about incel violence) lead to often well-deserved criticism given the themes of violent, misogynistic, racist, and hateful language that is frequently employed. For these content analyses, researchers have used programs like Voyant and NVivo to conduct automated linguistic analyses while others have used hand-coding. For example, Jaki and colleagues (Jaki et al. 2019) used the former approach to conduct a mixed-methods analysis using quantitative natural language processing (NLP) to count occurrences with a qualitative analysis of the collected data. They found instances of hate speech, racism, and misogyny, although they only identified five percent of the messages in their extensive dataset that contained one or more of the offensive words from the list they created, with the most common being misogynistic slurs. Most research is devoted to discussing the most outrageous or negative, while discussions about suicidal ideations and depression – which have been identified as a significant issue among incels (Daly and Laskovtsov 2022; Daly and Reed 2022)—were limited to only a few paragraphs.

Similarly, Pelzer and colleagues (Pelzer et al. 2021) utilized a machine learning classifier to identify toxic language on three incel forums. They sorted forum posts in seven toxicity categories and found that the most toxic category across all the forums was related to women, particularly related to derogatory language like femoids, roasties, or landwhales. Prażmo (2020) likewise examined the use of language used by incels, and she argued that metaphorical terminology (e.g., foids as androids/humanoids) strips women of their humanity.

Other researchers have utilized hand-coding methods to study incel rhetoric in online forums, and some have opted to select threads and identify predominant themes across the data (Maxwell et al. 2020; Menzie 2020; O’Malley, Holt, and Holt 2020). These themes include pervasiveness of rape culture, pro-attitudes of violence against women, male victimization and oppression, sexual entitlement, and masculinity crises (Menzie 2020). O’Malley and colleagues (O’Malley, Holt, and Holt 2020) found similar themes including the sexual market, women as naturally evil, legitimizing masculinity, male oppression, and violence.

Linguistics scholars have also used corpus linguistics models—‘the study of language in use through corpora, … a large, principled collection of naturally occurring examples of language stored electronically’ (Bennett 2010, 2)—to analyze language used in incel forums. Heritage and Koller (2020) used keyword analysis from 67,000 words generated from 50 incel threads, concluding that incels place various groups of men in a hierarchy based on conventional attractiveness. Likewise, in comparing the language of pornography and incel conversations, Tranchese and Sugiura (2021) found that online incel communities and pornography both manifest misogyny.

Thus, most of the body of knowledge about incels has been developed from the use of their forums as sources of information and insight into their perspectives, beliefs, and alleged ideologies. This research often focuses on the most vitriolic or sensational language of incel users, but Pelzer and colleagues (Pelzer et al. 2021) noted, ‘We cannot rule out that writers sometimes use drastic language and topics merely to shock the audience of outsiders’ (p. 213). Similarly, Witt (2020) offered the question, ‘how do we know what is serious, and what is in jest, and how do we differentiate and weigh the two?’ concluding that research cannot and should not differentiate. Yet, we suggest that there can be more to learn about online behaviors, and we aimed answer his questions. As such, we continue with a brief review of the trolling and shit-posting literature.

Trolling, shit-posting, and negative online behaviors

While trolling and shit-posting are often used interchangeably, trolling seems to be more complex and debated across a variety of disciplines. Golf-Papez and Veer (2017) suggested the following definition for trolling behaviors: ‘deliberate, deceptive and mischievous attempts that are engineered to elicit a reaction from the target(s), are performed for the benefit of the troll(s) and their followers and may have negative consequences for [those] involved’ (p. 1339). In this sense, trolling and related behaviors are a broader umbrella under which negative online behaviors (including shit-posting) can be classified. They can be directed at an individual (e.g., cyberbullying or harassment), a group (e.g., racist posts made on a social media site), or an organization (e.g., posting excessively bad reviews of a product to undermine the company). Trolling can also be used as a form of interaction within groups and online communities and the circumstances in which trolling behavior occurs. In relation to online communities, Cruz and colleagues (Cruz, Seo, and Rex 2018) concluded that trolling can be used as a part of learning, assimilating, and transgression, and the latter ‘can also have a dual pro-social and anti-social impact in online communities’ (p. 24). We use this foundation and apply it to trolling and shit-posting, and we continue by examining the context in which trolling occurs and the broader purpose of these behaviors. For the purpose of clarity, however, we want to elucidate the meaning that we ascribe to shit-posting (and how it differentiates from but also includes notions of trolling). For this research, we use McEwan’s (2017) definition of shit-posting: ‘a form of Internet interaction predicated upon thwarting established norms of discourse in favour of seemingly anarchic, poor quality contributions’ (p. 19).³

Online behavior and toxic technocultures have led to the development of internet communities in which trolling and shit-posting are common. Such negative online behaviors are certainly not new or unique to incels, as trolling and shit-posting exist in a variety of spaces across the internet. Phillips (2015) notes that the purpose of trolling is using linguistic or behavioral tools to upset participants or online users. Similarly, Nagle (2017) argues that 4chan troll culture has long been ‘teeming with racism, misogyny, dehumanization, disturbing pornography and nihilism’ (p. 105). This type of behavior over time has led to the development of toxic technocultures. Massanari (2017) explains that online users and cultures harass others and using antiquated or hateful ideas to rail against progressivism and diversity. Thus, online communities and users may utilize these to legitimate and celebrate the very behaviors that led to their ostracization and push back against mainstream ideas.

The online use of racist, violent, misogynist, anti-semitic, and generally reprehensible speech has been long been examined in research, with Jane (2014) dubbing it ‘e-bile.’ She argues that ‘the anonymous or quasi-anonymous status of the perpetrators…also has the effect of erasing the individual and coalescing all the mephitic voices into one’ (Jane 2014, 566). Phillips (2015) notes that trolls know exactly which types of discourse and topics will set off explosive reactions. In the case of incels, the topics from their forums, including the legalization of rape, flagrantly racist and anti-miscegenation attitudes, and the frequent dehumanization and degradation of women are precisely the topics that have drawn ire from non-incels who observe incel discourse on the forums.

Preliminary trolling and shit-posting study

Instead of starting with the decontextualized content of shit-post or trolling, the second author conducted an exploratory analysis of 54 blog posts, articles, comment sections, and forum discussions by self-defined trolls to see how they described their own motivations. This content was hand coded, and four main themes emerged. Self-identified trolls wrote that they trolled: 1.) To show that they are smarter than other people (and also more right); 2.) To show other people in a fun way that they are wrong; 3.) As a form of performance art; and 4.) To connect with other people. The first two results fall within argument, though they are more aggressive or misguided than typical arguments. The third is outside the scope of this project. But the fourth theme caught our attention, as it is so opposite to the motivations currently attributed to trolling and shit-posting.

Typically, trolling and shit-posting have been associated with dominance (Gammon 2014; Hample, Greene, and Burleson 2003) because they rely heavily on destructive, inflammatory, and offensive remarks. However, these posts may also serve to make their friends laugh, earn respect from others, and participate in community. On incel forums, users typically coalesce around threads that involve jokes, articles, or examples related to their incel identity, thus creating conversation and forging relationships in these online spaces. Since this trolling and shit-posting (or collective ‘e-bile’) is an identifying feature of the online forums – either as a reflection of true beliefs or as an interactive tool – these behaviors may serve to declare or reinforce an individual’s membership in a particular group and satisfy a need for community. Rather than being an act of dominance, they may serve a primary role as identity display.

Identity displays serve to establish an individual’s commitments by offering reasons for and evidence of allegiances (Hample and Irons 2015). Like other sorts of groups, trolling communities distinguish between people in the group and people outside the group by their behaviors (Tajfel et al. 1986). The more an individual behaves like a prototypical group member, the more they will be accepted by the group, because it will be easier to tell that they are part of the group and following group norms (Abrams et al. 2010). In online communities that value trolling and shit-posting, the act of trolling is one of the behaviors that distinguishes who is in the group and who is not. That is, trolling is an identity argument that that individual belongs to the group, and it allows those in the group to easily identify each other by who laughs (those in the group) and who becomes outraged (those outside the group). Thus, for these groups, the lure of trolling is ‘the entire discourse around “normies” and “basic bitches” who “don’t get” the countercultural styles of the amoral [online] subculture’ (Nagle 2017, 107).

There can also be a play element to trolling. Trolls frequently describe the action as pranking, fun, ‘for the lolz,’ and a game – a secondary goal in service to the primary goal of identity display. That trolling is pleasurable to trolls is documented (Buckels, Trapnell, and Paulhus 2014; Buckels et al. 2019; March and Marrington 2019), but extant research has approached trolling as an individual activity. In research, trolling is sometimes viewed as parasocial play, as its object is to not be in alignment with the values and sensibilities of those being trolled. If trolls are arguing for their community inclusion, however, then trolling is a prosocial form of play, approved of by the interlocutor. That is, it may be that trolls are not so much laughing at others (those who are trolled) as laughing with others (members of their community). Stoltz (2019) has found that this sort of playful arguing, which he terms ‘superficial playful argument,’ serves to strengthen social bonds. If this is, in fact, the goal of online incel behavior, incel posters are certainly bonding at the expense of the sex havers and the other groups of people they mock.

By applying the findings from this preliminary, exploratory study to the current study (described below), we aim to address gaps in the current literature related to incels and their online rhetoric. As previously discussed, we believe that uncovering attitudes and perspectives about incels’ use of shit-posting can provide additional context for the existing literature and identify ways to analyze threats and prevent potential violence. Previous research has examined and analyzed online behavior and rhetoric (e.g., Maxwell et al. 2020; Menzie 2020; O’Malley, Holt, and Holt 2020), and it has offered meaningful contributions about discussions on incel forums. Yet, we still know little about the function and interpretation related to such vile content, particularly as it relates to incels’ feelings about it. While this work may not fit neatly into a criminological or criminal justice framework (as shit-posting is often not illegal), it can offer insight and nuance for evaluating existing and future research in the field.

Main study

This study uses data from interviews with involuntarily celibate men to examine their perspectives and beliefs about the often-hateful content found on incel forums. Sociologically speaking, the emergence and growth of online incel communities may be viewed as a cultural phenomenon, and as such, this research utilized a phenomenological approach with the objective of identifying participants’ lived experiences (Moustakas 1994) and attitudes about online forums and shit-posting. This type of methodological approach relies on in-depth qualitative interviews based on the descriptions and experiences provided by the participants.

This study aimed to answer two main research questions. First, we asked: What is the purpose of shit-posting and negative behavior in online incel spaces? Secondly, we wanted to understand: How do incels explain, justify, or interpret shit-posting in these spaces? In examining the ways that incels navigate these online communities, we provide context for the often-hateful rhetoric that is used and identify ways that incels make sense of the most outrageous, violent, misogynistic, and racist content which can be key to developing effective solutions and prevention/intervention strategies.

Methods

The study guidelines and procedures were approved by an Institutional Review Board prior to data collection. Subsequently, participants were recruited as part of a larger project in which the first author interviewed men who identified as involuntary celibate or incels, and she contacted them via social media (when the user had an online presence), Discord, or email. The latter two were primarily used when the participants were recruited through snowball sampling, but the quality and quantity of the data remained relatively similar across all channels. For all interviews, after the purpose of the study was explained, the participants agreed to engage and noted that they were, indeed, self-identified incels at the time of the interview. Given the limited amount of literature that includes incels in the research process, there is little explanation for why self-identification may be the best criterion for inclusion. However, in conducting survey research between incels and non-incels, Costello and colleagues (Costello et al. 2022) noted that self-identification (e.g., a yes or no question ‘Do you identify as an incel?’) may actually underestimate or limit incel responses, as ‘some participants with incel-tendencies identified as non-incels’ (p. 29). However, all participants in this study referred to themselves as incels, explained their perceptions of inceldom (used as a qualifier and inclusion criteria for the study), and met at least one of the following criteria: participate in online incel forums related to inceldom, have peer and friend groups based on an incel identity, or describe their romantic/sexual situation as a qualification for ‘incel’ status. While this is certainly not the ideal method for inclusion, it still allowed for some level of checking to ensure that participants do, in fact, view themselves as incel or engage in incel-related activities.

After the first author conducted the initial interviews, some participants were recruited through snowball sampling methods and contacted using the aforementioned outlets. Upon their reply, they received information about the study as well as the informed consent. All participants consented to take part in the research and granted permission for their quotes to be included in the research and writing process, and they were permitted to review this draft to check for accuracy and fair representation (for additional discussion about member checking, see Birt et al. 2016). They also were allowed the opportunity to create a pseudonym and provide as much or as little information as they wanted (e.g., age, country, race, etc.).⁴

Interviews took place from October 2019 until the writing of this article. All participants completed the interviews via social media messaging and Discord or Zoom calls based on the preferences of the participant to make them feel more comfortable in sharing their experiences and attitudes. Many of the conversations via messages lasted weeks, months, and even years, as the interviewer provided them with the opportunity to reach out with initial thoughts or ideas they wanted to share. Moreover, many of the participants were welcome to the idea of having ongoing conversations as the first author offered additional questions and topics for discussions. While the notion of shit-posting and online content was not the primary area of consideration upon the start of the interviews, these questions allowed for the investigation of ‘a more detailed and nuanced account of one particular theme, or group of themes, within the data’ (Braun and Clarke 2006, 83). While it was one theme of the ‘rich description of a dataset’ (Braun and Clarke 2006, 83) outlined in Daly and Reed (2022) this study aimed to delve more deeply into the specific meaning and interpretation of shit-posting, and many of these data were gathered through follow-up interviews to expand on the previous data.

On Discord and Zoom calls, participants agreed to being recorded, and the conversations were later transcribed. For social media messaging, the conversations were copied and pasted into a Microsoft Word document. Ultimately, all the interview data were compiled into a single Word document for thematic analyses.

The research design for this study used semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions with the participants. There were only three questions that the first author posed to participants, and then other related questions were asked based on the participants’ responses. The questions were intentionally broad to allow the respondent to interpret and respond as they saw fit, and they were as follows:

1. What do you think about the questionable or controversial content in incel forums specifically related to misogyny, violence, racism, homophobia, etc.?

2. Why do you think people post things like this?

3. Do you think that these types of post reflect the users’ true feelings?

To code this data and identify important themes among the responses, the first author used the six-phases of thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006) initially familiarizing herself with the data, then generating initial codes. Once she coded features of the data, she began collating codes into potential themes and generating a list of the analysis. Given that list, she then conceptualized and named the themes, organizing the data and refining the specific ideas. Ultimately, the sixth stage, producing the report, allowed the authors to select the most compelling quotes and prepare this article.⁵

The sample

In total, there were 14 interview participants that were racially, ethnically, and geographically diverse with participants from the United States, the UK, various parts of Europe, and Australia. Table 1 provides an overview of the participants, including their ages and their discussions of the various themes.

Table 1. Participants (in the order in which they first appear).

Name	Age^11	Not just us	For attention	Truth/ emotion	Just a joke	Annoying	Not us posting
Mark	28				*
Simon	23			*	*
Literally	22	*	*	*	*	*	*
JamesFT^12	31	*		*	*
K	27	*	*			*
Frail	29	*		*	*	*	*
Steven	21	*		*		*	*
Alexander Ash	-		*		*
Matt	23	*	*	*	*	*
Ignas	20			*	*
Nick	-				*	*	*
FaceandLMS^13	-			*	*
Decline	27				*
John	-					*
Average age^14 = 25.1		6 (42.9%)	4 (28.6%)	8 (57.1%)	11 (78.6%)	7 (50.0%)	4 (28.6%)

As mentioned in a previous endnote, the interviewer opted to not ask questions specifically related to demographic information. This was a conscious decision based on early interactions with higher profile incels, as they expressed concerns about identification as well as a desire to remain as anonymous as possible. As a part of the informed consent process, the researcher asserted that participants could refuse to answer any questions, but to create and cultivate a trusting relationship between herself and the participants, it seemed optimal to refrain from asking any potentially identifying information, especially related to their location. At times, participants would share information during the interview that would provide insight about their identities (e.g., ‘As a Black man’ or ‘Living in Europe’), but given the lack of information across all participants, it seemed best to simply include age, as most participants shared that information freely. Further, knowing that the sample size would likely be small, the researcher feared that disaggregating the interview data by race or location would likely not yield anything conclusive. Both qualitative and quantitative future research with larger sample sizes may be better suited to differentiate and categorize based on identifying information, but the current study aimed to identify primary themes based on shit-posting alone.

When asked, ten of the participants provided their specific age, and of those, the average age was 25.1 years old. While the initial interview data reached saturation (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Saunders et al. 2018) around the eighth and ninth interview (and then conducting another for confirmation of saturation), the authors felt that additional interview data would be useful to address this more specific, nuanced topic. As such, the first author conducted additional interviews with new participants and revisited past participants to ask specifically about shit-posting and other online content. Upon doing this, she reached saturation after the twelfth and thirteenth interview, and again engaged in one additional interview to again confirm saturation and probe for additional data.

Results

This section provides a description of the themes that emerged across the interview data. There were a variety of approaches that participants used to consider the hateful rhetoric, and they addressed reasons why people might engage in shit-posting, the function it serves, who may be doing it, and the effects of the behavior. Ultimately, there were six primary themes, outlined in Table 2, and presented as follows (with their shortened versions used in Table 1 provided in parentheses): 1.) It’s not just us and not all of us (Not just us); 2.) It’s for attention (For attention); 3.) An element of truth and emotion (Truth/emotion); 4.) It’s just a joke, and not that bad (Just a joke); 5.) It’s annoying and harmful (Annoying); 6.) It’s not even us posting (Not us posting).

Table 2. Descriptions of Themes.

Theme	Definition	Prototypical Example
It’s not just us and not all of us	Shit-posting is also common among non-incels, and only a small percentage of the incel population engages in this behavior	‘Saying horrible things … on the internet is something people like doing. Even non-incels do it, too.’ (Steven)
It’s for attention	Shit-posting garners likes, responses, and shares	‘I can go on there and say something outrageous … and get a tonne of attention.’ (Literally)
An element of truth and emotion	Shit-posting may reflect a modicum of truth or the poster’s true emotions	‘I would take it with a large grain of salt, however there is some truth to a lot of the extreme things being said.’ (JamesFT)
It’s just a joke, and not that bad	Shit-posting is a form of humor or not necessarily intended to be serious	‘Most of it is not serious; most of it’s joking around … that’s part of the humor that people use.’ (Nick)
It’s annoying and harmful	Shit-posting is not amusing and negatively affects all incels	‘It’s just things repeating themselves.’ (K)
It’s not even us posting	Shit-posts are often posted by non-incels to embarrass or tarnish incel groups or by people who are not legitimate incels	‘A lot of people on Reddit are just “normies” who larp [live action role play] as incels for run, are deluded, or just trying to false flag.’ (Frail)

Before we engage these themes in more depth, it is necessary to understand why participants engage in these online forums. This provides context for making sense of their attitudes toward shit-posting. Therefore, we begin by providing information from the interview data about how the participants generally considered the forums and the purpose that they believe they serve.

Purpose of the forums

Before discussing shit-posting and the negative content on various incel forums, many of the participants discussed the function that these online communities serve for them. Some shared that they simply wanted to commiserate with similarly situated people. Mark (28) clearly described the online network of groups and forums as ‘a big group of communities that harbor lonely people who struggle with romance.’ Simon (23) felt the same way, although he highlighted the necessity of the groups due to his loneliness and ostracization. He explained, ‘I have no friends irl [in real life], and I feel like the average person doesn’t understand us. Most write us off as bitter.’ Literally (22) speculated that this may be the reason that some engage online (‘For people, I imagine it serves as a way for communication with other people as the same situation as them’), but he pointed to the groups as a learning opportunity:

I was just looking for help to get out of the incel situation, social tips, how to look better, or anything that I can pick up. I was also looking for tendencies that I might share with other incels that would make me less attractive.

While some identified the forum as a sympathetic place for romantically and sexually frustrated men to gather, other participants shared Literally’s perspective about the group being a learning experience for identifying their problems and sharing ideas.

In his early interactions with online incel groups, JamesFT (31) noted that the forums helped to illuminate and explain his problems with romantic relationships. He explained:

When I got on the forums, you know, there’s a lot of ideas that I think most men already feel in their guts. We feel that there’s something unfair going on about why this girl is ghosting me or why she isn’t responding or blah blah … but those ideas [from the scientific blackpill⁶] are what draws me, what I find interesting. A lot of those ideas are well-written and experienced. Where … suddenly you’re reading a thing, like this light bulb goes off in your brain and is saying, ‘oh yeah, I fucking knew it.’

K (27) is not currently active on incel forums, but he did note that the communities are for finding and exchanging information, particularly about ‘blackpilled stuff.’ He argued that these groups are helpful in using ‘evolutionary social explanations [to understand] why things are the way they are in relationships.’

These explanations are important in providing context to understand why men seek out and then continue to engage in the forums before examining their understanding of negative content such as shit-posting. It seems that for both supportive means and learning opportunities, participants initially viewed forums as a space for men to find likeminded people who can also help them to make sense of their social and romantic situations.

Emergent themes and techniques of neutralization

The current study was inductive and exploratory in nature and did not aim to identify a theoretical framework with which to examine the issue of shit-posting. However, as the researchers identified the themes, it became apparent that many of the attitudes about and explanations of shit-posting related directly to Sykes and Matza’s (1957) techniques of neutralization. While not directly related to ‘delinquency’ (as they applied these techniques from the theory’s creation), they certainly reflect Sykes and Matza’s (1957) initial explanation when they argued, ‘ … much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defenses to crimes, in the forms of justifications for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large’ (p. 666). As it applies to incels, these themes or techniques may, in their mind, justify the shit-posting behavior though, society (or ‘normies’) may not view them as a reasonable defense for such hateful or vile language.

The first theme, It’s not just us and not all of us, coincides with condemnation of the condemners. The fourth theme, Just a joke, is reminiscent of denial of injury, trivializing and minimizing the harm of the shit-posting and even denial of the victim, while the sixth theme, It’s not even us posting, aligns with Sykes and Matza’s (1957) denial of responsibility. None of the participants relayed information that could reflect the final technique of neutralization, appealing to higher loyalties, but regardless, the themes certainly provide early evidence a relationship between shit-posting attitudes and these techniques. In the section below, we offer a description and examples of each theme, highlighting evidence of Sykes and Matza’s (1957) theory when applicable, and those elements are outlined further in the discussion section.

It’s not just us and not all of us

In the interviews, many of the participants (n = 5) were quick to point out that many people, incels and non-incels alike tend to post hateful or controversial things online and even experience inceldom. JamesFT argued that incels are not the only people who struggle with romance and dating, highlighting a unique example: ‘Even in Barack Obama’s biography, he didn’t use the word “incel,” but – I’m paraphrasing here – he couldn’t get laid to save his life while he was in university, so he was basically incel.’ While many people may experience sexual struggles, there is a notable difference between that situation and then participating in incel forums where the content is often rooted in hateful rhetoric. However, Frail (29) criticized this argument, arguing, ‘People seem to treat misogyny, racism, and homophobia in these contexts as if they were incel-exclusive traits, or a requirement for being incel.’ He continued by pointing out:

You can find the same sort of stuff written in abundance in a lot of places by people who aren’t incels … If we use the same tactic of ONLY focusing on offensive content and compounding these examples, and then use the same sweeping generalisations, we could class all non-incels as violent, misogynistic, racist, and homophobic.

Steven (21) shared the same sentiment, even using the same language as Frail when he argued, ‘Saying horrible things on the internet that get people mad and to react is something people like doing. Even non-incels do it, too.’ In their ‘condemnation of the condemners’ (Sykes and Matza 1957), these participants suggested that those who would criticize incels for behaving badly in forums also engage in similar online outlets such as social media.

While Frail and Steven called attention to non-incels, broadly, Literally was more specific in his example when he said,

I liken it to feminism. If you have ever perused a female empowerment forum or Reddit, you see some really overtly male-hating posts and they receive the most attention. If you actually have some reading of feminism, those loud minorities have missed the mark.

In further discussion about that particular quote, he also clarified his perspective and noted that he does not ‘have a gripe against women for their existence’ as he believes other incels do. Rather, he faults himself for ‘falling short of the standard criteria’ for men.

Other men suggested that those who post the most incendiary comments online are a small percentage of the groups. Steven, who manages social media groups (that are not open public forums like Reddit and others), acknowledged that there are ‘a few crazy racist misogynist men in the community’ but he feels that the limited numbers of those posters (he estimated 5 percent) affect how people view all incels. He wanted to make it clear that ‘the guys I call my friends here are not the monsters that the media makes people believe.’

Likewise, K agreed about the minority of people that post those things, and he argued that the percentage of people who post negative content and actually believe it are even smaller. As he stated,

From this minority [who post controversial things], only a few guys are so loud and so polarizing that their forum threads go up in that list … It’s just that the loudest voices in the community are the most controversial ones, the most disgusting, and then that’s what people perceive to be the standard incel even though it’s like .01 percent of the real incel community that thinks like that [and] talks like that.

In sum, participants argued that posting misogynistic, violent, or vitriolic content is not a behavior unique to incels alone. However, many asserted that those who do post such things in incel groups are only a small percentage of the larger online incel population, and of those, even fewer actually hold those beliefs to be true. The following themes explore reasons why they believe people might shit-post.

It’s for attention

Some participants (n = 4) speculated that some people simply post controversial or hateful comments to garner attention from other users. Alexander Ash, a creator and early moderator of a popular incel forum, suggested that this is not necessarily unique to online incel groups, but instead the nature of modern internet behavior. He explained:

I think it’s a matter of the way communication happens nowadays. You go on Twitter and see someone post something interesting, and it barely gets any retweets or likes. But if you post something inflammatory, it rapidly gets repeated and retweeted, so stupidity gets rewarded, while a lot of effort and proper investigation gets, you know, gone into oblivion. You can say that with just the Joker stupidity.⁷ It got like, what, worldwide viral?

Alexander Ash suggested that longer posts – which are often more thoughtful, rational, and complex – demand more engagement and consideration from users and are thus read less frequently. Instead, he pointed to the fact that shorter, more hateful posts garner more replies because they are, in fact, controversial among the group members. He did, however, note that the most extreme posts (those that are illegal due to inciting or suggesting plans for committing violence) ultimately result in a user ban. In one example he provided though, he explained how the attention for the simple, hateful posts push them to the top of the forums:

People who say ‘oh, women should die’ or something like that, it gets a thousand replies because it’s controversial. We score threads on numbers of the replies, and the most recently replied obviously keeps the chain going.

As such, even replies that counter the original poster’s perspective or take them to task count in the overall replies and thus perpetuate and promote the thread.

Literally also shared his perceptions of how the outrageous or absurd is promoted online. While Alexander Ash offered Twitter as an example, Literally provided an example of TikTok videos and criticized the way that such absurdity can harm marginalized groups:

One thing I believe is a spawn of the internet is that outrageous things get the most attention, and attention is a lot of people’s goals. Like TikTik videos with people saying they have a five-spirit animal gender, it’s extreme to the point that I have to believe it’s fake. It just derides from the main message of acceptance of trans people or people who feel like they don’t belong. I think it’s for attention.

In using a non-incel example, Literally used an example of people creating ‘outlandish’ identities and the way that it hurts people in the trans community. However, he still believes that first, it is not true, and secondly, such posts are simply meant to gain attention. Related to incels, he suggested that if he said something ‘outrageous coupled with an image of a guy with a 6 pack holding hands with a girl who is not commonly attractive,’ he knows that he would receive a significant amount of attention in the form of likes, upvotes, or replies. Matt (23) also suggested that incels may use shit-posting or extreme content ‘to impress others, I imagine,’ while speculating that social isolation may also be a reason to ‘engage in strange behavior.’

This was one of the less common speculations about shit-posting, but the participants recognize that online internet communities reflect patterns and trends in general internet behavior with controversial, harmful, and easily read content garnering the most attention from online users. Even though they may not agree with the nature of such posts, they understand that nature of forums and social media affect the way that attention is given and received online.

An element of truth and emotion

While most participants share the same sentiment that shit-posting and related content is not an accurate reflection of incel beliefs, many believed that shit-posting reflects broader beliefs (n = 7). Some suggested that there may be an element of truth in these posts, while others argued that they are indicative of strong emotions. JamesFT, who primarily used incel spaces to learn about the scientific blackpill, urged caution, but he also suggested that there may be some validity:

I would take it all with a large grain of salt, however, there is some truth to a lot of the extreme things that are being said. Not everything, but some things have sound … there’s some truth to it.

When asked for such examples, he was swift in pointing to the cherry-picked nature of some of the articles about the scientific blackpill and recognizing that some posts fail to cite how ‘There’s a lot wrong with men, and there is a lot of amazing things about women.’

He did, however, explain that he believed there to be some truth in cases, such as women lying about their sexual history or how the man’s appearance may play a factor in decisions about engaging in sexual behavior. He explained: ‘Like if you meet a very tall, attractive, successful man, you know, you might suck his dick on the first date, while an unattractive, short Indian guy might have to wait and wait.’ Though it does not speak specifically to shit-posting or deliberately hateful content, this example indicates the type of ‘truth’ that he sees in posts and content related to the scientific blackpill and the importance of physical appearance. While such posts may be shortened or condensed into something more controversial on the forum (for example, a post could say ‘Stacy would suck Chad’s⁸ dick on the first date, but it’s over for currycels’⁹), JamesFT does admit to seeing some truth in such content.

In regard to Chad, Literally used this trope as a specific example of something he believes to be true on the forums. Chad may provide a symbolic representation for the juxtaposition of hegemonic masculinity to the subordinated or marginalized masculinities of which incels believe they are a part. Even Literally, however, acknowledges the limitations of this, albeit vaguely: ‘On the Chad thing, I think it’s fairly accurate. I believe in it to a certain point.’ While again, this does not necessarily reflect attitudes about racist, homophobic, or violent posts, it demonstrates the participants’ abilities to parse through the hundreds of thousands of posts to identify what they can believe and what they dismiss as being shit-posting.

When asked specifically about the notion of ‘women as evil,’ Literally surprisingly agreed that he believed those types of posts to be true not because he prescribes to that belief, but instead because he feels that many of incel users choose to adhere to that belief rather than looking inward at themselves and identifying their own shortcomings. Of the men on the sites, he stated, ‘A lot of people [would] rather be angry with someone else.’ Matt echoed a similar idea, saying, ‘I think it’s much easier to be malicious online.’

While Steven generally loathes shit-posting behavior (discussed below), he does find truth in the discussion of self-harm, although he seems to also consider them jokes in some sense. He explained, ‘The ones who talk about suicide and roping, I believe them because most of us are depressed because it’s over. Making jokes about suicide helps us cope with our horrible suicidal thoughts and blackpill despair.’ Like Steven, Literally pointed to ‘the glorification of suicide on the sites,’ but he also suggested that only a limited number—‘the noisy few’—who are engaging in these types of conversations.

Simon similarly discussed the role of emotion and extreme sadness in the posts, but he framed his argument as shit-posting being the manifestation of negative emotions in these online spaces. As he described:

Depression does lead to anger, but I don’t recall what study I read. I’ve too read a study on how loneliness fucks you up. As for more controversial posts and shit-posts, most people who do that are usually very pissed within the moment. That’s the worst part about social media. It’s very … reactionary.’

Ignas (20) echoed the same sentiment when explaining incendiary posts as a function of emotion, although he explicitly stated his discontent with them, saying,

There’s no way to defend that it’s right to post such things. But I can tell you this: When people get angry, many of them shout and swear. Even some of them punch the wall and break things up. Those are the equivalent of shit-posting. Some incels channel their anger and sadness by posting those things as an outlet.

Steven, Literally, Ignas, and Simon all recognize the ways that emotion can play a role in what people post online, from suicide posts to shit-posting as an outlet for anger, depression, and loneliness.

These explanations of ‘some truth in the posts’—either through scientific explanation or the sharing of emotions—demonstrate one way that incels navigate and interpret the nuances of online forum posts. As JamesFT summarized, ‘I know the people that post or used to post on the [popular forum]. In fact, I was one of them. I think most of the users can separate memes from reality.’ Whether it is identifying elements of the posts to align with other content (e.g., scientific studies or personal experiences) or understanding that the hateful or harmful content may be representative of underlying emotions and beliefs, the participants expressed the ability to consciously discern between the outrageous or controversial and that which they may believe or consider to varying extents.

It’s just a joke, and it’s not that bad

As Steven stated in the titular quote: ‘Incels are shit-post kings.’ Most participants (n = 10) dismissed shit-posting or making hateful comments as a joke or not reflective of actual beliefs, although only one explicitly stated that. Nick (in his early 20s) explained, ‘Most of it is not serious; most of it’s joking around … [They post] the most offensive thing they can think of and that’s part of the humor that people use. I’ve always found it to be funny.’ He further explained that such posts can be attributed to the nature of internet interactions, saying ‘It’s partially an online persona. I haven’t seen many actually violent people. I think that’s just overblown. A lot of it is just people joking and exaggerating and just saying stupid stuff because they think it’s funny.’ A popular incel YouTube personality, FaceandLMS (who did not provide his age) suggested that he, too, exaggerates in posts or videos, sharing, ‘I say a lot of controversial things that aren’t meant to be taken seriously.’ He also explained how he can differentiate between what he says online and how he engages with people in person, saying:

I know how to behave in different circles, like if I’m in a certain circle, I will modify my speech. I’ll stop speaking hyperbolically. I think we all have an ability, incel or not, to switch how we talk or speak.

JamesFT suggested that users can detect the ‘humorous’ from reality. While did not directly say that incel shit-posts are funny, he likened the online posting to misinformation and shit-posting about vaccinations. As he explained:

There are right-wing memes that are really funny, but you know, most reasonable people can see that they’re funny, but they still go get vaccinated because that might be the wisest thing to go. This separating meme from reality applies to many fields, not just inceldom.

Literally, who lives in the Caribbean and is of mostly African descent, shared his sentiment about online communities, especially regarding racist posts. When discussing the frequent use of racial slurs, he responded, ‘Eh nah, if you every played a game online, it’s all like that.’ Specifically, when asked if he considers it a normal part of the community, he elaborated and broadened the discussion, stating, ‘I take it as a normal part of anonymity.’ Two participants also spoke specifically about the use of slurs and racialized language. Frail said:

I know people take issue with a lot of the racially charged language in some spaces, but it’s usually self-descriptive language. It’s meant to be a bit offensive and distasteful for sure. But as to whether it actually has any hatred behind it, very seldom so. It’s just a lexicon, albeit one that’ll be uncomfortable for some people who don’t like certain language, but that’s kind of where people miss the point.

As a creator and moderator, Alexander Ash shared that he (and other moderators) wanted to make the popular forum ‘very pro speech in the sense that we allow equal rights speech.’ He provided the specific example of the term ‘currycels’ and noted how outsiders often point to that term and say ‘Oh, they are making fun of Indians,’ despite, as Frail stated, that it is often used as a self-descriptive term rather than a derogatory term for others.

Interestingly, although Ignas noted previously that he did not support violent posts, he also minimized or downplayed more hateful content, and he said, ‘I even rarely see hateful things (or threads) in the forum. You can get banned if you say violent things.’ Mark pointed to subReddits (that have been banned) and shared, ‘To be honest with you, I don’t think r/Incels or especially r/Braincels were that violent. I mean, yes, there were some posters … but the mods are usually pretty good about banning it.’

Finally, Frail referred to the difference between people who ‘understand the joke’ and those who do not. He specifically drew a line between insiders and outsiders – in this case, incels and non-incels – on the site, implying a clear distinction between those who use shit-post or use racialized language and those who observe:

They take that sort of language a lot more seriously than most of the people using it do. Where intent and belief are important as in this case, it’s probably important to understand the nuance of the usage and meaning of the language.

Frail’s insightful interpretation of racialized terms having various meanings for insiders and outsiders encourages readers to consider the ways that language can be used as a tool to both bring online users together while also separating those who ‘get it’ and those who do not.

Generally, many participants downplayed the seriousness and frequency of the shit-posting content whether specifically recognizing that it is a joke or simply a part of an online community (like many other non-incel groups or spaces) that is not as pervasive or problematic as outsiders might believe. Others recognized that there is meaning and purpose to such language, particularly racially and ethnically charged language, which requires a deeper understanding of the function of shit-posting.

This theme is similar to Sykes and Matza’s (1957) technique of neutralization, denial of the victim. By trivializing or minimizing the harm done by shit-posting, the participants assert that their online language and rhetoric is mostly intended as a joke, and thus, there are no true ‘victims’ of this behavior. Sykes and Matza’s (1957) initially asserted that this technique is used to justify the harm done to a victim, suggesting, ‘The injury, it may be claimed, is not really an injury; rather, it is a form of rightful retaliation or punishment’ (p. 668). However, as it applies to incels, this technique is not used to make the case that victims are worthy of said punishment. Instead, the participants suggest that there are not, in fact, victims, as the joking or humorous nature of the shit-posting serves to create in-groups and out-groups, amuse other users, and embrace the nature of anonymity.

It’s annoying and harmful

Of particular interest among the participants is the notion that shit-posting and vile content is annoying or bothersome. Half of the respondents (n = 7) argued that the abusive, negative, and ‘stupid’ nature of some of the sites have led them away from many popular groups. Matt explains,

I’m not a member of the forums. I have taken some trips there to see the *actual* incels. I wouldn’t say they left a positive impression. I could maybe visit again, but very extreme. I’m more interested in hearing anything of value they’d have to say – that is, thoughtfulness – rather than ‘shitposting.’

Nick shared that he does not visit the sites often, because, as he says, ‘It’s just the quality level of the posts is too low.’

K felt the same way after spending time in the forums, pointing out that the content became either repetitive or ‘crazy’:

I used to [visit the forums] but very irregularly. Like there was a time where I, like, looked in every week, couple of times every week, but nowadays I haven’t because I’m at the point where I’m seeing that the [popular forum] is nothing other than a place where the loudest voices just scream and everybody is there to just appease their curiosity or have a laugh with people writing extremely crazy things or funny things or jus treading about stories to confirm the blackpill knowledge. So, at this point, what I’m seeing on the forum is just things repeating themselves.

Other participants had more visceral responses to the content on forums, including the most popular. As the previous theme described, some had concerns about the way that they perceive shit-posting is used to generalize about attitudes and beliefs about all incels. In the same way, Steven expressed his extreme frustration with the shit-posting, saying,

It’s always annoying when normies use posts from [the popular forum] to make us all look like monsters. I don’t understand why some incels like getting hate from people. It’s stupid because everyone will use that one edgelord who’s saying fucked shit to make me and everyone else look like that.

John (who did not provide his age) referred to the popular forum to express his disdain with their content. He explained, ‘I think most of the people [on that site] are sociopaths or otherwise anti-social. I don’t like anything about that forum.’ In this sense, he did not necessarily view all (but some) of the content as being shit-posting, but true content that is indicative of more deep-seated issues and extreme political views. This, in turn, hampered his ability to derive meaning and relationships from the forum. As he shared, ‘I tried to find friends in that forum, but most of them were abusive. Lots of trolls and extreme right-wing ideologues.’

Related to posts about violence, Steven said that he does not believe people who write posts about incel attackers (such as the Toronto van attacker or the Isla Vista shooter) and argued, ‘They think they’re being edgy and cool, but it’s lame and embarrassing and makes us all look bad.’ Similarly, Decline (27) also indicated that such shit-posting can be harmful to all incels, saying, ‘ … parts of the incel community (e.g., [the popular forum]) deliberately play up that image, elevating and encouraging those voices, and hand it on a plate to anyone looking for examples to point to.’ Simon, however, shared his frustration about non-incels’ reactions to shit-posting, arguing, ‘Lots of people assume the worst about incels because of some shit-posts or controversial things, and then bash on incels and then wonder why they’re jaded or angry.’

Finally, while Literally shared that he felt like he was not accepted in the popular forum due to his disagreement with (and refusal to accept) the blackpill, he also found the content and interactions concerning, summarizing it succinctly: ‘Long story short, I think some people have gone off the deep end and other people are enabling them.’

Generally, many participants found the negative content (whether intended to be shit-posting or not) to be a distraction that ultimately keeps them away from the online forums, including the most popular, with some choosing to participate in Discord chats and groups instead. Though they have visited or spent time in these spaces, they find the posts to be annoying, in that they are repetitive, anti-social and abusive, or not thoughtful enough to be interesting. Given that some hoped the space would be intellectual to learn about their situations (as described in the ‘purpose of the forums’ section), they were disappointed that the content seems to be overrun with the more negative posts and threads.

It’s not even us posting

Four of the participants shared their skepticism about who is actually posting the negative content whether it is people from an anti-incel forum, commonly referred to as IT,¹⁰ or others who are not truly incels. This explanation aligns with Sykes and Matza’s (1957) first technique, denial of responsibility, though the original intention of this theme focused on the sociological or external factors that may influence someone to commit delinquent acts. However, related to incels and shit-posting, these four participants note that non-incels are, in fact, those who are doing the most shit-posting. While this is the least commonly noted explanation among the participants, it reflects the notion of ‘learning to view himself as more acted upon than acting’ (Sykes and Matza 1957, 667). Even if some non-incels or members of IT are shit-posting to represent incels poorly, it may not justify the use of shit-posting among self-identified incels, but it certainly warrants discussion.

Literally suggested that some of the people who post may even be non-incels or people who are simply seeking out opportunities to say vile things. He explained, ‘Lots of the very vocal people on incel chats I believe are men with no problem having sex or relationships and are just angry evil people.’ Nick shared the same sentiment, saying:

Not everyone there is even incel. Like there are people who are not incel and they just get on and they think it’s funny to say some incel type stuff and post memes, and they have been exposed as not being incel.

Frail agreed, specifically calling into question research that uses forum content for analysis. He stated, ‘[There’s] so much potential for poisoned data. A lot of people on Reddit are just “normies” who larp [live action role play] as incels for fun, are deluded, or just trying to false flag.’

Steven even doubted the legitimacy of those who are posting, comparing those who may have had a singular negative experience with dating to those like him who are lifelong incels with a more negative trajectory (also known as ‘truecels’). He argued, ‘From what I see, most of the shit-posters are under 20 and aren’t even really incels. The fuckers get pissed off because Stacy don’t want to fuck them, and they think they’re incel now.’

Two participants specifically named IT as those who were posting controversial content in private spaces to try to make incels look bad or get them arrested. Steven explained:

I was told by other incels that people from IT were posting [illegal content] on incel Discord servers to get them in trouble. IT are the true monsters in the story, but the media and people don’t want to believe it because it might make incels look good. When I see so-called incels talking about rape or killing women, I automatically think it’s an IT asshole or someone else trying to bait incels into saying something to get reported.

Though he discussed it, Literally did not feel this false flagging was as pervasive compared to Steven’s perspective. As he stated, ‘I think the overwhelming majority are actual incels, and then maybe a sprinkle of people from places like [IT] going on incel places to make their own posts like a fireman starting fires.’

Frail similarly suggested that people do this, although he did not specifically name IT. He shared:

I’d certainly find it appropriate for it to be made known that people do this stuff just to fuck with us. We catch false flaggers all the time. A good chunk of the outrageous content is self-made by people who just want to stir the pot, poison the well … I think it’s an important detail to make clear to people. That not everything they see is just us. It’s regular people who think they’re better than us posting the same stuff they claim to dislike so much.

He also noted that he has found many people who do this to ‘tarnish and misrepresent’ and pointed to many others who have been discovered in other groups.

These comments indicate that there is notable concern among participants that the vilest content may not, in fact, be posted by those who are ‘true’ incels. Instead, they expressed skepticism, pointing out that it may be people who are simply looking to share controversial content somewhere or even those who are trying to make incels look more violent, misogynist, or even criminal.

Discussion

In sum, there were important themes that emerged from this research. In response to the first issue—the purpose of shit-posting and negative online behavior in online incel spaces—we found that some incels considered this behavior a form of attention-seeking (n = 4), particularly as a function of how the internet rewards extreme behavior in the form of likes, replies, and shares. While this has not been specifically examined in incel research, it confirms existing research about trolling, shit-posting, and other negative behaviors in various online spaces. For example, in their interviews with trolls, Shachaf and Hara (2010) found that ‘Trolling satisfies needs for attention or achievement, and even recognition, by affecting the actions … of other users’ (p. 365), and this is especially important considering the nature of online behavior in a competitive attention economy (Davis and Graham 2021).

While some participants focused on the attention-based nature of shit-posting, more (n = 10) considered it a form of play or a joke, supporting prior research (Buckels, Trapnell, and Paulhus 2014, 2018; March and Marrington 2019). Incels, it seems, are in on the joke, although none explicitly stated it as such, save for Frail who suggested that this ‘joke’ differentiated between insiders who ‘get it’ (Nagle 2017) and outsiders or non-incels. This supports the second author’s exploratory research on trolling. The findings may also provide early confirmation of previous research (that is again, however, not related specifically to incels) that found that ‘an individual’s gender is related to their reaction behavior, while a troll’s gender relates to public perception of trolling and motivation’ (Fichman and Sanfilippo 2015, 177), with study subjects viewing male trolls as more malevolent or joking.

Interestingly, in addressing the second issue—how incels explain, justify, or interpret shit-posting in these spaces—they offered other explanations for this behavior, including the pervasiveness of trolling and shit-posting in other non-incel spaces. Reminiscent of one of the five techniques of neutralization (Sykes and Matza 1957), some participants (n = 5) pointed to other people’s online behavior to justify or excuse their own. As they state, ‘The validity of this jaundiced viewpoint is not so important as its function in turning back or deflecting the negative sanctions attached to violations of the norm’ (Sykes and Matza 1957, 668).

Half of the participants (n = 7) justified some of the negative behaviors as being rooted in some truth or a reflection of some underlying emotions. Related to the former, they indicated that they were able to discern or seek out some partial ‘truths’ that may or may not be rooted in scientific evidence, such as the role of physical attractiveness in mating (see, for example, Walster et al. 1966; or the more recent Bruch and Newman 2018). Others pointed to negative emotions as being one of the reasons for outlandish or hostile online behavior. While it does not excuse or condone the behavior, it certainly provides a foundation for understanding how participants explained the shit-posting and trolling. This explanation also aligns with existing research about how loneliness can lead to aggression, especially in terms of hostility toward women (Check, Perlman, and Malamuth 1985; Dutton and Karakanta 2013), and more current studies that found that a ‘bad mood induces trolling’ (Cheng et al. 2017, 1226).

Finally, the last two themes, ‘It’s annoying and harmful’ and ‘It’s not even us posting’ present new information about incel perspectives on the vile online content. Although this does not directly support the exploratory research – that shit-posting is done to create in-groups – it does support the hypothesis that shit-posting is deeply tied to group membership and can even create a feeling of group threat (Stephan et al. 2009) when used to discredit a group. While many of the existing content analyses examine themes among the forums, none to date that we are aware of address the fact that many incel users may not appreciate—or even actively dislike—the shit-posting or trolling behavior. Half of the participants (n = 7) argue that such posts are annoying in that they reflect poorly on all incels, and for some, it has led them to leave popular forums and seek out other alternatives, such as private Discord groups. In the future, this may be used as a potential disengagement or deradicalization tool to move participants away from the group and help them to find more positive outlets for their concerns.

Some research has examined the watchdog group named (or alluded to) by three participants. Dynel (2020) examined this subreddit, finding that they engage in the disparagement of incels through ridicule, mockery, and parody that she calls ‘disparagement humour.’ Some of this includes deception and interactions with incels, and Dynel (2020) notes ‘the discourse of trolls [in this case, the members of this vigilante group] acting as incels’ (p. 13). This is the only research of which we are aware that acknowledges incels’ perspectives about non-incels potentially infiltrating incel forums and posting negative comments to reflect poorly incels. However, it is also important to note that other participants (n = 4) suggested that it is not necessarily members of this vigilante group, but rather other people who visit forums to just post vile content or have simply misinterpreted singular events rather than being true incels.

Finally, the first, fourth, and sixth themes (not just us, just a joke, and not us posting) reflect many notions of Sykes and Matza’s (1957) techniques of neutralization. While shit-posting behavior may not be criminal or delinquent, some may view it as deviant, harmful, and running afoul of societal expectations. The findings from these interviews align with similar existing research that conducted interviews with incels, in which Sugiura (2021) noted, ‘Irony is a way to deny responsibility for what is being said, thus removing them from any harms caused’ (p. 195), though she noted that most incels that she interviewed were not seeking absolution for their shit-posting, as they felt that they were simply explaining their behavior as humor.

Broadly speaking, this use of qualitative interview and analysis techniques allowed for an investigation and exploration of attitudes related to online behaviors. As researchers in a variety of fields continue to rely on online content as a representation of behaviors and experiences, it is important to offer context and nuance related to differences between online and ‘irl’ (in real life) actions. Digital ethnography and content analyses will undoubtedly continue to be an important and critical piece in understanding the role of online forums as they related to deviant, criminal, terrorist, or extremist groups. While we hope that these studies and insights will provide a better understanding of some incels’ attitudes about their concerning online content, we also believe that similar interrogations of other groups (e.g., white supremacists, etc.) will yield interesting and meaningful results. As such, this nested model of using interview techniques to supplement and support digital ethnographies and online content analyses can continue to highlight ways in which people consume such research and apply it to threat and risk assessment in a practical, effective way.

Limitations

The body of knowledge that includes direct research with incels is continuing to grow, but there are still notable limitations related to this approach. Primarily, the sample size is still relatively small, although the interviews reached saturation and provided insights related to shit-posting and behavior. Similarly, the small sample size limited the ability to categorize or compare responses based on any number of characteristics such as race, location, or status in the community. Future studies that include more interviews or gather demographic data will allow for more in-depth comparisons.

Another limitation of this study is the ability to validate the responses or explanations that the participants provided. For example, when the participants suggested that members of IT or non-incels are shit-posting to cast incels in a negative light, the interviewer did not ask for definitive proof (although some forum threads may provide it). Likewise, there is no true way to discern the it’s just a joke attitude, as a participant may have offered this as an explanation while simultaneously believing and posting heinous content. However, as qualitative researchers who have built and cultivated trusting professional relationships (for a personal, reflexive discussion of experiences with interview participants, see Daly 2022), we have simply gathered the data and analyzed it to report the emergent themes and explanations for shit-posting.

Implications for future research and policy

In sum, this research has clear implications for future research and policy. First, this may help to highlight both the usefulness and limitations of content analyses that rely on data from incel forums. It is certainly not to say that such research is not valuable, meaningful, or important in understanding online incel spaces, but this is simply arguing that this type of methodological approach comes with a caveat. While Witt (2020) argues that research cannot and should not aim to discern the seriousness of the posts or consider the joking nature of the content, it is important to apply a shit-posting and trolling lens through which we examine forums and interpret the related research. Moreover, this study also suggests that additional research is needed to engage with the most hateful of trolls or shit-posters to better understand the purpose and function of such behaviors. We want to recognize the difficulties of this recommendation, as it is certainly hindered by the ethics of covert research, the gatekeeping of the forums (which may specifically ban researchers), and the general skepticism of journalists and researchers (Daly 2022).

Future research may also consider variations in responses based on location, length of time in the incel community, status (e.g., administrator/moderator, user, etc.), race, and more. As an exploratory study, we aimed to identify the broad, overarching themes related to incels and shit-posting. This, in addition to the limited sample size and the desire to build a trusting relationship with participants, it seemed prudent to refrain from disaggregating based on specific characteristics, but future research should consider comparing beliefs and attitudes based on any number of these.

Finally, from an applied perspective, it is important to find ways to discern legitimate threats from shit-posting. While the studies described in this manuscript may not be criminological in their initial scope, it can provide meaningful context for existing criminological and criminal justice research that may inform law enforcement agencies’ prevention and intervention measures, especially given their growing concern about incel-related violence. We are also sensitive to the concern about discussions of mass murder, sexual violence, and more, as well as the challenges of sorting threats from venting emotion of posting ‘for the lolz.’ While some of the participants discussed the ways that forums moderate and ban the most extreme, illegal posts that incite or suggest violence, this is clearly an insufficient way to manage and mitigate these threats.

From both a research and policy perspective, there is a clear need to understand how to evaluate and consider controversial and threatening posts. One participant in this study, Nick, shared his way of discerning the ‘jokes’ from the serious issues, saying, ‘You just need to know. There’s not obvious way, right? Someone’s writing like a huge, long post and they’re probably not joking, because when people are making jokes, they don’t want to put that much effort into it.’ While this is clearly not a perfect science and may be reductionist in its approach, it may serve as an initial understanding for practitioners and researchers to find ways to discern shit-posting and trolling behaviors. Further, it aligns with Simi and Windisch’s (2020) work on violent speech in which they evaluated language in white supremacist spaces. In their article, they highlighted the two competing perspectives (violent talk or rhetoric may increase the likelihood of violence and that it may serve as a substitute for violent behavior), concluding that ‘violent talk clearly plays an important role in terms of fomenting actual violence, but there is, nonetheless, an important distinction between talking and doing that can be overlooked when the words are … offensive’ (p. 11). Such language and spaces—and subsequent research related to them—thus require further research and analysis to identify better ways to assess threats and prevent violence. Researchers, practitioners, and others across a variety of fields and disciplines then must recognize the imminent and urgent need to evaluate what we see in incel forums and find ways to navigate and understand these often-toxic spaces.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have influenced the work reported in this article.

Notes

1. Examples of such attacks and threats associated with incels include the 2014 Isla Vista shooting, the Toronto van attack and Tallahassee yoga shooting (both in 2018), knife and machete attacks in Canada in 2019 and 2020, respectively, the 2019 Joker movie concerns, and the foiled 2020 bomb attack in which a Virginia man planned to kill cheerleaders.

2. While there are a limited number of quantitative approaches (e.g., Morton et al. 2021; Scaptura & Boyle, 2019; Speckhard et al. 2021), they are not included in this literature review for purposes of space.

3. We specifically selected and applied this definition for two reasons; first, it highlights the idea of oppositional or contrary forms of engagement and rhetoric, which distinguished those who use it from those who expect civil or respectful behavior. Secondly, it speaks to the notion of the quality (simple or poor) of and anarchy created by these types of posts. Specifically, however, we wanted to use this idea of shit-posting rather than trolling (and its associated definitions), because, while the Golf-Papez and Veer (2017) definition of trolling is certainly accurate, we were unsure if this was, in fact, the true nature and purpose of online discourse in this context. Shit-posting, then, is the more specific tool or content (the internet interaction), while trolling speaks more broadly to the function of the behavior and the person (troll) who is doing or using shit-posting to achieve a goal. While we use discuss trolling and shit-posting in the subsequent literature review, we also solely use ‘shit-posting’ for the context of the study.

4. For a more detailed description of the research process, including the challenges and successes of interviewing incels, see <REDACTED FOR REVIEW>.

5. All qualitative research methodologies benefit from an examination of the researchers’ positionality and reflexive practices to understand how identities shape interpretation of the data (Barrett, Kajamaa, and Johnston 2020; McCorkel and Meyers 2003; Naples 2003). We recognize and value this, but in the interest of space, we decided to forego this discussion in this article. For a more thorough evaluation of the ways that identities both influence and are influenced by our personal characteristics, especially related to incel research, see <REDACTED FOR REVIEW>.

6. The blackpill is defined in a number of ways across research (see, for example, Ging 2019; Glace, Dover, and Zatkin 2021; Preston, Halpin, and Maguire 2021). While we value these contributions and interpretations, we use the Daly and Reed (2022) definition, as it was derived from and elucidated by incel participants, ultimately asserting the blackpill is ‘the acceptance of scientific evidence that looks are the most important factor in mating’ (p. 15).

7. In 2019, the release of Todd Phillips’ Batman villain movie created controversy, particularly in the context of the 2012 Aurora theater shooting as well as the nature of the film which arguably glorified violence as a result of marginalization (Bundel 2019). In addition, the United States Army reported on ‘credible threats’ of ‘crazed “incel” extremists’ planning shootings at screenings of the movie (Eustachewich 2019).

8. Chad is a term used to represent men who embody the most masculine characteristics, including physical attractiveness, strength, popularity, and promiscuity. It derives from an internet meme which portrays a cartoonish depiction of this ‘ideal’ man, commonly known as Chad Thundercock.

9. ‘Currycel’ is a term used to describe an incel of Indian or South Asian descent.

10. We elected to not use official names for popular forums (for incel and vigilante groups) to avoid promoting them or bringing further traffic to their sites.

11. Age at which the first interview took place.

12. Referred by K.

13. Referred by Frail.

14. Average of the 10 participants who provided their specific age.