A growing subset of the online incel community is steering away from direct activism around romantic relationships and toward disengagement from education and work. This shift—often described through the Blackpill framework—represents a broader challenge: when nihilistic beliefs about looks and genetics supersede efforts to participate in society, a notable segment of young men may opt out of schooling and employment. The phenomenon is not simply a fringe curiosity; it intersects with how many boys and men experience contemporary life, and it demands careful, evidence-based attention to prevention and support. The following analysis synthesizes recent research into how the incel ecosystem operates, what drives some members toward active withdrawal from work or study, and what kinds of interventions might realistically reduce risk while acknowledging the humanity of those involved.
The landscape of the manosphere: Redpill, Blackpill, and the rise of NEET disengagement
The online incel phenomenon sits within a broader, loosely connected constellation known as the manosphere. Within this sphere, ideologies diverge significantly, and it is a mistake to treat it as a single, unified movement. Proponents of the Redpill philosophy tend to emphasize a bifurcated social order in which women are perceived as seeking hypermasculine partners and men must pursue self-improvement as a path to greater social and romantic success. In this framing, self-enhancement is seen as a rational strategy: refine one’s physique, career, and social skills to improve one’s standing in what some describe as a competitive “sexual marketplace.” Supporters of Redpill frequently argue that disciplined self-improvement can translate into better dating prospects and more robust life outcomes, at least in theory, even if outcomes vary in practice.
By contrast, the Blackpill faction is markedly more nihilistic. Rather than embracing alpha-male myths or aggressive self-improvement, Blackpill adherents contend that dating success and overall life satisfaction are largely immutable, dictated by inborn attributes such as appearance or genetics. From this vantage point, there is little to be gained from pursuing conventional pathways to success, since those efforts are believed to be ineffective or futile. The Blackpill worldview often rejects the premise that effort alone can overturn structural disadvantages, leading some adherents to conclude that traditional avenues of advancement—education, employment, and social integration—are not worth pursuing.
Within this spectrum, it is important to note that the incel community is a minority within the wider manosphere. Nevertheless, the subset that gravitates toward Blackpill ideology appears to be disproportionately represented in many discussions. The public-facing narrative often foregrounds misogyny and hostility toward women, yet researchers emphasize that the political and social dynamics of these online spaces are complex and multilayered. While there is overlap among different groups—such as some who veer into extreme misogynistic rhetoric—genuine distinctions exist in aims, attitudes, and potential intervention strategies. Analysts caution against conflating every incel with every other actor within the broader movement, because policy responses and prevention efforts may differ markedly depending on whether individuals are drawn toward Redpill or Blackpill narratives.
A central concept in this discourse is the term Soyciety, used within incel communities to describe contemporary social arrangements—where education, employment, and social life are organized in ways that participants often perceive as hostile or inaccessible to them. While NEET—Not in Education, Employment, or Training—captures a concrete status, it also signals a broader disengagement from civic and social participation. The pattern is not simply about romantic life; it encompasses how young men relate to schools, workplaces, and the broader fabric of society. As the community grows and evolves, the discussion widens from intimate relationships to the structural and cultural forces that shape opportunity and belonging. This broader framing is essential for understanding why some individuals gravitate toward withdrawal, even when other peers pursue education and work without apparent impediment.
In this context, it is crucial to recognize that the incel phenomenon is not confined to online forums alone. The online environment functions as a space where identities are formed, validated, and reinforced. For many participants, the digital world offers a sense of belonging that they may not find in offline settings. The social dynamics of group identity—how people bond, share grievances, and police boundaries—play a critical role in shaping attitudes toward work, education, and social participation. The result can be a self-reinforcing loop in which withdrawal from real-world activities becomes a marker of group identity and a focal point of personal meaning.
NEET and the concept of Soyciety: disengagement as a social issue
A key thread running through the discourse is the way in which disengagement from education and employment becomes intertwined with personal identity and collective rhetoric. The term NEET is not merely a label for a status; it can function as a framework through which individuals interpret their life course. When a segment of the incel community frames life outcomes as predetermined by appearance or genetics, the incentive to pursue conventional routes—such as finishing school, entering the workforce, or building professional networks—can erode. This erosion is not simply a personal choice; it is influenced by peer norms, perceived social norms, and the psychosocial environment of online communities where there’s sometimes strong pressure to minimize or even reject concrete contributions to society.
The data show that NEET is not a universal stockphrase adopted by all incels, but rather a prevalent orientation within a substantial subset. The adoption of the NEET stance is linked to a broader sense of disenfranchisement that extends beyond personal life satisfaction into education and employment. The shift from focusing primarily on romantic prospects to a broader disengagement emphasizes how ideologies inside the manosphere can reframe individual incentives. When social or economic conditions intersect with narratives that emphasize inevitability and lack of agency, it is plausible for more individuals to withdraw from school or work as a form of reactive coping or as a statement of identity.
The conversation around NEET and Soyciety also intersects with wider cultural debates about how markets, institutions, and communities support or fail young men. Some observers argue that a lack of supportive structures—mentoring, inclusive educational pathways, accessible mental health services, and real-world social networks—contributes to a sense of alienation. Others contend that the issue is not rooted solely in external conditions but in the interpretive frameworks individuals adopt to make sense of their experiences. The research makes clear that these factors are not mutually exclusive; rather, they interact in ways that can reinforce a self-perpetuating cycle of withdrawal if not countered by proactive, evidence-based approaches.
For policymakers, educators, and mental health professionals, the challenge lies in acknowledging the legitimacy of concerns raised within online spaces while offering constructive paths forward. It is not sufficient to condemn or ban online spaces; the more durable solution may involve creating opportunities for real-world engagement, improving digital literacy, and cultivating supportive environments that validate struggle without endorsing harmful ideologies. Importantly, the discourse emphasizes that the welfare of women and girls does not have to be at odds with recognizing that some young men are also struggling. A balanced approach seeks to safeguard the well-being of all groups and to identify practical interventions that reduce risk while promoting inclusion.
Data source and methodology: tracing conversation in a dedicated incel forum
To understand the dynamics at play, researchers turned to a data source that was widely used by the community and accessible to the public. The team selected a prominent incel forum with a large membership to examine patterns of discussion, language, and sentiment. The forum’s public nature facilitated a straightforward data collection process that could be replicated in future studies, which is important for advancing the field in a transparent, methodical way.
The researchers employed programmatic scraping techniques to gather a broad swath of conversations. Over a defined period, they collected thousands of discussion threads spanning hundreds of pages. A preliminary pass identified a core set of keywords that recurred across threads, signaling common concerns and themes. Examples of these frequently observed terms included “study,” “school,” “NEET,” “job,” “work,” “money,” “career,” “wage,” “employ,” and a phrase that brevity often hides behind—“rot.” The latter phrase reflects the frequent usage of a particular negative expression describing stagnation or decline. Analysts observed that a distinctive phrase—a variant of “lie down and rot”—appeared repeatedly, signaling a pervasive mood within the discourse.
With this keyword-driven approach, the researchers narrowed the dataset to threads whose titles contained one or more of the identified terms. From this refined corpus, they selected a representative subset for deeper qualitative analysis. The final sample included hundreds of individual discussion threads and thousands of comments. The analysis sought to uncover recurring patterns, tensions, and contradictions in how participants talked about work, education, and social belonging, as well as how they framed their own sense of identity within the group.
From the initial pool, the researchers identified four principal themes that dominated the conversations. These themes encompassed both the content of arguments and the social dynamics that shaped how debates unfolded, including how members policed boundaries, how they framed discrimination, and how they discussed experiences of harassment or marginalization.
The study also acknowledged several important caveats. First, focusing on a single forum limits generalizability; other platforms may host different norms, languages, and dynamics that could shift conclusions. Second, there is a possibility of selection bias: not every member contributes to discussion threads, and “lurkers” may not be captured in the data in the same way as active participants. Third, the sample may overrepresent those who are more engaged in online discourse, potentially skewing the portrait of incel communities as a whole. Despite these limitations, the researchers note that their findings align with prior work suggesting a disproportionate presence of NEETs within incel circles and that the observed dynamics plausibly reflect broader patterns in similar online spaces.
The analytic process was designed to be systematic and transparent. After the initial keyword screening, researchers applied a structured sampling approach to ensure a manageable yet representative subset for close reading and thematic coding. Through iterative review of the threads and comments, four persistent themes emerged as central to the online discussions: political and ideological arguments about NEET status, boundary policing within the community, perceived discrimination in dating and employment markets, and experiences of bullying and marginalization. The themes were not isolated silos; they interacted in complex ways that often reinforced a shared identity around non-participation in traditional social structures.
In addition to content analysis, the researchers observed patterns of rhetoric that indicated how participants negotiated their sense of self within the group. For instance, the alliance among those who embraced NEET status could be reinforced by mutual assurances that they were unjustly treated by society, thereby legitimizing withdrawal as a form of protest. Conversely, collective pushback against the NEET lifestyle occasionally surfaced as a counter-narrative—urging members to re-engage with school or work and to test as-yet unfulfilled potential. The tension between these forces—withdrawal vs. reintegration—shaped the tone and trajectory of discussions and has implications for any efforts aimed at prevention or reform.
Finally, the study’s authors emphasized that any attempt to apply these findings must be sensitive to the broader social context, including existing research that shows self-harm and violence risks in some incel populations—and the fact that those risks are often directed toward themselves as well as others. The human dimension is central: even as researchers categorize discourse and identify patterns, they insist on recognizing the fundamental humanity and suffering that can underlie these beliefs. This is not to excuse harmful rhetoric or behavior but to inform compassionate, evidence-based approaches that reduce risk and promote healthier pathways for those who struggle with loneliness, depression, and social exclusion.
Four dominant themes in incel discussions
Within the analyzed discussions, four principal themes consistently emerged as the core axes around which conversations revolve. These themes illuminate how participants frame their status, their place in society, and their interactions with others. They also reveal the social mechanics by which a belief system can become a binding identity that informs daily choices, including whether to pursue education or employment.
Political and ideological arguments about NEET status
A substantial portion of the discourse centers on political and ideological rationalizations for remaining NEET or for minimizing one’s contributions to society. In this line of reasoning, some participants advocate relying on public welfare or other social supports as a form of compensation for perceived suffering, arguing that these structures should be leveraged to rebalance social dynamics rather than to encourage personal initiative. Others propose tax avoidance or other exemptions as symbolic actions that resist what they interpret as a social system designed to marginalize or exploit them. The language used in these threads often frames engagement in work or education as unnecessary or even antagonistic to their own interests, with “taking back” agency framed through nonparticipation rather than through productive activity. This rhetorical stance—present in a measurable subset of comments—reflects a broader conviction that conventional pathways to success are either inaccessible or incompatible with their identity and worldview.
Yet, amid this dominant discourse, there exists a countercurrent. A significant minority voices pushback against the glorification of the NEET lifestyle and stipulates concrete, constructive steps for self-improvement. Some posters advocate measurable changes such as leaving the home for social engagement, pursuing study or training, and gradually re-entering the labor market. In their framing, even modest steps—like spending time outdoors, making small career experiments, or seeking opportunities for skill development—are presented as viable routes to regaining personal efficacy and social belonging. This pushback signals that the NEET ideology is not monolithic inside the forum; rather, it coexists with warnings that nonparticipation can become a pervasive trap, potentially eroding self-esteem and social ties over time.
The interaction between these two currents reveals a broader social psychology: group-level narratives can normalize withdrawal while simultaneously creating openings for resilience and reintegration. The diameter between acceptance of NEET status and eagerness to re-engage is navigated through arguments that range from fatalism about social structures to pragmatic appeals for incremental self-improvement. The existence of both poles within the same community underscores the complexity of addressing disengagement, suggesting that interventions must be nuanced and capable of honoring individual experiences while offering realistic pathways toward participation.
Boundary policing within the incel community
A second major theme centers on boundary policing—how the group draws lines between those who are “true” members and those perceived as deviants within the same orbit. This dynamic is particularly salient for individuals who maintain some involvement with work or education. In many online spaces, such members risk being labeled as “fakecels” or disavowed by core members who insist that true incels must eschew conventional forms of contribution to society. The social sanctioning embedded in these debates can intensify a sense of isolation and alienation for those who seek legitimacy through modest or transitional engagements with work or school.
Beckett-Herbert and colleagues highlight that this boundary policing often has a psychosocial dimension. For many young men, online communities serve as one of the few stable social contexts in which they have meaningful interaction. When the group signals that employment and education undermine the incel identity, participants may experience a form of social withdrawal that reinforces the ideology rather than challenging it. The social identity of being part of a persecuted, misunderstood group can become central to self-concept, making it harder to adopt alternative identities that emphasize active participation in society. In such environments, the ideology can become a core source of meaning, reinforcing a self-perception of subhuman status and strengthening the resolve to resist conventional pathways.
From a policy and intervention standpoint, boundary policing presents a challenge: if interventions or prevention efforts target only the content of the ideology without addressing the social needs that membership fulfills, they risk eroding trust and failing to reach those who could benefit most. Effective strategies may require acknowledging the social function of these online spaces for vulnerable individuals while offering safer, more constructive alternatives for community belonging and identity formation. Creating channels for mentorship, offline social networks, and inclusive educational opportunities could help dilute the appeal of exclusive in-group norms that worship withdrawal as a virtue.
Perceived discrimination in dating and employment markets
A third dominant theme concerns the perception that both dating life and career opportunities are characterized by discrimination that disproportionately harms men who do not fit conventional norms. Posters frequently articulate that attractiveness, height, or other physical traits systematically influence hiring outcomes and dating power. While the specific claim varies, the underlying sentiment is consistent: bias in both romantic and professional arenas creates a landscape where certain men feel undervalued, overlooked, or intentionally excluded. The rhetoric often includes comparisons across gender lines, with participants arguing that women or other demographic groups receive advantages in ways that validate hostility toward those perceived as disadvantaged.
Scholars emphasize that, while there is evidence of hiring discrimination based on appearance in some contexts, the empirical literature also shows that biases can operate in complex, overlapping ways that affect different groups in nuanced fashion. For example, some studies suggest that biases based on body weight may impact hiring differently for women than for men, with various factors influencing outcomes across industries and regions. A key insight from the discussions is not a simple tally of wins and losses but a sense of being targeted by social systems that seem to reward a different profile than the one many participants believe applies to them.
This perception of discrimination can reinforce the conviction that traditional routes to success are ill-suited to their circumstances. When combined with the nihilistic logic of the Blackpill, the sense of systemic bias may be used to justify disengagement or to intensify resentment toward social norms that appear to privilege others. For researchers and practitioners, this theme highlights the importance of designing interventions that address perceived injustices while offering evidence-based strategies for navigating job markets and dating landscapes. It also underscores the need for broader social supports, such as fair hiring practices, inclusive workplaces, and anti-bullying policies that do not single out online subcultures for stigma alone.
Bullying, marginalization, and mental health challenges
A fourth prominent theme relates to experiences of harassment, bullying, and broader social marginalization. The forums frequently contain accounts of ongoing harassment—often from other men within the same online environment—and of mental health struggles such as anxiety and depression. Participants describe feeling estranged from school or work, which can perpetuate a cycle of withdrawal and isolation. In some cases, these experiences appear to entrench a sense of alienation that aligns with the overall ethos of the incel community, making it harder to pursue education or employment despite external opportunities.
A notable subgroup within this theme concerns the role of autism spectrum traits. Researchers observed a relatively higher prevalence of autistic individuals among incel participants in prior work, while stressing that autism, in itself, does not equate to violent or misogynistic behavior, and that most autistic people do not identify as incels. The researchers caution that autism, when combined with other mental health challenges such as depression and hopelessness, may render some young men more susceptible to incel ideologies. This nuance is crucial: it reframes risk in a way that avoids stereotyping while acknowledging that neurodiversity can intersect with vulnerability in complex, meaningful ways.
Across these discussions, the themes interact. Harassment can compound feelings of marginalization, while perceived discrimination can intensify the appeal of withdrawal as a protective strategy or form of protest. The presence of mental health concerns adds another layer, emphasizing the urgency of accessible support, early intervention, and community-based resources that can help individuals regain a sense of control and belonging without endorsing harmful beliefs or behaviors.
Lived experiences, empathy, and the limits of study
Several caveats accompany the research findings. Although the analysis draws on a substantial dataset from a high-traffic online forum, it remains a snapshot of a single digital environment. Online forums often amplify extreme voices and may overrepresent the intensity of sentiments compared to offline populations. Additionally, lurkers—participants who consume content without contributing—may not be adequately captured, potentially biasing the portrait of how many individuals are influenced by or engaged with these ideas. The authors note that their findings align with earlier studies suggesting a relatively large proportion of NEETs within incel communities, but they also acknowledge that broader generalizations require careful replication across platforms and cultures.
Despite these limitations, the work offers important signals about how disengagement narratives take hold and spread in online spaces. Importantly, it emphasizes the human dimension of participants: many are navigating loneliness, rejection, and a sense of inadequacy that can be deeply painful. While it is essential to condemn misogyny and any violence associated with these communities, researchers argue for a compassionate approach that does not absolve harmful rhetoric but recognizes that many individuals who subscribe to these beliefs are themselves grappling with significant distress. This dual stance—confronting danger while acknowledging vulnerability—underpins any responsible prevention strategy.
The studies also remind us that prevention is rarely a matter of simply policing speech or banning spaces. Rather, effective intervention seeks to strengthen real-world supports, promote healthy socialization, and provide constructive alternatives to harmful ideologies. This includes expanding access to mental health resources, reducing barriers to education and employment, and improving digital literacy so that young people can critically assess online content and resist unproductive or dangerous narratives. The emphasis on prevention reflects a broader philosophy: addressing root causes—such as isolation, mental health challenges, and inadequate community support—can yield durable benefits beyond any single online subculture.
Prevention, intervention, and practical avenues for change
Intervening with members of online radicalizing communities presents obvious challenges. The echo chambers that online spaces cultivate can make individuals resistant to outside voices, particularly when those voices challenge core beliefs or threaten a sense of belonging. In light of this, researchers reiterate that de-radicalization approaches—long studied in specialized settings—are valuable but require careful, ethically grounded implementation. The practical takeaway is not to erase or suppress spaces but to complement them with proactive, real-world strategies that reduce vulnerability and promote healthier trajectories.
One promising line of action focuses on digital and media literacy. Teaching young people how to critically evaluate online content, recognize manipulation, and understand the mechanics of online persuasion can increase resilience against harmful ideologies. Equally important is managing exposure time and ensuring that individuals have access to diverse, supportive online and offline communities. The goal is to counteract the social emptiness that can drive withdrawal by offering meaningful, accountable avenues for connection, mentorship, and achievement.
Another essential strategy involves expanding opportunities for education, employment, and social integration in ways that are accessible and supportive. For many, the barrier to re-engagement is not only stigma but practical obstacles, such as transportation, scheduling, childcare, or perceived difficulties in navigating modern job markets. By addressing these barriers through targeted programs—such as career counseling, apprenticeship schemes, flexible learning options, and inclusive workplaces—there is a better chance of gradually reintroducing individuals to productive activity while preserving their dignity and sense of agency.
The researchers caution against heavy-handed approaches that stigmatize or ban spaces perceived as dangerous. Instead, they advocate for nuanced interventions that validate the pain and frustration many participants feel while steering them away from harmful rhetoric. This balanced stance requires collaboration among educators, mental health professionals, policymakers, and community leaders to design interventions that respect individual agency while prioritizing safety, inclusion, and well-being.
Humanizing the discourse remains a core ethical principle. While the focus on misogyny, violence risk, and systemic bias is vital, it is equally important to acknowledge the humanity of those attracted to these ideologies. Empathy does not equate to endorsement; rather, it recognizes that suffering, marginalization, and loneliness can push vulnerable individuals toward dangerous or harmful beliefs. By acknowledging this humanity, professionals can craft more effective interventions that address underlying needs—such as connection, respect, and meaningful purpose—without enabling or legitimizing harmful attitudes.
Toward a more hopeful, evidence-based approach
The work underscores a crucial tension: societies must confront the dangers associated with violent or exclusionary ideologies, while also attending to the real-world struggles that can embroider those ideologies into daily life. Solutions that blend accountability with compassion have a better chance of reducing harm over the long term. This means building inclusive communities, expanding access to mental health care, and offering constructive pathways for education and employment that do not punish or ostracize individuals who experience serious life challenges.
Educators, employers, and community organizations play a central role in this effort. By fostering welcoming environments, providing clear expectations, and offering incremental opportunities for success, these institutions can help reverse the drift toward withdrawal. Similarly, media literacy and critical thinking should be integrated into school curricula and youth programs, equipping young people to navigate a complex information landscape and resist nihilistic narratives that may misrepresent their options in life.
The broader takeaway is that addressing the NEET phenomenon within the incel context requires a concerted, multi-pronged approach. It is not enough to condemn harmful rhetoric or to debate theoretical claims about dating markets. Real-world outcomes depend on reducing social isolation, improving access to education and employment, and providing mental health resources that meet people where they are. In doing so, communities can reduce the appeal of withdrawal as a solution and instead offer viable, humane avenues for rebuilding a sense of belonging, purpose, and possibility.
Conclusion
The examination of incel discourse reveals a nuanced landscape in which nihilistic Blackpill beliefs and withdrawal from public life intersect with broader questions of opportunity, belonging, and well-being. While the Redpill and Blackpill frameworks describe distinct ideological orientations, the data indicate that a meaningful and growing subset of the community is embracing disengagement from education and work as a form of coping or protest. This tendency—often expressed through the umbrella term NEET and the broader Soyciety narrative—has implications for both individuals and society, raising concerns about social cohesion, mental health, and safety.
Crucially, the research emphasizes that intervention cannot rely on simple condemnation or the suppression of online spaces. A more effective approach combines digital literacy, supportive real-world networks, and accessible pathways to education and employment, all delivered with a strong ethic of empathy. By acknowledging the humanity of those who feel sidelined, stakeholders can build targeted programs that encourage constructive engagement without validating harmful ideologies. The path forward involves a careful balance: uphold safety and accountability while expanding opportunities for connection, achievement, and resilience. In doing so, communities can reduce the appeal of withdrawal, while offering concrete, compassionate means for young men to re-engage with society and find meaningful purpose in their lives.
