Speedloader
Saw spear enthusiast
-
- Joined
- May 14, 2019
- Posts
- 18,916
Maybe they took data of Guatemala
Tallfag hands wrote that. They’re always trying to justify their inceldom
Low iq postNo that's blackpilled.
In fact there was very recent study showing that shorter men actually have more sex on average.
You'd be surprised at how many fallacies "muh blackpill incels" actually believe in
Uh huh. Another retard that only believes stats when it fits in with what you want to believe, yup got itLow iq post
Just be short bro, i know a short guy who slays a new girl every dayUh huh. Another retard that only believes stats when it fits in with what you want to believe, yup got it
It wasn't "I know a guy" retardJust be short bro, i know a short guy who slays a new girl every day
It wasn't "I know a guy" retard
Yeh that's what you're doing fool
Show proof of short guys slaying more then tall guys because that's absolutely not the case where I live.It wasn't "I know a guy" retard
Same tbh. I don’t even see manlets with gfsShow proof of short guys slaying more then tall guys because that's absolutely not the case where I live.
Show proof of short guys slaying more then tall guys because that's absolutely not the case where I live.
In fact there was very recent study showing that shorter men actually have more sex on average.
You'd be surprised at how many fallacies "muh blackpill incels" actually believe in
Tom holland can confirmDo Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirmwww.insidehook.com
Do Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirmwww.insidehook.com
just be millonaire statusmaxxed across the globe and good looking broTom holland can confirm
Just be a hollywood actor bro
Tom holland can confirm
Just be a hollywood actor bro
"The (admittedly small) study of 531 straight men..."just be millonaire statusmaxxed across the globe and good looking bro
you should make a lenghty thread about your bluepilled views (you probably think you aren't being bluepilled right now lol) and what inklers should do in your view do to '''quit inceldom'' since it seems you believe that's possible. it's really confusing that you are stating manlets get more laid than tallfags in a fucking blackpill forum out of all places, in top of calling others ''coping'' when in essense your post is coping and akin of someone saying a guy with arms amputated can beat mike tyson muhammad ali floyd mayweather all in a 1v3 fight."The (admittedly small) study of 531 straight men..."
So many coping retards on this forum...
Why so many why, it's 2022 God WHY
Etymology[edit | edit source]
It is basically extremely low-IQ/cucked/misandric to equate "cum" with "shit", since male ejaculate is a living life-creating substance just like the eggs produced by women's ovaries, able to create babies. It also contains chemicals to help pair-bond women to men forming stable and loving relationships.
The choice to use this substitute might stem from one or more causes:
In either case, viewing cum only as a waste product like piss/shit and not respecting it's role in helping the human species to persevere.
- hating their own maleness
- seeing sex in negative rather than positive terms
A 3rd motivation could be implied homosexual overtones when directed at males, implying they are letting other males ejaculate upon them, even though the term "shitskin" was never meant to convey that blacks were literally being covered in feces.
Failing[edit | edit source]
A conspicuous place where this analogy fails is that derived from the slang shitskin is the term "shitted" used deprecatingly in pornography to refer to how a white woman being penetrated by a black penis looks like she is being penetrated by a turd: example.
The equivalent for "cumskin" would be "cummed" which would refer to be a woman being penetrated by a white penis looks like she is being penetrated by what, cum? That doesn't denigrate her at all, cum in a vagina is by definition what sex IS.
Alternatives[edit | edit source]
English alternatives[edit | edit source]
A more logical term describing a white substance which is a waste product would be "pus", which is the waste product of dead white blood cells after fighting an infection.
"Pusskin" doesn't look good, so a substitute for "skin" is needed:
So ethnicels should basically switch to using "pusderm" instead of "cumskin" if they don't want to sound like complete faggots with bukakke on the brain.
- flesh is also 1 syllable, but is an extra letter, so we can do better:
- DERM is perfect, as it is an existing synonym of dermis, and also four letters.
he's a retard that cherrypicks studies.you should make a lenghty thread about your bluepilled views (you probably think you aren't being bluepilled right now lol) and what inklers should do in your view do to '''quit inceldom'' since it seems you believe that's possible. it's really confusing that you are stating manlets get more laid than tallfags in a fucking blackpill forum out of all places, in top of calling others ''coping'' when in essense your post is coping and akin of someone saying a guy with arms amputated can beat mike tyson muhammad ali floyd mayweather all in a 1v3 fight.
lmao legit true i remember he insulted me for using that word couple weeks ago.
Why are you here if you are gonna deny one of the most fundemental parts of the blackpill? Take your bluepilled shit outside nlgger. Just ban this dipshit reddit soyboy already.
he's a retard that cherrypicks studies.
well im still curious about his thoughts on everything besides manletism although i also want him to elaborate more on manletism in context of blackpill, this forum, and manlet incels.he's a retard that cherrypicks studies.
quoteletcels*sigh
Bluepill huh? Take my bluepill shit and go huh? Cherry picking is it?
Faggot I REMEMBER when the BLACKPILL was all about taking studies and stats and blowing away the bluepill normies into oblivion. And I was sure it would continue this way, I was confident. Imagine my shock and disappointment when a few of my "blackpilled brethren" suddenly seemed to show signs of weakness when the stats did not go in the direction they thought.
No my friend YOU are the bluepilled faggot one my friend and it is ME who is blackpilling you GET IT? Understand that faggot you wanna ban the bluepill faggot or whatever you wanna BAN YOURSELF mothafucka
You'd be surprised at how many fallacies "muh blackpill incels" actually believe in
Do Short Men Actually Have More Sex?
A scientific study says short men have more sex than tall ones, and Tom Holland can confirmwww.insidehook.com
OP is asking about the height article and that "1% of the shortest" stuff.It's because retards like @Wizard32 post there.
RetardNo that's blackpilled.
In fact there was very recent study showing that shorter men actually have more sex on average.
You'd be surprised at how many fallacies "muh blackpill incels" actually believe in
Joined Sep 15, 2021No that's blackpilled.
In fact there was very recent study showing that shorter men actually have more sex on average.
You'd be surprised at how many fallacies "muh blackpill incels" actually believe in
The mean and median number of sex partners for men of different heights
were: very short (9.4; 5), short (11.0; 7), average (11.7; 7), tall (12.0; 7), very tall (12.1; 7), and extremely tall (12.3; 7).
OP is asking about the height article and that "1% of the shortest" stuff.
I've never edited that article so I have no idea why you're blaming me for it.
Easy enough to check the history to see who added it:
incels.wiki/index.php?title=Special:diff/46076
so bitch at Bibipi not me
I have moved the offending section away from the lede down into https://incels.wiki/w/Heightpill#Brooke_Jenkins
it sounds like bullshit but I'm reading the study PDF now to see wtf Bibipi was reacting to
one problem is you should never talk about studies like absolute truth or word of god, especially when they're authored by a foid (Brooke Jenkins)
- -
one thing that stands out to me is this study doesn't take into account looks, the Brooke Jenkin paper lists this data in the intro for example:
Firstly if you ignore the pointless 'median' there is obviously a height pattern in partners:
9.4>11.0>11.7>12.0>12.1>12.3
It's not as extreme as I would expect, and that bears looking closer at. But this doesn't seem like a reason to say "this only affects 1% of the shortest men"
This is a 14-pg PDF so could require indepth analysis.
Should we just do that here on this thread, or if this is about generic wiki bitching should we make a separate thread to take apart the Brooke Jenkins study?
This seems like an improvement to me, would value your feedback on any further improvements we can make.Someone should edit the page. If not you, I can do it.
my approach would be "let's display as many studies as possible, but then offer rebuttals to ones we think have misleading conclusions"In anycase, we already possess accurate data on heightmogging here (which contradicts that article
This seems like an improvement to me, would value your feedback on any further improvements we can make.
https://incels.wiki/index.php?title=special:diff/69637
my approach would be "let's display as many studies as possible, but then offer rebuttals to ones we think have misleading conclusions"
I wouldn't agree with censoring the Brooke Jenkins study for example, because it's easy enough to dispute.
Basically I think we should invite debate and wreck the opposition, otherwise we risk excess echo-chamber habits.
I agree that this requires indepth analysis before we draw conclusions. There have been plenty of other studies that we've seen such as the one from Animal Studies cited on the heightpill page (https://www.researchgate.net/public...s_in_suboptimal_pair_formation_for_both_sexes) that shows that when given a choice and all else being equal, shorter men are perceived as multiple times less attractive (anywhere from 3-10x which even at the lowest is quite large).I have moved the offending section away from the lede down into https://incels.wiki/w/Heightpill#Brooke_Jenkins
it sounds like bullshit but I'm reading the study PDF now to see wtf Bibipi was reacting to
one problem is you should never talk about studies like absolute truth or word of god, especially when they're authored by a foid (Brooke Jenkins)
- -
one thing that stands out to me is this study doesn't take into account looks, the Brooke Jenkin paper lists this data in the intro for example:
Firstly if you ignore the pointless 'median' there is obviously a height pattern in partners:
9.4>11.0>11.7>12.0>12.1>12.3
It's not as extreme as I would expect, and that bears looking closer at. But this doesn't seem like a reason to say "this only affects 1% of the shortest men"
This is a 14-pg PDF so could require indepth analysis.
Should we just do that here on this thread, or if this is about generic wiki bitching should we make a separate thread to take apart the Brooke Jenkins study?
What's hilarious and almost blackpilling here is even when you fuck up your sampling like Brooke Jenkins (ie undersample short men, you're obviously only polling the short 10/10 face casanovas who are wealthy/ripped/etc) it still isn't enough to disrupt height=partners progression, only diminish the slopeI agree with that. Though its obvious the data overwhelmingly points to the Brooke Jenkins study having methodological flaws (like sample size) at best. Biased and mendacious at worst. Which you of course pointed out in the edit.
Such examples are good for future debate where contrasting studies are referenced, and helps to discern which are more legitimate (and why).
What's hilarious and almost blackpilling here is even when you fuck up your sampling like Brooke Jenkins (ie undersample short men, you're obviously only polling the short 10/10 face casanovas who are wealthy/ripped/etc) it still isn't enough to disrupt height=partners progression, only diminish the slope
Brooke's pathetic listing of "median" partners is also clearly pointless BS meant to distract from clear pattern in the averages.
this is Brooke N. Jenkins from University of California who authored that btwAs I said, mendacious.
It’s true for cumskins who are shorter than currys. I am not that short (5’10) and cumskins who are shorter than me have mogged me
Actually WTF I just looked at the actual study, and not only does it list the actual number of sexual partners (which the results and conclusions section of the paper I read here and elsewhere completely failed to mention: https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/sorry-tall-guys-turns-out-short-men-get-more-play) but her own numbers shows a clear trend where the taller you are the more sexual partners you get. JFL at this manipulation JFL. This is straight up lying by omission, how can this even be academically credible. Now I'm having a hard time trusting anything else the paper says, who knows how else she and her colleagues played around with the numbers and what they refrained from including. The blackpill wins againthis is Brooke N. Jenkins from University of California who authored that btw
View attachment 557417
a 2017 paper 2 yrs after this study mentions her husband is Nick Jenkins, going to see if I can find out what his height is...
pretty sure this is them, married in 2014, her maiden name was Brooke Gentle
still having trouble finding pics of Nick tho, middle name might help, dunno
feeling burned out, anyone want to keep on digging?
Actually WTF I just looked at the actual study, and not only does it list the actual number of sexual partners (which the results and conclusions section of the paper I read here and elsewhere completely failed to mention: https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/sorry-tall-guys-turns-out-short-men-get-more-play) but her own numbers shows a clear trend where the taller you are the more sexual partners you get. JFL at this manipulation JFL. This is straight up lying by omission, how can this even be academically credible. Now I'm having a hard time trusting anything else the paper says, who knows how else she and her colleagues played around with the numbers and what they refrained from including
Exactly. It's actually borderline comical. At first I only read the abstract, results and conclusions section and decided to give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume their numbers were honest but looking into the actual study, they clearly hid numbers that not only show their own conclusions to be wrong, but also expose that they purposefully manipulated the studies numbers to produce averages that are (as wizard said), ultimately meaningless, but allow them to push a narrative, probably knowing most people won't ever read the actual study. That's not even going into all the other dishonesty they engage in that's already visible (such as the sampling issue, also mentioned by wizard). At this point I can never doubt the blackpill, any study brought up against it always falls flat on it's face like this jflIts the wage gap study all over again.
All of them are that predictable. Not once do they deviate from this gameplan.
Gynocentric society doesn't care though. It serves the dogma and that's all everyone cares about.