Negotiating violence in incel online discussions of the Plymouth shooting

Incels (“involuntary celibates”) are an online milieu predominantly comprising young men who have constructed an identity around an inability to form sexual relationships with women. Beliefs about the exact cause of this “inceldom” differ from community to community, and in many cases, person to person, although they are broadly aligned by an opposition to feminism, concern over the issue of “lookism” (the idea that less attractive people are discriminated against), and a belief in a rigidly defined “sexual marketplace”, which is understood to favour women over men. On August 12th 2021 in Plymouth, UK, a violent attack left five dead. The shooter, Jake Davison, is generally understood to have been active in a number of incel communities, and to have used incel terminology in videos and messages he posted online prior to the event. We investigate posts from three prominent incel forums (Incels.is, Lookism.com, Blackpill.club) in the days following the attack. Using critical discourse analysis on the threads about the attack, we explore how it is discussed, the extent to which acts of incel violence are endorsed by incels, and how inceldom is constructed in the discussions about violence. Although incels are commonly portrayed as supporters of violence, our results suggest the reality is more complex. There is no clear consensus in the discussions on whether this was an incel attack, and whether the violence was justified. When violence is portrayed positively in the discussions, it is often justified as something the society at large has earned by ignoring the incels’ suffering, or as a wake-up call to make others realise the direness of their situation. Incels are constructed as victims, and violence is justified as a natural, logical consequence resulting from inceldom, shifting blame away from the attacker and the incel community and portraying them as victims of circumstances. However, many discussants categorically condemn all violence as morally unacceptable and challenge others for justifying it. Many argue against mass violence because it makes the reputation of incels, already poor, even worse. These posts often anticipate increased surveillance of incels communities following the attack, as well as vaguely defined “new laws” that will be introduced to further oppress incels. Finally, the attacker’s appearance is a significant topic of interest in the discussions, and the source of much disagreement. A rigid logic which stresses the importance of appearance is an integral part of the incel ‘blackpill’ ideology, which draws heavily from interpretations of evolutionary psychology. Davisons appearance is important for informing how discussants understand inceldom and victimhood, and how they rationalise violence. It is also important for understanding whether Davison himself was actually an incel, as many estimate the attacker’s appearance to be better than a ‘true’ incel’s. His appearance is invoked in a variety of arguments, and is often used to draw contradictory conclusions, demonstrating the ideological elasticity of this worldview which is often purported by its adherents to be scientific and objective.