Blackpill I hate women for a justiable reason

[reptiles17]

Men are open honest and realistic mother fuckers we aren't idealists we will say to some 1 if he's a 4 out of 10 he's a 4 if he's a 6 we say he's a 6 women don't do that they call themselves and when ever a man rates them below that they get offended and ghost that man or worse if you have the displeasure of working with a female she can take it to HR which is 99 percent female and soy and you can lose your job.

Women command men recieve there's no fairness to this system and your central group are portrayed as terrorists who want to kill all women.

There's not a single bit of empathy or admission that being a ugly man is living hell on this earth.

I use to think the black pill was that looks mattered first that attractive ppl get the most dates I wish that was the case the reality of the situation is if your in the 50 percent or below category you don't even exist on a women's radar and then ppl have the gall to ask why the fuck do incels hate women well what the fuck else are we supposed to hate if we have lung cancer do we blame or do we identify the problem which is the cancer and In this case women

 

[iamsubhuman]

careful bro, this forum actually likes women.

 

[fang]

I have yet to see a decent argument for why women should pay attention to subhumans
You can cry about it being unfair, you can wish for women to pinch their noses and date you, but rhetorically it just seems pointless

 

[reptiles17]

I have yet to see a decent argument for why women should pay attention to subhumans
You can cry about it being unfair, you can wish for women to pinch their noses and date you, but rhetorically it just seems pointless

The argument Is very simple subhumans are rear most guys are average.

2 If most women also fall on a bell shaped curve on looks scale and are at the 4 to 5 range which most men actually are including incels most the time then why the fuck shoudln't she be dating within her own scale why is it she should get higher options for existing but we don't.

Thats common sense give me an objective argument why a 5 to 4 out of 10 women shoudln't be dating there respective looks march

 

[fang]

The argument Is very simple subhumans are rear most guys are average.

2 If most women also fall on a bell shaped curve on looks scale and are at the 4 to 5 range which most men actually are including incels most the time then why the fuck shoudln't she be dating within her own scale why is it she should get higher options for existing but we don't.

Thats common sense give me an objective argument why a 5 to 4 out of 10 women shoudln't be dating there respective looks march

Most men are ugly and are just hard to look at, stop coping with "looksmatch".
Humans weren't made for monogamy and they failed to adapt and stick to it.
Societies from a utilitarian standpoint should solve the sex ratio problem by other means.
I think the excess men are just meant to be a shudraic class serving everyone else.

 

[NoPussyNoTaxes]

Men are open honest and realistic mother fuckers we aren't idealists we will say to some 1 if he's a 4 out of 10 he's a 4 if he's a 6 we say he's a 6 women don't do that they call themselves and when ever a man rates them below that they get offended and ghost that man or worse if you have the displeasure of working with a female she can take it to HR which is 99 percent female and soy and you can lose your job.

Women command men recieve there's no fairness to this system and your central group are portrayed as terrorists who want to kill all women.

There's not a single bit of empathy or admission that being a ugly man is living hell on this earth.

I use to think the black pill was that looks mattered first that attractive ppl get the most dates I wish that was the case the reality of the situation is if your in the 50 percent or below category you don't even exist on a women's radar and then ppl have the gall to ask why the fuck do incels hate women well what the fuck else are we supposed to hate if we have lung cancer do we blame or do we identify the problem which is the cancer and In this case women

You should hate the people that control the system, foids just exploit it. It's like being mad at onlyfans foids when in reality it's the fault of the simps that feed them.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

I have yet to see a decent argument for why women should pay attention to subhumans
You can cry about it being unfair, you can wish for women to pinch their noses and date you, but rhetorically it just seems pointless

I don't want someone who is repulsed by me to date me, I want
-an end to all the lies, from the denial of innate sex differences to the willful ignorance about the darker sides of female sexuality
->as a direct consequence, the reinterpretation of history in which women were the pure, innocent victim and men the evil oppressors also ends
-> another consequence, social norms develope that allow for women to be blamed&shamed for the consequences of their actions/decisions, from children growing up fatherless to free speech going down the drain after they joined the political sphere in mass (looking at stats, it is indeed the female half of the e.g. students who are most in favor of banning opposing views of campus, most likely to say they feel threatened / unsafe because XYZ thought crime has been state out loud, etc.)
-societal recognition of the innate unfairness of sex dynamics / disadvantages of being male
-recognition of men being the ones ultimately creating most of the value, be it in terms of scientific progress, taxes paid, creative expression, you name it, higher male variance means men are overrepresented at the tail ends of most trait distributions
->following that, educational system tailored to the sex actually making the most meaningful use out of what they are taught, instead of some retarded forced equality garbage that disadvantes the ones who will later do the most demanding / impactful work
->as a consequence of the last 2, a partial redirection of support/ recources / sympathy from women to men in general

The list goes on, but by the time all the hypocracies and lies are thrown out, the playing field doesn't look the same anymore.
Women are the most susceptible to social pressure and once the ugly sides of their natural tendencies are out in the open, I suspect some kind of change in behavior will occur in parts of the female population, even if it's just a kinder / more respectful stance towards men as a group.

This kind of changed political climate also is relevant for future legislative decisions, e.g. how to deal with dating apps or sex bots or w/e else comes along next.

And most importantly maybe, it's relevant for how the fertility crisis is dealt with. Right now I'm worried they will just start offering more and more financial incentives for women to have some children, making get impregnated by chad -> get dumped by him -> just get the state to pay for your expenses a real option. Which would effectively kill betabuxxing and make any male below 5-7/10 completly undesirable in every way.
That kind of society isn't stable, when enough (esp young) men are alone, something usually changes, often violently.
And fertility will have to be adressed somehow, just continuing to not have children isn't viable.
With how high female standarts for male looks are, these "subhumans" kinda keep most of society running and finance the handouts women rely on.
We're maybe a decade into the new reality of the dating market. And like two decades into embracing social media as a species. This situation has not proven itself as a stable equilibrium, yet. Stop pretending like this is the way things were always meant to be. The societal model / sexual market you seem to think has no reason to change might be one doomed to collapse in on itself in one way or another. People seem to assume society is always just gonna keep working no matter what, instead of seeing that as something valuable in itself.

Also, it feels weird to see this kind of 'provocative' question everywhere. We don't act that way as a society in any other context. Why do cripples deserve our support or respect? Why do the poor? The sick? Why should anybody care about these disadvantaged people? There is no obvious, direct personal gain in it.

But as a society, our entire value system has this ideal of equality and increasinly equity at its core. You can't keep that value system, open societies eyes to the reality of the modern dating market and also just keep going as is.

I'm not even sure if women want that world. If most men are deemed worthless, most women won't be able to exchange their innate value for a men's created one. Some might be fine staying alone, but AFAIK most still end up settling down sooner or later. By designating a large portion of men as subhumans, you create a large group of women that have to choose between never getting commitement from a man and selling themselfs below market value. Women in large part define themselfs by the quality of partner they are able to tie down. They might not feel happy to have ended up with someone deemed a subhuman by others.

Society has some interest in men being high status in general, women might in some sense also share that interest. By letting men's position drop as low as possible, you might just end up making large parts of society unhappy. While I would never take women's perception to be a reliable meassure of reality, mental problems like permanent anxiety and depression & use of realted medication is at an all time high if the trends havent changed in recent years. Women are more privileged than ever, but I'm not sure that is actually what makes the most of them the happiest.
In addition to all the other problems looming on the horizon.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

You should hate the people that control the system, foids just exploit it. It's like being mad at onlyfans foids when in reality it's the fault of the simps that feed them.

? but the simps that feed them are simply reacting to their innate high sexual drive gifted to them by evolution and the realities of modern tech / dating. Why end the causal chaing exactly there? also, how the fuck are even people on this fucking site advocating for never holding women responsible for anything, ever. responsibility is fundamentally nonsensical, free will doesn't exist. We should hold women accountable / shame them because social pressure and status mean a lot to women as a sex, so applying these tools of societal norm enforcement on them promises real results.

which does not hold true for simps. they already are low status and keep going anyways.

why try to hold drug dealers accountable, they are only using the opportunity druggies ultimately create. mhhh, because it works? why would you only try to get the customer, that just incentives people to get into selling risk free.

 

[NoPussyNoTaxes]

? but the simps that feed them are simply reacting to their innate high sexual drive gifted to them by evolution and the realities of modern tech / dating. Why end the causal chaing exactly there? also, how the fuck are even people on this fucking site advocating for never holding women responsible for anything, ever. responsibility is fundamentally nonsensical, free will doesn't exist. We should hold women accountable / shame them because social pressure and status mean a lot to women as a sex, so applying these tools of societal norm enforcement on them promises real results.

which does not hold true for simps. they already are low status and keep going anyways.

why try to hold drug dealers accountable, they are only using the opportunity druggies ultimately create. mhhh, because it works? why would you only try to get the customer, that just incentives people to get into selling risk free.

All drugs should be legal and freely available. There's nothing wrong with dealing drugs. It's just the government/ jews wants you to think so because they don't want you to have fun/relax.

All simps should stop giving money to women. They know they won't get pussy from the them anyway. It would solve the whole life on easy mode for women.

And women act the way they are because weak males and simps let them act like this. It's the same reason kids don't get as hard punishments as adults - because kids are stupid.

 

[fang]

I don't want someone who is repulsed by me to date me, I want
-an end to all the lies, from the denial of innate sex differences to the willful ignorance about the darker sides of female sexuality
->as a direct consequence, the reinterpretation of history in which women were the pure, innocent victim and men the evil oppressors also ends
-> another consequence, social norms develope that allow for women to be blamed&shamed for the consequences of their actions/decisions, from children growing up fatherless to free speech going down the drain after they joined the political sphere in mass (looking at stats, it is indeed the female half of the e.g. students who are most in favor of banning opposing views of campus, most likely to say they feel threatened / unsafe because XYZ thought crime has been state out loud, etc.)
-societal recognition of the innate unfairness of sex dynamics / disadvantages of being male
-recognition of men being the ones ultimately creating most of the value, be it in terms of scientific progress, taxes paid, creative expression, you name it, higher male variance means men are overrepresented at the tail ends of most trait distributions
->following that, educational system tailored to the sex actually making the most meaningful use out of what they are taught, instead of some retarded forced equality garbage that disadvantes the ones who will later do the most demanding / impactful work
->as a consequence of the last 2, a partial redirection of support/ recources / sympathy from women to men in general

The list goes on, but by the time all the hypocracies and lies are thrown out, the playing field doesn't look the same anymore.
Women are the most susceptible to social pressure and once the ugly sides of their natural tendencies are out in the open, I suspect some kind of change in behavior will occur in parts of the female population, even if it's just a kinder / more respectful stance towards men as a group.

This kind of changed political climate also is relevant for future legislative decisions, e.g. how to deal with dating apps or sex bots or w/e else comes along next.

And most importantly maybe, it's relevant for how the fertility crisis is dealt with. Right now I'm worried they will just start offering more and more financial incentives for women to have some children, making get impregnated by chad -> get dumped by him -> just get the state to pay for your expenses a real option. Which would effectively kill betabuxxing and make any male below 5-7/10 completly undesirable in every way.
That kind of society isn't stable, when enough (esp young) men are alone, something usually changes, often violently.
And fertility will have to be adressed somehow, just continuing to not have children isn't viable.
With how high female standarts for male looks are, these "subhumans" kinda keep most of society running and finance the handouts women rely on.
We're maybe a decade into the new reality of the dating market. And like two decades into embracing social media as a species. This situation has not proven itself as a stable equilibrium, yet. Stop pretending like this is the way things were always meant to be. The societal model / sexual market you seem to think has no reason to change might be one doomed to collapse in on itself in one way or another.

Feels weird to see this kind of question everywhere. We don't act that way as a society in any other context. Why do cripples deserve our support or respect? Why do the poor? The sick? Why should anybody care about these disadvantaged people? There is no obvious, direct personal gain in it.

But as a society, our entire value system has this ideal of equality and increasinly equity at its core. You can't keep that value system, open societies eyes to the reality of the modern dating market and also just keep going as is.

I'm not even sure if women want that world. If most men are deemed worthless, most women won't be able to exchange their innate value for a men's created one. Some might be fine staying alone, but AFAIK most still end up settling down sooner or later. By designating a large portion of men as subhumans, you create a large group of women that have to choose between never getting commitement from a man and selling themselfs below market value.
Society has some interest in men being high status in general, women might in some sense also share that interest. By letting men's position drop as low as possible, you might just end up making large parts of society unhappy. While I would never take women's perception to be a reliable meassure of reality, mental problems like permanent anxiety and depression & use of realted medication is at an all time high if the trends havent changed in recent years. Women are more privileged than ever, but I'm not sure that is actually what makes the most of them the happiest.
In addition to all the other problems looming on the horizon.

1. I don’t think that “blackpill” is this suppressed “truth” when pretty much everyone is aware of it just by the virtue of socialization. We say that beauty is “subjective”, but it’s not meant to be taken literally. Diplomatic talk always wins and in many ways it’s more revealing than just facts being stated clearly. Think of it as a joke where the punchline is “but the opposite is true!” with a wink.
2. Women’s behavior is policed more, they just do a better job of abiding by the rules and suppressing deviant behavior. The debate around free speech is actually a perfect example of that because they’re capable of morally codifying even something as free-flowing as rigorous scientific thought.
3. Gender value calculus is an interesting topic too and I would still be inclined to say that child bearing and rearing throws a wrench into that. A birthing person is just worth more from an evolutionary standpoint, especially in a species with a life history such as ours.
4. It’s hard to say where this experiment with low fertility and a massive redistribution apparatus will lead people to, because, again, there’s just too much to speculate on here. I would say that the modern anti-dictatorship dictatorship turning into society negates any kind of mass politics: we’re alone in our solitude in the endless sea of consumers and employees. There’s simply nothing to oppose in this technocracy.
5. Is this how things are meant to be? In a way, yes. The superfluous mankind, harnessing the cosmic entropy to reach equity by proclaiming universal equality, builds itself by putting black over white, obese over lean, poor over rich, gay over straight—the end result of it being this mass of impotent men incapable of violence seems fitting enough.
6. As you point it out, women are affected by this too because failure tends to spill over. Are women happy? Evidence seems to suggest that it’s not the case, but this is largely a byproduct of increased agency. But then again, they’re not dying to go back and there are still millions of solutions for this that don’t require anything that would resemble the idealized version of the 50s Americana.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

1. I don’t think that “blackpill” is this suppressed “truth” when pretty much everyone is aware of it just by the virtue of socialization. We say that beauty is “subjective”, but it’s not meant to be taken literally. Diplomatic talk always wins and in many ways it’s more revealing than just facts being stated clearly. Think of it as a joke where the punchline is “but the opposite is true!” with a wink.
2. Women’s behavior is policed more, they just do a better job of abiding by the rules and suppressing deviant behavior. The debate around free speech is actually a perfect example of that because they’re capable of morally codifying even something as free-flowing as rigorous scientific thought.
3. Gender value calculus is an interesting topic too and I would still be inclined to say that child bearing and rearing throws a wrench into that. A birthing person is just worth more from an evolutionary standpoint, especially in a species with a life history such as ours.
4. It’s hard to say where this experiment with low fertility and a massive redistribution apparatus will lead people to, because, again, there’s just too much to speculate on here. I would say that the modern anti-dictatorship dictatorship turning into society negates any kind of mass politics: we’re alone in our solitude in the endless sea of consumers and employees. There’s simply nothing to oppose in this technocracy.
5. Is this how things are meant to be? In a way, yes. The superfluous mankind, harnessing the cosmic entropy to reach equity by proclaiming universal equality, builds itself by putting black over white, obese over lean, poor over rich, gay over straight—the end result of it being this mass of impotent men incapable of violence seems fitting enough.
6. As you point it out, women are affected by this too because failure tends to spill over. Are women happy? Evidence seems to suggest that it’s not the case, but this is largely a byproduct of increased agency. But then again, they’re not dying to go back and there are still millions of solutions for this that don’t require anything that would resemble the idealized version of the 50s Americana.

1. Mate, Americans aren't even clearly aware sexual dimorphism applies to humans. The older generations maybe, the next one has grown up immersed in propganda from a young age. Not that long ago the head of some american healthcare related body refused to define what exactly constitutes a 'woman' in front of congress. People know that men & women have differend sex organs, but beyond that any recognition of differences in trait distributions, innate talents, personalities or preferences are mostly either unknown unknowns or carefully ignored unknowns for the majority of young adults and teens.

You can read stories on here about how much it embittered people to find out they had been lied to their entire life. If you think the blackpill, which btw has some directy overlap with race realism, is known and understood by the majority of normies, academics, really any group not directly focused on the topic, I would like to know what you base that on. Even amongst non-woke intellectual twitter, a place filled with race realists, researchers young and old, working in fields that intercept with topics and also with rightwing extremists, I got the very strong impression most people were somewhere between completly unaware and aware, but in denial, when it came to even just the basics of attraction. The idea that normies and 115IQ academic brainlets are all secretly aware of s that they ideologically reject and which have only really gotten as clear as they are now after ~10 year old dating apps collected the data... I just have no reason to believe or suspect that. In a sense, you are judging an entire society guilty of willfully, knowingly pretending to believe something almost no one does and going along with having legislation based on this falsified reality even though they all know it's nothing but lies. Do you really think all the women protesting "gender pay gap" secretly know the dishonesty in what they are protesting, and all the men around them also know, but just no one is saying anything 'cause social pressure? Is that your model for what is happening in America right now?

2. Couldn't disagree more. When a woman is shown to have lied, or been wrong, or behaved manipulative, I do not see them get punished or shamed. Just a bit ago there was a threat on reddit about women showing sympathy to men in misery and there was maybe 1-2 women who said anything that was not 100% hostile blaiming & shaming. One women went so far as to say "good, let these incels kill themselfs". No one even bothered to try and police that type of behavior. Subreddits revolving around females coming together to shit on men as a group are allowed to exist when the male versions of said subs would quickly get shut down. We could go into the justice system and find softer punishments for the same crimes. Or ask if things like false rape accusations are punished in an appropriate manner. If men were refusing their duty to serve society in war like women are refusing to birth a next generation, would society also just go "well, guess that's their choice, good on them!"? Or would men be bombarded with a large scale shame&guilt based mass media campaign to pressure them into doing there part or lose what little social standing they have left? Or would they just be forcedfully recruited if the need arises? I hoenstly could fill pages with all the instances I believe to percieve women getting away with w/e they want with little to no punishment. Not only was there a study showing that people were more willing to believe research that portrait women in a positive light compared to research doing the same for men, the autors of the study itself showcased said bias by initially being hesitant to accept their own results because they weren't totally PC / disagreed with the popular narritive.
In general, a lot of the driving force behind female dominated society were male thinkers and academics, their personalities and predispositions being more relevant than female ones themselfs for how things ended up this way.

Think I'm gonna keep it shorter so this doesnt become unbearable to read.

3. If female worth was determined by their practical relevence to society in the form or "birthing people", women who refuse said duty would lose value and women who embrace it would gain societal respect. That is not what is happening. Women are valued higher because innate pro-female bias amongst men and women, an ideology that has misinterpreted human history and painted men as the unequivocal villains and women as the innocent victims and because men lack group cohesion, making them vulnerable in a battle of group interest.
Evolution is just a mindless process, a mere happenstance, what was evolutionarily most important is only indirectly affecting our societal decision making process.
A hint that your reasoning does not connect with the "why?" behind todays society is that it would work just as well if the roles were reversed: If men were dominating and pushing their interests through with an iron fist, you could just as easily find some evolutionary reason to justify it, such as "evolutionarily, men simply were the ones fighting and taking responsibility and leading the group, society was destined to end up revolving around male interests, it was inevitable!". But it wasn't and it didn't and todays world isn't based purely on 'value' or 'worth' either.

Also, if we just put morals aside, men are obviously capable of just taking what they want from women (individually and as a group). Society begins when male self-interest and desire are subordinate to the stable cooperation as a group. We let the more violent types of men domesticate the american wilderness, and afterwards we went in and hanged all of these men that couldn't let go of their violent ways and adapt to the more orderly city life. Why is it so obviously fine to force men into cooperation with societal interest, even at the threat of death, but women ought to be free to just let our civilisation die out, if they so choose? Where is that heavy policing of female behavior again?


4. People are too comfortable to get up and revolt and most are blinded by propaganda through culture and education. Enough men not getting a girl and the entire basis of the western world view (blank slate, equality, fairness) being exposed as a manipulative powergrabbing lie might just be enough to get people to do something. But yeah, what happens long term is just too complex to give any strong predictions. And my model of the future is dominated by something unrelated anyways, so I would bet against any of this really mattering long term.

5. There is no "meant to be". The universe is 1000% indifferend and never had any plan or intention. It being poetically fitting (which i don't even agree with) is ultimately a shit reason for letting society turn into a hell hole for half the population.
What 'matters' or is 'important' is also not for the universe to decide. How are we any more or less superfluous than the billion trillion bodies of rock and ice flying around out there?
Aren't we, as the only known concious parts of the universe, exactly the opposite of superfluous, aren't we the pieces that 'matter' the most, since to 'matter' requires another to whom the thing that matters is of importance to? If anything, only we can decide what matters. I have no interest in letting an near infinite wasteland of dirt and nothingness make that decision for me.

6. I have never understood that part about people that value "freedom" or "free choice" highly. If women aren't aware of what they are choosing and its long term consequences, and men aren't aware of how the game is rigged against them and how mistreated they are, who exactly is even choosing anything intentionally?
How can there be "choice" or "freedom" without an accurate predictive model of reality informing the decisions made. Otherwise, isn't that just a bunch of instinct driven animals with massively inaccurate world models rolling eyes-closed down a hill in possibility space? How is that desirable or optimal? Why should we just let things continue on like that?

I have no interest in 50s America. Artifical intelligence might cure aging, take over all the unpleasent tasks and create more value than we can consume and, in the long term, allow us to life inside a simulation far more enjoyable than anything reality ever had to offer while it stays outside and keep the lights on.
I'm mostly just interested in keeping things as pleasent as possible for as many people as possible until we either are killed or uplifted by said tech, and also in establishing a more fair model of society based on a more truthful understanding of human nature and history.



Moral narratives have grown ever more powerful in an age of meaninglessness and interconnectedness. I percieve my sex to have a very convincing narrative to tell and a strong collective interest in getting society to embrace it. Yet, the people giving themselfs as moral realists or pragmatists seem rather opposed to even try, claiming no change is possible or even desirable.

Are you sure you have not just adapted an analytical framework that allows you to keep your distance, judging and displaying some intellectual capabilites when the opportunity presents itself, while ultimately not having to undertake any risks or effort?
How come in this unfair shitstain of a society with a world model mostly based on lies the right answer ends up being "everything is just as it ought to be, don't do anything, you have no chance and it's better this way anyhow"? Are you sure you are being objective instead of just reactive + defeatist because it's easy and free? Where is your reasonable, pragmatic self-interest? Why is that something only the opposition is allowed to pursue unapologetically ? If women win by manipulating, why are you against manipulating societal discourse in our favor? Where is the willingness to fight and the desire to help those most like yourself?

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

All drugs should be legal and freely available. There's nothing wrong with dealing drugs. It's just the government/ jews wants you to think so because they don't want you to have fun/relax.

All simps should stop giving money to women. They know they won't get pussy from the them anyway. It would solve the whole life on easy mode for women.

And women act the way they are because weak males and simps let them act like this. It's the same reason kids don't get as hard punishments as adults - because kids are stupid.

No, impulse control is largely genetic and allowing for any and all kind of temptations to be freely available means abandoning all the poor souls who rolled badly in the relevant stats to a life of addiction, self-destructive behavior and misery, dragging anyone close to them along with them into hell.

Simps financing female lifestyle is annoying but you are missing any viable mechnism to enforce such a large scale embargo on simping. Prob the first step would be to get men to see themselfs in a direct conflict of interest with the female sex as a whole. Once ingroup and outgroup are clearly defined and the lines widely accepted, group norms for the own ingroup can be realized through norm enforcement tools such as shame, guilt, blame, exclusion, etc.
Right now being anti-women is low status, it's not something accepted but reviled. So the first step would be to market such a stance, using appealing narritives of equality, unfairness and betrayal to get men as a group riled up against their 'oppressor', using the continuous collapse of male value on the dating market as a rising tide.

 

[Azuregreen1998]

Most men are ugly and are just hard to look at, stop coping with "looksmatch".
Humans weren't made for monogamy and they failed to adapt and stick to it.
Societies from a utilitarian standpoint should solve the sex ratio problem by other means.
I think the excess men are just meant to be a shudraic class serving everyone else.

Are you aware of what all successful civilizations had in common?Your ideas will never build a stable society let alone a peaceful one.What makes you think humans have failed with monogamy?because current degenerate society fails at it?humans weren't meant for a lot of things but we force it down through laws and forced cooperation for a stable society.

You talk about Shudraic class unironically. Which class do you think monogamy was most enforced in throughout the world in all civilizations?Do you think men will just lay down and serve others with no benefit to them?

? but the simps that feed them are simply reacting to their innate high sexual drive gifted to them by evolution and the realities of modern tech / dating. Why end the causal chaing exactly there? also, how the fuck are even people on this fucking site advocating for never holding women responsible for anything, ever. responsibility is fundamentally nonsensical, free will doesn't exist. We should hold women accountable / shame them because social pressure and status mean a lot to women as a sex, so applying these tools of societal norm enforcement on them promises real results.

which does not hold true for simps. they already are low status and keep going anyways.

why try to hold drug dealers accountable, they are only using the opportunity druggies ultimately create. mhhh, because it works? why would you only try to get the customer, that just incentives people to get into selling risk free.

It amazes me too how many people talk about women like they are farm animals with no free will of their own. All men and women,young and old(even children) need to be held accountable. One group not held accountable will lead to an imbalance that will just ruin the entire society.

 

[Lone-Star]

Banned

 

[based_meme]

I don't want someone who is repulsed by me to date me, I want
-an end to all the lies, from the denial of innate sex differences to the willful ignorance about the darker sides of female sexuality
->as a direct consequence, the reinterpretation of history in which women were the pure, innocent victim and men the evil oppressors also ends
-> another consequence, social norms develope that allow for women to be blamed&shamed for the consequences of their actions/decisions, from children growing up fatherless to free speech going down the drain after they joined the political sphere in mass (looking at stats, it is indeed the female half of the e.g. students who are most in favor of banning opposing views of campus, most likely to say they feel threatened / unsafe because XYZ thought crime has been state out loud, etc.)
-societal recognition of the innate unfairness of sex dynamics / disadvantages of being male
-recognition of men being the ones ultimately creating most of the value, be it in terms of scientific progress, taxes paid, creative expression, you name it, higher male variance means men are overrepresented at the tail ends of most trait distributions
->following that, educational system tailored to the sex actually making the most meaningful use out of what they are taught, instead of some retarded forced equality garbage that disadvantes the ones who will later do the most demanding / impactful work
->as a consequence of the last 2, a partial redirection of support/ recources / sympathy from women to men in general

The list goes on, but by the time all the hypocracies and lies are thrown out, the playing field doesn't look the same anymore.
Women are the most susceptible to social pressure and once the ugly sides of their natural tendencies are out in the open, I suspect some kind of change in behavior will occur in parts of the female population, even if it's just a kinder / more respectful stance towards men as a group.

This kind of changed political climate also is relevant for future legislative decisions, e.g. how to deal with dating apps or sex bots or w/e else comes along next.

And most importantly maybe, it's relevant for how the fertility crisis is dealt with. Right now I'm worried they will just start offering more and more financial incentives for women to have some children, making get impregnated by chad -> get dumped by him -> just get the state to pay for your expenses a real option. Which would effectively kill betabuxxing and make any male below 5-7/10 completly undesirable in every way.
That kind of society isn't stable, when enough (esp young) men are alone, something usually changes, often violently.
And fertility will have to be adressed somehow, just continuing to not have children isn't viable.
With how high female standarts for male looks are, these "subhumans" kinda keep most of society running and finance the handouts women rely on.
We're maybe a decade into the new reality of the dating market. And like two decades into embracing social media as a species. This situation has not proven itself as a stable equilibrium, yet. Stop pretending like this is the way things were always meant to be. The societal model / sexual market you seem to think has no reason to change might be one doomed to collapse in on itself in one way or another. People seem to assume society is always just gonna keep working no matter what, instead of seeing that as something valuable in itself.

Also, it feels weird to see this kind of 'provocative' question everywhere. We don't act that way as a society in any other context. Why do cripples deserve our support or respect? Why do the poor? The sick? Why should anybody care about these disadvantaged people? There is no obvious, direct personal gain in it.

But as a society, our entire value system has this ideal of equality and increasinly equity at its core. You can't keep that value system, open societies eyes to the reality of the modern dating market and also just keep going as is.

I'm not even sure if women want that world. If most men are deemed worthless, most women won't be able to exchange their innate value for a men's created one. Some might be fine staying alone, but AFAIK most still end up settling down sooner or later. By designating a large portion of men as subhumans, you create a large group of women that have to choose between never getting commitement from a man and selling themselfs below market value. Women in large part define themselfs by the quality of partner they are able to tie down. They might not feel happy to have ended up with someone deemed a subhuman by others.

Society has some interest in men being high status in general, women might in some sense also share that interest. By letting men's position drop as low as possible, you might just end up making large parts of society unhappy. While I would never take women's perception to be a reliable meassure of reality, mental problems like permanent anxiety and depression & use of realted medication is at an all time high if the trends havent changed in recent years. Women are more privileged than ever, but I'm not sure that is actually what makes the most of them the happiest.
In addition to all the other problems looming on the horizon.

I admire your idealism and understand that tackling the societal problem of inceldom is rooted, in part, in solving problems in men's rights issues, but you're zoomed in and only looking at part of the bigger picture. The current status quo is designed and engineered this way i.e., it's intentional, not an unhappy accident. Look into the underlying reasons for the mess we're in and you might reevaluate your model.

Are you aware of what all successful civilizations had in common?Your ideas will never build a stable society let alone a peaceful one.What makes you think humans have failed with monogamy?because current degenerate society fails at it?humans weren't meant for a lot of things but we force it down through laws and forced cooperation for a stable society.

You talk about Shudraic class unironically. Which class do you think monogamy was most enforced in throughout the world in all civilizations?Do you think men will just lay down and serve others with no benefit to them?


It amazes me too how many people talk about women like they are farm animals with no free will of their own. All men and women,young and old(even children) need to be held accountable. One group not held accountable will lead to an imbalance that will just ruin the entire society.

@OutcompetedByRoomba The user quoted has a point. Your metaphysical assumptions about free will are having a tangible spillover effect in how you're viewing and analyzing the social problems.

Whether or not it exists as some mechanism in reality is largely irrelevant, because we must act like it does. Systems of law and order and the stability of societies and cultures depend on the affirmative, not negative, assumption. This is why the topic of free will is entirely relegated to the realm of philosophy and legal theory, and compartmentalized under something not practically important to factor in, else it would be discussed amongst politicians and laws/policies and would be continuously contested. Nothing would get done otherwise.

115IQ academic brainlets

JFL @ calling 1 SD above the mean brainlets.

In other places you don't put much stock into the value of raw IQ scores, yet here you're clearly demonstrating the opposite. Which is it?

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

The user quoted has a point. Your metaphysical assumptions about free will are having a tangible spillover effect in how you're viewing and analyzing the social problems.

if you read what i wrote again and then the post you quoted, you will see that he and I are saying the same thing. I did not advocate for not holding women accountable, I made fun of that position and argued that we should hold them accountable because it is effective / necessary to improve society and that we should do so despite free will not existing / not matter if it does exist or not.

responsibility is fundamentally nonsensical, free will doesn't exist. We should hold women accountable / shame them because social pressure and status mean a lot to women as a sex, so applying these tools of societal norm enforcement on them promises real results.

JFL @ calling 1 SD above the mean brainlets.

most people below a certain range simply don't engage with intellectual topics and of those of them that do, most don't make it through academia/politics and into positions that allow them to affect the world at large. So, in a sense, there is no risk for them to fuck up societal order through bad thinking because they never get to affect societal oder at scale, only through individual action.

110-120 aka the intellectual danger zone is the lower limit for people to get into these type of positions, meaning that it is the lower end of the spectrum for the people in the field and they are the lowest amongst their peers.
not saying that all people above that are net positives. but they are more likely to be intentionally trying to change society to conform to their own personal preferances / for their own benefit.
people at +1 SD fuck things up not out of malice, but out of incompetence. they are smart enough to think about the bigger picture, but not smart enough to get it right. they are smart enough to create nonsensical but complex arguments about things but not to see through their own motivated reasoning / own faults. and they are easily mislead by smarter people with bad intentions.
to this day The Mismeasure of Man gets quoted again and again by midwit academics, who never caught up with all the ways in which it is dishonest or provably false. they accept the mediocre arguments because they want to believe them and by doing so become human-shaped megaphones, amplifying social desirability and status quo biases.

I think IQ is a solid indicator and below certain values people rarely produce Gedankengut of greater value, but for reasons explained in here, many of the most productive thinkers should be expected to be found noticably below the highest IQ ranges.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Most men are ugly and are just hard to look at, stop coping with "looksmatch".
Humans weren't made for monogamy and they failed to adapt and stick to it.
Societies from a utilitarian standpoint should solve the sex ratio problem by other means.
I think the excess men are just meant to be a shudraic class serving everyone else.

"utilitatrian"
"shudraic class serving everyone else"

'In ethical philosophy, utilitarianism is a family of normative ethical theories that prescribe actions that maximize happiness and well-being for all affected individuals.'

If you're best attempt at maximizing utility is creating a large slave caste, you're a shit utilitarian. Even just going back one or two generations, the religious had a more utilitarian system with socially enforced monogamy.
If women and men are restricted to a very small amount of life time partners, chads will quickly commit to the most attractive girls they can find. Leaving the rest of the women to either stay alone or make it work with their looks match.

Was that a miserable society? Was it more or less utilitarian than the one we have today? I'm not gonna ask if it's more utilitarian than what you proposed, that answers itself.
We stuck to the new normal you embrace so enthusiastically for what, like 60 years? Did it produce a stable, utilitarian society that looks like it will stand the test of time? Are you kidding me?

I don't think men's group interests are very important to you. Everything you argue for is some sort of distopian hellscape for a substantial part of our sex. You seem to take joy in arguing that we should and deserve to suffer.

You use words like "utilitarian" while arguing for abandoning part of our sex to its misery because natural fallacy? Because recency bias? Because making women settle down with men less physcially attractive than they could fuck under complete sexual liberation is an unacceptable price to pay?
If there are two options, one making men more miserable and one making women more miserable, and you would rather see the one making men as a group more miserable be realized, aren't you on the enemy team?

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

I admire your idealism and understand that tackling the societal problem of inceldom is rooted, in part, in solving problems in men's rights issues, but you're zoomed in and only looking at part of the bigger picture. The current status quo is designed and engineered this way i.e., it's intentional, not an unhappy accident. Look into the underlying reasons for the mess we're in and you might reevaluate your model.

I'm not saying my proposal is the only thing that should be done or that it can solve all our problems at large. I'm saying anything that has a real chance to improve our situation should be tried. W/e produces the best results should then be continued.
Despite the mental torture and personal harm that this will mean for the participants, someone should try to push our interests through academia / politics. And if "our interests" are not plausible, then the interests of men as a group might sooner or later become a viable political platform. We don't need to win by dominating, we only need to create enought pressure, until for the powers that be it becomes a more attractive solution to pay us off than to ignore or suppress us.

 

[based_meme]

if you read what i wrote again and then the post you quoted, you will see that he and I are saying the same thing. I did not advocate for not holding women accountable, I made fun of that position and argued that we should hold them accountable because it is effective / necessary to improve society and that we should do so despite free will not existing / not matter if it does exist or not.

I see.

most people below a certain range simply don't engage with intellectual topics and of those of them that do, most don't make it through academia/politics and into positions that allow them to affect the world at large. So, in a sense, there is no risk for them to fuck up societal order through bad thinking because they never get to affect societal oder at scale, only through individual action.

Have you factored in the possibility that they don't need or want to? Perhaps their motivations are aligned elsewhere, instead of making a global impact. There are plenty of very smart people who just don't give a shit about the big questions and would rather moneymaxx and live in peace, and plenty of average people who do and want to become the world's next big thing.

110-120 aka the intellectual danger zone is the lower limit for people to get into these type of positions, meaning that it is the lower end of the spectrum for the people in the field and they are the lowest amongst their peers.
not saying that all people above that are net positives. but they are more likely to be intentionally trying to change society to conform to their own personal preferances / for their own benefit.
people at +1 SD fuck things up not out of malice, but out of incompetence. they are smart enough to think about the bigger picture, but not smart enough to get it right. they are smart enough to create nonsensical but complex arguments about things but not to see through their own motivated reasoning / own faults. and they are easily mislead by smarter people with bad intentions.

You're someone who can appreciate (and I assume properly understand to a fair degree) data. Do you have any data on any of this, or is this all conjecture (not that you couldn't be correct if it was)?

I've always argued that 120-125 is the sweet spot and any higher than that the value of IQ tapers of, as far as life quality and happiness is concerned, but I'll admit I don't have numbers to back up that up.

to this day The Mismeasure of Man gets quoted again and again by midwit academics, who never caught up with all the ways in which it is dishonest or provably false. they accept the mediocre arguments because they want to believe them and by doing so become human-shaped megaphones, amplifying social desirability and status quo biases.

I haven't read it, but I'm vaguely familiar. What are some of the way it's dishonest or provably false?

I think IQ is a solid indicator and below certain values people rarely produce Gedankengut of greater value, but for reasons explained in here, many of the most productive thinkers should be expected to be found noticably below the highest IQ ranges.

Yes, that's exactly what IQ is: an indicator. A strong one, but still an indicator.

 

[IncelsNeverCry]

I have yet to see a decent argument for why women should pay attention to subhumans
You can cry about it being unfair, you can wish for women to pinch their noses and date you, but rhetorically it just seems pointless

Simple, I can murder any woman with my bare hands, the only reason i don't is because I want to operate within the confines of this shitty society, at least for now.

 

[Qadr]

Nothing bad when u hate foids, a Lot of em do exact same and no one gives a shit

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

Have you factored in the possibility that they don't need or want to? Perhaps their motivations are aligned elsewhere, instead of making a global impact. There are plenty of very smart people who just don't give a shit about the big questions and would rather moneymaxx and live in peace

Yeah, there are many smart people with varying interests, but there aren't very many smart people at 90 IQ. People from the left side of the bell curve people aren't just bad at playing politics or writing academic papers, they are also bad at moneymaxxing. Individually they might be better or worse at living in peace (more likely worse giving the realtion of IQ and crime rate), but at scale, nations with high human capital / high IQ populations are more peaceful and prosperous, and living in peace kind of requires a functioning society to live in, so I would argue they suck at that as well.
In a sense, you could test your claim by observing what happens when reality forces these people to care about the big questions, if they want to or not. Do low IQs suddenly rise from their slumber, remake politics in their image and go back to their peaceful way of live afterwards? I don't think that could even be argued. The best they can do is to become a violent, rebellious mob, which is kind of like playing chess by beating your opponent to death. You might win or lose the fight, but you won't prove yourself to be a good chess player either way.

and plenty of average people who do and want to become the world's next big thing

With enough people and enough variation in what is required to be successful, some people who are average in many or all traits will sometimes get lucky . In addition, in many domains intelligence beyond a certain minimum threshold is not very important or even a handicap.

Do you have any data on any of this, or is this all conjecture (not that you couldn't be correct if it was)?

Primarily it is just my experience / observation, which I know has been made by others in differend contexts before. There is probably data out there with which you could make the case. Maybe look at one of the more demanding fields and see if you can find some data on h-index to IQ correlations. Look at what happens with the quality of research as the IQ averages drop below 120 amongst the American college graduates.
Or, maybe more fitting for this forum, look at what kind of fields people with 115 IQ usually end up in vs fields in which people with 130+IQs work in, e.g.:

It's not like 120IQ people aren't sometimes very smart, one of my favorite thinkers tested 125, it's just much less often the case.

I haven't read it, but I'm vaguely familiar. What are some of the way it's dishonest or provably false?

EY. This one is more generally on Gould's scientific reputation. Though the same applies to his claims about intelligence <-> brain size relationships.

Rushton. Quote: "I charge Gould with several counts of scholarly malfeasance. First, he
omits mention of remarkable new discoveries made from Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) that show that
brain-size and IQ correlate about 0.40. These results are as replicable as one will find in the social and behavioral
sciences and utterly destroy many of Gould's arguments. Second, despite published refutations, Gould repeats
verbatim his defamations of character against long deceased individuals. Third, Gould fails to respond to the
numerous empirical studies that show a consistent pattern ofrace differences in IQ, brain size, crime, and other
factors that have appeared since his first edition went to press."

This about his claims on recent evolutionary changes in humans.

He's just generally a fraud and marxist ideologue more so than a scholar or researcher.

 

[based_meme]

Yeah, there are many smart people with varying interests, but there aren't very many smart people at 90 IQ. People from the left side of the bell curve people aren't just bad at playing politics or writing academic papers, they are also bad at moneymaxxing. Individually they might be better or worse at living in peace (more likely worse giving the realtion of IQ and crime rate), but at scale, nations with high human capital / high IQ populations are more peaceful and prosperous, and living in peace kind of requires a functioning society to live in, so I would argue they suck at that as well.
In a sense, you could test your claim by observing what happens when reality forces these people to care about the big questions, if they want to or not. Do low IQs suddenly rise from their slumber, remake politics in their image and go back to their peaceful way of live afterwards? I don't think that could even be argued. The best they can do is to become a violent, rebellious mob, which is kind of like playing chess by beating your opponent to death. You might win or lose the fight, but you won't prove yourself to be a good chess player either way.

This isn't a problem of intelligence, but a problem of the human condition. The smartest people in the world are still subject to biases in reasoning, for example, even though they may be more likely to be aware of them.

I can tell you that in a society where the average person is capable of something like building and programming a circuit board to do things around their home there will be novel societal problems that few would anticipate.

Primarily it is just my experience / observation, which I know has been made by others in differend contexts before. There is probably data out there with which you could make the case. Maybe look at one of the more demanding fields and see if you can find some data on h-index to IQ correlations. Look at what happens with the quality of research as the IQ averages drop below 120 amongst the American college graduates.
Or, maybe more fitting for this forum, look at what kind of fields people with 115 IQ usually end up in vs fields in which people with 130+IQs work in, e.g.:
View attachment 828237

I don't think it's very useful to measure the productivity of an academic and compare that to their IQ, as that isn't going to directly tell you anything useful about whether or not the person is capable of making effective changes in the societal positions (that you were concerned with dumber - but still above average - people occupying) to make any significant, positive changes. It would be sort of like finding a master at Sudoku and expecting them to beat escape rooms in record times, because they're both puzzles to be solved.

Smart people in academia are specialists in their field and are expert problem solvers (in their fields). Some fields have a floor on minimum cognitive ability, but we shouldn't mistake this floor to mean that this has carryover into other domains of problem solving.

I wouldn't trust a mathematician to run a company, just because he proved something that thousands of other mathematicians over centuries couldn't and he just happened to have an IQ of 140+ with a high h-index. It just means he's a brilliant mathematician. Specificity matters, even though g is domain-agnostic. I wouldn't trust my accountant with a root canal, I wouldn't trust my dentist to change my car's transmission, and I wouldn't trust my mechanic to balance the books.

one of my favorite thinkers tested 125

Feynman.

 

[OutcompetedByRoomba]

This isn't a problem of intelligence, but a problem of the human condition. The smartest people in the world are still subject to biases in reasoning, for example, even though they may be more likely to be aware of them.

I can tell you that in a society where the average person is capable of something like building and programming a circuit board to do things around their home there will be novel societal problems that few would anticipate.


I don't think it's very useful to measure the productivity of an academic and compare that to their IQ, as that isn't going to directly tell you anything useful about whether or not the person is capable of making effective changes in the societal positions (that you were concerned with dumber - but still above average - people occupying) to make any significant, positive changes. It would be sort of like finding a master at Sudoku and expecting them to beat escape rooms in record times, because they're both puzzles to be solved.

Smart people in academia are specialists in their field and are expert problem solvers (in their fields). Some fields have a floor on minimum cognitive ability, but we shouldn't mistake this floor to mean that this has carryover into other domains of problem solving.

I wouldn't trust a mathematician to run a company, just because he proved something that thousands of other mathematicians over centuries couldn't and he just happened to have an IQ of 140+ with a high h-index. It just means he's a brilliant mathematician. Specificity matters, even though g is domain-agnostic. I wouldn't trust my accountant with a root canal, I wouldn't trust my dentist to change my car's transmission, and I wouldn't trust my mechanic to balance the books.


Feynman.

not really interested in having another IQ debate. though i guess i should state for the record I disagree with most of the things you said that aren't self-evident. half the time I'm not even sure what you are trying to say or what your point is. yeah, I'm not gonna let someone without any medial expertise do a surgery on me!? what point i made are you even arguing against with that?
you might not trust a genius mathematician to run a company, but if you force 1000 genius mathematicians and 1000 120 IQ randos to try and run a company, which group do you bet on doing a better job?
if you think high IQ = higher likelyhood of mental unwellness, you have absorbed the mensa fallacy from somewhere.

the whole point is that the capability to master one domain transfers over to others. h-index isn't just productivity, it's citation rate / paper, so it has a quality control element in it as well. If a scientist is capable of high quality work in his field then that does indeed predict a higher likelyhood of him performing better at affecting positive change.

take 10 masters at w/e task that demands high IQ and let them try to beat any other IQ demanding task and they will learn quicker, perform better and have a higher ceiling than a group of avrg people would have.

and no, it's not feynman, it's a random internet blogger you have never heard of

 

[based_meme]

not really interested in having another IQ debate. though i guess i should state for the record I disagree with most of the things you said that aren't self-evident. half the time I'm not even sure what you are trying to say or what your point is. yeah, I'm not gonna let someone without any medial expertise do a surgery on me!? what point i made are you even arguing against with that?

The point here:

Do low IQs suddenly rise from their slumber, remake politics in their image and go back to their peaceful way of live afterwards? I don't think that could even be argued. The best they can do is to become a violent, rebellious mob, which is kind of like playing chess by beating your opponent to death. You might win or lose the fight, but you won't prove yourself to be a good chess player either way.

You believe that having a high IQ is going to lead to solutions to social and political problems. This simply isn't the case. If I've misunderstood your point, then please clarify.

you might not trust a genius mathematician to run a company, but if you force 1000 genius mathematicians and 1000 120 IQ randos to try and run a company, which group do you bet on doing a better job?
if you think high IQ = higher likelyhood of mental unwellness, you have absorbed the mensa fallacy from somewhere.

There's actually data that shows exactly this - that being closer to the far right on the curve does in fact increase the likelihood of having or developing certain mental problems ( https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/why...le-suffer-more-mental-and-physical-disorders/ , https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616303324 ).

Maybe it's an evolutionary trade-off for having an overclocked CPU, I don't know. All I can say is that extremely high intelligence is an anomaly, which probably arose out of a need to have some kind of ace in the hole to deal with unexpected challenges. There's no real survival advantage or necessity in having 150 IQ vs 100-120 IQ out in the wilderness or plains where being strong and agile is more immediately pertinent. It is far more valuable, however, in a research lab.

the whole point is that the capability to master one domain transfers over to others.

This is precisely what's debatable. It's not just the ability to x extremely well that matters, but the g factor necessary that crosses the threshold needed to x initially. Or is it?

I get the sense that you think it's possible to simply pluck out two people with the same IQ from vastly different professions, fields etc. and expect that they will perform equally well in some other unrelated and possibly novel task.

h-index isn't just productivity, it's citation rate / paper, so it has a quality control element in it as well.

I know. I just didn't need to mention it, because it's already implied that being a "productive academic" means that your productivity already goes through the peer review, quality assurance process. It's still not a sufficient indicator in determining general competence and aptitude in any random domain.

If a scientist is capable of high quality work in his field then that does indeed predict a higher likelyhood of him performing better at affecting positive change.

Yes, positive change within his domain.

take 10 masters at w/e task that demands high IQ and let them try to beat any other IQ demanding task and they will learn quicker, perform better and have a higher ceiling than a group of avrg people would have.

This remains to be seen. It sound very plausible in theory, but it needs to be directly tested.

and no, it's not feynman, it's a random internet blogger you have never heard of

OK. This is the part where you're supposed to kindly share who it is you're talking about.