Well, the result is the same, but Incel is "involuntarily celibate" so it's a matter of choice in how you got there.
And red pill is not politically correct, it is purely about effectiveness, which irritates some people. But then there are some things that make you go hmmm. For example, one of the widely accepted tenets is that women are predisposed to hook up with sexually attractive men, what we called "studs" in my day (I am also 52), or what they call "Chads" today. This is even at the expense of other more equal relationships, so this is the golden age of dating for attractive men. There are some studies that show the vast majority of women online chase the top 20% of men (kind of a sexual Pareto Principle), whereas men are more inclined to consider comparable partners. This leaves a lot of men without partners, thus "incels". Tinder is more than a dating site, it's a social engineering catalyst.
And you may want to say BS, but consider the empirical evidence. How do you explain this:
For that to be true, a smaller number of men have to be having sex with a larger number of women. So people want to dismiss red pill as misogyny and it does attract some troubled people, but like I said before at its core it's just amoral and empirical.For most of the past three decades, 20-something men and women reported similar rates of sexlessness. But that has changed in recent years. Since 2008, the share of men younger than 30 reporting no sex has nearly tripled, to 28 percent. That's a much steeper increase than the 8 percentage point increase reported among their female peers.
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-per...-a-record-high