Célibes involuntarios: ¿Terroristas?. Análisis cualitativo del fenómeno “InCel” y discusión conceptual sobre el “terrorismo”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Los Célibes Involuntarios (InCels) son un grupo de varones, reunidos en foros en Internet, que odian fuertemente a las mujeres por rechazar sus acercamientos afectivo-sexuales, a los que ellos creen tener derecho por naturaleza, y a los hombres atractivos y sexualmente activos, que restringen sus posibilidades con las mujeres y los condenan a la soledad. Y desean utilizar la violencia contra todos ellos; siendo que seis InCels ya han asesinado en masa a un total de 27 personas y herido a 43 en Estados Unidos y Canadá entre 2014 y 2019. En este trabajo, se debate la inclusión de este grupo en la categoría de terrorista. Para ello, primero se exponen las controversias y las características definitorias del terrorismo. Después, se realiza un análisis exhaustivo con metodología cualitativa de los asesinatos InCels mediante un revisión de 54 artículos en prensa y de los manifiestos ideológicos publicados por tres perpetradores. Se debate entonces la inclusión de los InCels en la categoría de terroristas, siguiendo los criterios definitorios del terrorismo expuestos en la introducción. Se concluye que los InCels no pueden considerarse hoy día un fenómeno terrorista, pero sí muy parecido, al cumplir cuatro de los seis criterios pero carecer de dos: una intención real de imponer su voluntad a los poderes estatales y un intento de subvertir los principios democráticos fundamentales. Finalmente, se critican los problemas de ética, rigurosidad y utilidad del concepto de terrorismo, proponiendo su abandono, explicitando la esterilidad del debate planteado y privilegiando el estudio de las causas macroestructurales e histórico-individuales específicas a las conductas concretas de los InCels.The Involuntary Celibates (InCels) are a group of men, gathered in forums on the Internet, who strongly hate women since they reject their affective-sexual approaches, to which they believe they are entitled by nature, and attractive and sexually active men, who restrict their possibilities with women and condemn them to loneliness. Inaddition, some of its members wish to use violence against all of them. Six InCels have already carried out mass murders in the United States and Canada, out of which a total of 27 people were killed and 43 injured between 2014 and 2019. In this paper, the inclusion of this group in the category of terrorist is discussed. To do this, the controversias and defining characteristics of terrorism are first exposed. Then, an exhaustive analysis with qualitative methodology of the InCels murders is carried out through a review of 54 press articles and of the ideological manifestos published by three perpetrators. The inclusion of InCels in the category of terrorists is then discussed, following the defining criteria of terrorism set out in the introduction. It is concluded that the InCels cannot be considered today a terrorist phenomenon, but a very similar one, fulfilling four of the six criteria but lacking other two: a real intention to impose their will on the state powers, and an attempt to subvert fundamental democratic principles. Finally, the problems of ethics, rigor and usefulness of the concept of terrorism are criticized, proposing its abandonment, making explicit the sterility of the proposed debate and favoring the study of macrostructural and historicalindividual causes specific to the concrete behaviors of the InCels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".