All major positions on major topics have a list of central ideas or claims that practitioners or people who believe in the idea argue from, acquire evidence for, try to prove, and try to explain/get others to believe in.
For example:
Major position on a major issue: "I believe in God"
Claim/tenant: "The world is too complex for there to have been no creator."
Backup evidence: "The probability of the universe occuring by chance is too low."
(This is just an example)
If you live in America, and went to school there, you probably know that the American education system advocates for this type of argument (main idea using a single statement that is direct, straightforward, and to the point, supporting evidence to back up that idea). Regardless of your opinion on the education system, the reason they teach this method is because it works. It's the classical way to argue and its the most effective.
My concern is that black pilled thinkers have acquired a great deal of supporting evidence (black pill infographics, OkCupid/Tinder/other dating site experiments, accredited scientific studies into attraction) both anecdotal and traditional, but because they have no central ideas or main points to argue from, they either confuse people or annoy them.
For instance, a common quip/retort people use against the black pill is that "incels claim all women are sluts, but they are mad because they won't have sex with them lol teehee". This is why we need to have central ideas to argue from! This common retort could be parried by simply having one of our main points be that women aren't sluts but rather "hypergamous," they are sluts, but only for Chads/Tyrones/etc. This will clarify our position and streamline the process of debate.
A few things to keep in mind:
Our main ideas should be short, one sentence/phrase, and direct and to the point. For instance, "Women are hypergamous" is superior as a talking point than "Women are hypergamous - they date up in the pool of potential suitors." In this example, waiting to define hypergamy until we reach the body of our argument gives the statement more weight and sounds better.
Our claims should be ubiquitous to as many time periods and scientific disciplines as possible. We should start from ideas we can relate back to other areas of science and use terms that have been previously defined elsewhere. For example, "Women choose men based on looks, money, status" is inferior to "Women choose men based on genetic quality, the amount of resources they've acquired, and their status" then, "Women determine men's genetic quality by their looks." No one who has studied evolution will argue that a person will seek out a mate with poor genetic quality for their offspring, but they may argue against the idea that women go after looks without this introductory statement.
We don't all have to agree, but, on are main points, we should be close to unanimous, probably around 80 percent. If you don't agree you are welcome to make your own list, but I think its not only important, but also feasible that we agree on at least basic ideas like looks theory.
How deep do we want to go? I assume we'll be talking about hypergamy, looks theory, and other related topics. Do we also want to discuss the Jewish Question, the racepill, consumerism, feminism, etc.? We should probably make it a priority to organize our thoughts on basic ideas first, but we really do have nothing but time here, so....
TLDR: WE NEED TO MAKE A LIST OF OUR MAIN IDEAS
For example:
Major position on a major issue: "I believe in God"
Claim/tenant: "The world is too complex for there to have been no creator."
Backup evidence: "The probability of the universe occuring by chance is too low."
(This is just an example)
If you live in America, and went to school there, you probably know that the American education system advocates for this type of argument (main idea using a single statement that is direct, straightforward, and to the point, supporting evidence to back up that idea). Regardless of your opinion on the education system, the reason they teach this method is because it works. It's the classical way to argue and its the most effective.
My concern is that black pilled thinkers have acquired a great deal of supporting evidence (black pill infographics, OkCupid/Tinder/other dating site experiments, accredited scientific studies into attraction) both anecdotal and traditional, but because they have no central ideas or main points to argue from, they either confuse people or annoy them.
For instance, a common quip/retort people use against the black pill is that "incels claim all women are sluts, but they are mad because they won't have sex with them lol teehee". This is why we need to have central ideas to argue from! This common retort could be parried by simply having one of our main points be that women aren't sluts but rather "hypergamous," they are sluts, but only for Chads/Tyrones/etc. This will clarify our position and streamline the process of debate.
A few things to keep in mind:
Our main ideas should be short, one sentence/phrase, and direct and to the point. For instance, "Women are hypergamous" is superior as a talking point than "Women are hypergamous - they date up in the pool of potential suitors." In this example, waiting to define hypergamy until we reach the body of our argument gives the statement more weight and sounds better.
Our claims should be ubiquitous to as many time periods and scientific disciplines as possible. We should start from ideas we can relate back to other areas of science and use terms that have been previously defined elsewhere. For example, "Women choose men based on looks, money, status" is inferior to "Women choose men based on genetic quality, the amount of resources they've acquired, and their status" then, "Women determine men's genetic quality by their looks." No one who has studied evolution will argue that a person will seek out a mate with poor genetic quality for their offspring, but they may argue against the idea that women go after looks without this introductory statement.
We don't all have to agree, but, on are main points, we should be close to unanimous, probably around 80 percent. If you don't agree you are welcome to make your own list, but I think its not only important, but also feasible that we agree on at least basic ideas like looks theory.
How deep do we want to go? I assume we'll be talking about hypergamy, looks theory, and other related topics. Do we also want to discuss the Jewish Question, the racepill, consumerism, feminism, etc.? We should probably make it a priority to organize our thoughts on basic ideas first, but we really do have nothing but time here, so....
TLDR: WE NEED TO MAKE A LIST OF OUR MAIN IDEAS
