The dating app data is frequently cited to prove the blackpill. To this, normies reply that Tinder is not real life, and that you should date in real life. The problem with this all-too-easy dismissal is at least twofold:
1. The majority of couples under 30 meet on dating apps; and
2. The Tinder spillover effect — dating apps have an effect even when not directly used. Meaning, a woman may have a Tinder profile and is matched with a chad. They have a match but no chat yet. Then the woman goes to a party. She meets a normie there but is not receptive to the normie's romantic advances because she is waiting for the chad. Were Tinder simply not there, the chad would be inaccessible and the normie would be good enough. In this scenario, the normie fails because of the mere existence of Tinder despite not using the app himself and trying to date in real life.
But for the sake of the argument, let's accept the premise that there could be advantages to dating in real life. There even is a non-stupid blackpill way to accept this, say, voice. We often talk about face and height, but if you're a squeaky voicecel, it will be quite brutal for you as well. So, let's assume then you're a facecel and voicemogger at the same time. On Tinder, women can see your face but can't hear your voice. In real life they can, so this is to your advantage. This is not that important to the larger point to follow; I just wanted to put out there. Let's just say you try to meet women in real life now.
You can either:
1. Cold approach — try to talk to women you don't know at all at parks, cafes, malls, bars, or clubs; or
2. Warm approach — try to talk to women you know somewhat in your university class, workplace, or dance class, were you to go to a dance class.
The upsides of cold approach are that it is potentially unlimited number-wise. And the cost of rejection is only psychological. Meaning, you approach the woman, she frowns in disgust, you feel humiliated, but you can just walk off and that's that, the end of the situation; you will never meet her again. The downside is that cold approaching is virtually useless. Meaning, you don't know a single couple who has met like that. Your peers are meeting online, your parents met in a warm approach situation.
So, warm approach it is. But here comes the poisoned well. Meaning, let's say you try to chat up a woman in your class. She rejects you, but unlike the cold approach scenario, there are further consequences. She will definitely tell everyone, and I mean everyone. This rejection is a public event via women's thirst for gossip. Bluepilled reasoning would have you thinking that this simply ruins your chances with other women in the setting. And it's kind of true, but were you a chad, this would not matter. The bigger reason is not your chances with other women being ruined, but the whole environment being poisoned. You will get dirty looks from men as well now; it will be awful. But it could be even worse. Say it's the UK and it's a workplace. You can get sacked in a scenario like this.
At this point, bluepilled normies who stress "kindness" as a prime virtue would paradoxically be enticed to bring out their inner Andrew Tate. "Be a man, simply stop giving a fuck." But why do you now talk like a person you opposed so strongly just a minute ago? Curious. And "simply not giving a fuck" is really terrible advice. You should give plenty of fucks about your social environment, as it is the number one predictor of psychological well-being. Many of us are depressed just because we have zero affirmative and positive cues from people around us. The biggest problem of inceldom is loneliness. And now you request making this problem worse. Fuck you.
1. The majority of couples under 30 meet on dating apps; and
2. The Tinder spillover effect — dating apps have an effect even when not directly used. Meaning, a woman may have a Tinder profile and is matched with a chad. They have a match but no chat yet. Then the woman goes to a party. She meets a normie there but is not receptive to the normie's romantic advances because she is waiting for the chad. Were Tinder simply not there, the chad would be inaccessible and the normie would be good enough. In this scenario, the normie fails because of the mere existence of Tinder despite not using the app himself and trying to date in real life.
But for the sake of the argument, let's accept the premise that there could be advantages to dating in real life. There even is a non-stupid blackpill way to accept this, say, voice. We often talk about face and height, but if you're a squeaky voicecel, it will be quite brutal for you as well. So, let's assume then you're a facecel and voicemogger at the same time. On Tinder, women can see your face but can't hear your voice. In real life they can, so this is to your advantage. This is not that important to the larger point to follow; I just wanted to put out there. Let's just say you try to meet women in real life now.
You can either:
1. Cold approach — try to talk to women you don't know at all at parks, cafes, malls, bars, or clubs; or
2. Warm approach — try to talk to women you know somewhat in your university class, workplace, or dance class, were you to go to a dance class.
The upsides of cold approach are that it is potentially unlimited number-wise. And the cost of rejection is only psychological. Meaning, you approach the woman, she frowns in disgust, you feel humiliated, but you can just walk off and that's that, the end of the situation; you will never meet her again. The downside is that cold approaching is virtually useless. Meaning, you don't know a single couple who has met like that. Your peers are meeting online, your parents met in a warm approach situation.
So, warm approach it is. But here comes the poisoned well. Meaning, let's say you try to chat up a woman in your class. She rejects you, but unlike the cold approach scenario, there are further consequences. She will definitely tell everyone, and I mean everyone. This rejection is a public event via women's thirst for gossip. Bluepilled reasoning would have you thinking that this simply ruins your chances with other women in the setting. And it's kind of true, but were you a chad, this would not matter. The bigger reason is not your chances with other women being ruined, but the whole environment being poisoned. You will get dirty looks from men as well now; it will be awful. But it could be even worse. Say it's the UK and it's a workplace. You can get sacked in a scenario like this.
At this point, bluepilled normies who stress "kindness" as a prime virtue would paradoxically be enticed to bring out their inner Andrew Tate. "Be a man, simply stop giving a fuck." But why do you now talk like a person you opposed so strongly just a minute ago? Curious. And "simply not giving a fuck" is really terrible advice. You should give plenty of fucks about your social environment, as it is the number one predictor of psychological well-being. Many of us are depressed just because we have zero affirmative and positive cues from people around us. The biggest problem of inceldom is loneliness. And now you request making this problem worse. Fuck you.
