D
So when it's black people advocating for black people rights, it's accepted that they become violent after nobody listens to them and even goes after them or advocates doing so.
But when unattractive people do so, which can be of any race, this is suddenly no longer accepted.
Power in numbers creates some of the hugest double standards.
To anyone who wants to disagree here or play devil's advocate, here are some pointers for my rebuttal:
-Attractiveness affects quality of life in the same way as race. Unattractive people face the same stigmas in getting jobs, friends, and relationships. Even some things you would take for granted like family treatment or government supports. Some of these are vital to live, others are important to quality of life and having bad interpersonal relationships due to things you can't control is a recipe for disaster.
-Minorities are accepted when they are socially normal (i.e. have something to offer the crowd). Equality for minorities is not really about 'no matter who you're born' but rather 'no matter what you seem like, so long as I'm not repulsed; and if you act normal enough'. It's not about 'your differences don't matter', it's about 'I can get over some differences that bother me naturally/subconsciously but only to an extent; skin color, sex, and sexual orientation when it comes up is fine, but I can't be bothered to deal with you if you're ugly, short, weird, or stupid'.
-We see all this talk about racial minorities getting equal benefits but it's not at the social level, only the economical one. This is why we have third wave feminism, we are now at society's stage where it's not about governments or companies as much as it is about everyday people. Of course, everyday people work in business and government so they still cause economic stigma but overall social is the frontier now. Do we ever see people being treated equally for friendship or potential romance/sexploits when it comes to race? Of course not. There is plenty of denialism about this but this forum has gathered years of data on how people say one thing and do another. You can't trust what people say because their values are to talk the talk but not walk the walk, since they somehow think that's enough to help other people and the rest is 'fix yourself/pull yourself up'. That's not how communites or society works, you need to help people actively, but that's entitled if you ask the average normal person out there today.
Tl;dr for this point is that race has been (partially) fixed job-wise but race is still hugely discriminated against in friendships, relationships and sex.
This is never given attention because people don't have "rights" or "entitlements" to social lives or to other people's time or attention.
Jobs = required to live, gotta make money, gotta feed the cycle. Friends, so-so, it's more that nobody can tell you to your face that they don't want to be friends due to your race but they can still find excuses otherwise and exclude you implicitly (just like in romantic relationships). Relationships btw? Not a chance. Nobody will try to bridge the "race gap" here. Some people get triggered over "I only date x race of people", mostly when a man says it, but there's no real contention or action and people just accept it blindly due to "taste".
Either you represent everyone equally on all fronts or nobody at all, that's my ultimatum here.
You don't and can't pick and choose which minorities you help and which you don't, and for which social purposes they warrant assistance or support and in which ones they don't. Those are called favouritism, and selective equality, and they are the literal opposite of true equality or even equity.
This is all the result of individualism, nobody owes anyone anything so the weak and slow can suffer and starve. What a selfish and cruel way to think, totally backwards for a "social" species. Imagine if ants and bees did this stuff. They protect their queens and other major figures even if they're weak or hurt, and some even sacrifice their lives to save the hive or resources for other people. And it's the strong and capable ones who have something to offer that sacrifice, not the weaklings who have nothing to give as is. I guess we know who to thank for all of this already.
Individualism creates a feeling that everyone deserves a fair chance but are on their own, so people will help you personally be alive but will not help you beyond the bare minimum and not for anything involving other people. It's contradictory, everyone deserves to live no matter how incapable or capable they are, but they still have to earn their keeping fair and square no matter how they start out as? Huh??
There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on when you say that every individual has rights in a society to and for themselves but nobody has rights for or to anyone else. People naturally owe each other. This is also how you balance inequality, by helping the weak. When you don't owe anyone anything you allow undesirables and unfortunates to suffer. Somehow this is protested (weakly) when it comes to rich and poor or bad fmaily/house and good family/house but not for things like disability, appearance, physical girth/width/height etc.
The justification to "you don't have rights to anyone" is that they are their own entity and can decide for themselves, plus you wouldn't like it in return.
Problems with these:
1) I DO want to help people when asked, I love doing this in fact, and it's shown in psychology people like you more if they help you not if you help them.
So you get happy chemicals from helping people. Most people, however, are selfish, and only help the people they consider interesting, cool, or attractive, interest-wise, or who they think they can get some economic advantage from (business deals, siphoning, virtue signalling, popularity, advice, borrow something, etc.)
This is selective and Darwinistic, it's wrong. People have morals for a reason and it matters (this is also why I advocate against violence by incels against anyone).
As well, helping people is something you do because you've been there and you don't want orhers to suffer. A low life like an incel or robot etc. will have more of this common ground and sympathy as background to help others, but normal people do not so they don't care, they write off people as lazy or incompetent. Funny they use 'incompetent' though because that implies it's not a choice but part of who they are... :think:
2) They are their own entity: yes, but you don't live in a void. If you don't help anyone, why would they help you? This is why the most effective "strategy" for incels, robots, etc. is NEETdom. Not because it's good to leech off of people, but because if people refuse to help you at all, why should you help them? Help yourself, sure, but most jobs take more from you than they give back, especially low-level ones that are often the only ones accessible to lowlifes.
So if you think nobody owes you anything, they don't owe you either. Also, if you think people owe you safety, respect, and decency, then you owe them too. People harass the undesirables all the time and get away with it because of Catch-22 and might makes right. We even have pariahs as a caste in some cultures.
Some people say that the Golden Rule is not enough here, because eye for an eye and Jesus-like behaviour and being the better man etc. but this only works for so long. Not everyone has a strong enough spirit to take years of disenfranchisement from society and still put up with it. It's over for spiritcels.
To say that you are morally wrong for disresspecting, ignoring, or attacking people who do likewise to you is "cucked". You may be a better person but according to who, yourself? You may feel morally superior but you are still abandoned and injured.
Again, I don't want or condone violence or abandonment. I don't even support NEETdom fully because some of that money is coming from the few genuine people always invisible in society who are like us but more accepted, but NEETdom isn't as active or dangerous a force nor does it earn as much bad rep as fast.
The point is that if people choose to act as if everyone is capable and independent and can live in a void if they so wish or if they have to, they are wrong. You still have to live in and accept society and you cannot truly live alone, maybe you can survive to an extent but you always need people at some point. This is going against more nature far more severely than morals that enforce people helping others without getting anything in return.
If people continue to be cosmopolitan, globalized, and individualistic (ahem: "independent, strong, and full of potential and success") then people will start to see the supports they take for granted vanish over time. Not just because of incels but because all people will become ostracized as the threshold for adequacy grows and the number of barriers to reach it increase in number. Eventually we will have a Roman-tier collapse of society worldwide, and at best we will restart after ruin or we will be taken over by the elites or some outside, opportunistic force.
When the world leaves you to fend for yourself, even if it gives you the basics grudgingly but nothing past that to allow you to grow and adapt and improve, you will feel alone and you will not help others even if you are peaceful. Everyone will become miserable and we will see the whole idea of "your right to extend your arm ends where your neighbour's nose begins" end. We will see that people DO owe each other and DO need each other, every single person, nobody left behind, and that there are too many people, too many cultures, and too many different schools of thought for everyone in your community to be personal to you right now (leading to communities and populations shrinking which is unfortunately what the elites want).
All we can hope to do is either to wake people up and reverse to an earlier stage of our society, as the blackpill has done by becoming widely heard of (e.g. people no longer say 'get a good haircut' but 'looks matter but are not everything' eventually we will get to 'looks matter by far the most and first most').
Or at worst we will reach this ruin, and if this is the easier path or the only one that works, we should be accelerationists in every way we can do so peacefully without alarming or directly hurting individual people. No rioting like in Louisville, but rather not helping anyone out, not caring for anyone but ourselves, no holding doors, no smiles to strangers, no refilling the milk jug, leaving cryptic, ominous, or hope-destorying messages lying around for anyone to see, ignoring or snubbing people, leeching, acting egotistic, and whatever else is not punishable or easy to judge but effective at demoralizing the masses.
People will get what they deserve, but slowly and discreetly, so they shall not notice that the pot of water is boiling until they themselves have become the villains of the story. Then it will be up to the normals to fix this mess of a society, not us who can't blow a feather anyway (metaphorically, I hope).
This will kill the spirits of the everyday people over time, because they will either be in awe at our courage or will simply think we are bad people since their stereotype paints us as such for things we can't control anyway (just world fallacy, karma, American Dream etc.).
It's a simple choice: either we blackpill everyone or we cause them to blackpill themselves. One way or another they will see the truth, slowly but surely.
I prefer the active stance of telling people the truth and telling them to stop lying to themselves and to everyone else, but if that doesn't work, demoralizing everyone is the next best way to make them realize what they're doing is wrong.
The hidden version of peaceful protests, the fish symbols in the Roman cities. We can't go outside and directly tell people that they are hypocrites and liars, but we can convince them or get them to convince themselves with time, and simply make the clock spin just a bit faster. Slowing it down is pointless unless we're actively turning the minute hand back. It's a lot easier to spin forwards than backwards but morally we should still try the direct path so long as it is safe for us to do so.
Once people realize they are the monsters not us, they will realize that we are indeed peaceful protestors, the Martin Luther Kings who use psychology to change the law and the world, not the Malcolm Xs who want to resort to violence before the last moment. Violence doesn't work, it's the only thing people listen to immediately but it also does nothing long-term. All violence has done for inceldom is make us out to be clowns. Psychologically changing people to accept their own biases and to work against their biases and themselves is the best way to make a positive change for us, and ultimately, for the world at large.
Updated original post to include more details, please read if curious.
But when unattractive people do so, which can be of any race, this is suddenly no longer accepted.
Power in numbers creates some of the hugest double standards.
To anyone who wants to disagree here or play devil's advocate, here are some pointers for my rebuttal:
-Attractiveness affects quality of life in the same way as race. Unattractive people face the same stigmas in getting jobs, friends, and relationships. Even some things you would take for granted like family treatment or government supports. Some of these are vital to live, others are important to quality of life and having bad interpersonal relationships due to things you can't control is a recipe for disaster.
-Minorities are accepted when they are socially normal (i.e. have something to offer the crowd). Equality for minorities is not really about 'no matter who you're born' but rather 'no matter what you seem like, so long as I'm not repulsed; and if you act normal enough'. It's not about 'your differences don't matter', it's about 'I can get over some differences that bother me naturally/subconsciously but only to an extent; skin color, sex, and sexual orientation when it comes up is fine, but I can't be bothered to deal with you if you're ugly, short, weird, or stupid'.
-We see all this talk about racial minorities getting equal benefits but it's not at the social level, only the economical one. This is why we have third wave feminism, we are now at society's stage where it's not about governments or companies as much as it is about everyday people. Of course, everyday people work in business and government so they still cause economic stigma but overall social is the frontier now. Do we ever see people being treated equally for friendship or potential romance/sexploits when it comes to race? Of course not. There is plenty of denialism about this but this forum has gathered years of data on how people say one thing and do another. You can't trust what people say because their values are to talk the talk but not walk the walk, since they somehow think that's enough to help other people and the rest is 'fix yourself/pull yourself up'. That's not how communites or society works, you need to help people actively, but that's entitled if you ask the average normal person out there today.
Tl;dr for this point is that race has been (partially) fixed job-wise but race is still hugely discriminated against in friendships, relationships and sex.
This is never given attention because people don't have "rights" or "entitlements" to social lives or to other people's time or attention.
Jobs = required to live, gotta make money, gotta feed the cycle. Friends, so-so, it's more that nobody can tell you to your face that they don't want to be friends due to your race but they can still find excuses otherwise and exclude you implicitly (just like in romantic relationships). Relationships btw? Not a chance. Nobody will try to bridge the "race gap" here. Some people get triggered over "I only date x race of people", mostly when a man says it, but there's no real contention or action and people just accept it blindly due to "taste".
Either you represent everyone equally on all fronts or nobody at all, that's my ultimatum here.
You don't and can't pick and choose which minorities you help and which you don't, and for which social purposes they warrant assistance or support and in which ones they don't. Those are called favouritism, and selective equality, and they are the literal opposite of true equality or even equity.
This is all the result of individualism, nobody owes anyone anything so the weak and slow can suffer and starve. What a selfish and cruel way to think, totally backwards for a "social" species. Imagine if ants and bees did this stuff. They protect their queens and other major figures even if they're weak or hurt, and some even sacrifice their lives to save the hive or resources for other people. And it's the strong and capable ones who have something to offer that sacrifice, not the weaklings who have nothing to give as is. I guess we know who to thank for all of this already.
Individualism creates a feeling that everyone deserves a fair chance but are on their own, so people will help you personally be alive but will not help you beyond the bare minimum and not for anything involving other people. It's contradictory, everyone deserves to live no matter how incapable or capable they are, but they still have to earn their keeping fair and square no matter how they start out as? Huh??
There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on when you say that every individual has rights in a society to and for themselves but nobody has rights for or to anyone else. People naturally owe each other. This is also how you balance inequality, by helping the weak. When you don't owe anyone anything you allow undesirables and unfortunates to suffer. Somehow this is protested (weakly) when it comes to rich and poor or bad fmaily/house and good family/house but not for things like disability, appearance, physical girth/width/height etc.
The justification to "you don't have rights to anyone" is that they are their own entity and can decide for themselves, plus you wouldn't like it in return.
Problems with these:
1) I DO want to help people when asked, I love doing this in fact, and it's shown in psychology people like you more if they help you not if you help them.
So you get happy chemicals from helping people. Most people, however, are selfish, and only help the people they consider interesting, cool, or attractive, interest-wise, or who they think they can get some economic advantage from (business deals, siphoning, virtue signalling, popularity, advice, borrow something, etc.)
This is selective and Darwinistic, it's wrong. People have morals for a reason and it matters (this is also why I advocate against violence by incels against anyone).
As well, helping people is something you do because you've been there and you don't want orhers to suffer. A low life like an incel or robot etc. will have more of this common ground and sympathy as background to help others, but normal people do not so they don't care, they write off people as lazy or incompetent. Funny they use 'incompetent' though because that implies it's not a choice but part of who they are... :think:
2) They are their own entity: yes, but you don't live in a void. If you don't help anyone, why would they help you? This is why the most effective "strategy" for incels, robots, etc. is NEETdom. Not because it's good to leech off of people, but because if people refuse to help you at all, why should you help them? Help yourself, sure, but most jobs take more from you than they give back, especially low-level ones that are often the only ones accessible to lowlifes.
So if you think nobody owes you anything, they don't owe you either. Also, if you think people owe you safety, respect, and decency, then you owe them too. People harass the undesirables all the time and get away with it because of Catch-22 and might makes right. We even have pariahs as a caste in some cultures.
Some people say that the Golden Rule is not enough here, because eye for an eye and Jesus-like behaviour and being the better man etc. but this only works for so long. Not everyone has a strong enough spirit to take years of disenfranchisement from society and still put up with it. It's over for spiritcels.
To say that you are morally wrong for disresspecting, ignoring, or attacking people who do likewise to you is "cucked". You may be a better person but according to who, yourself? You may feel morally superior but you are still abandoned and injured.
Again, I don't want or condone violence or abandonment. I don't even support NEETdom fully because some of that money is coming from the few genuine people always invisible in society who are like us but more accepted, but NEETdom isn't as active or dangerous a force nor does it earn as much bad rep as fast.
The point is that if people choose to act as if everyone is capable and independent and can live in a void if they so wish or if they have to, they are wrong. You still have to live in and accept society and you cannot truly live alone, maybe you can survive to an extent but you always need people at some point. This is going against more nature far more severely than morals that enforce people helping others without getting anything in return.
If people continue to be cosmopolitan, globalized, and individualistic (ahem: "independent, strong, and full of potential and success") then people will start to see the supports they take for granted vanish over time. Not just because of incels but because all people will become ostracized as the threshold for adequacy grows and the number of barriers to reach it increase in number. Eventually we will have a Roman-tier collapse of society worldwide, and at best we will restart after ruin or we will be taken over by the elites or some outside, opportunistic force.
When the world leaves you to fend for yourself, even if it gives you the basics grudgingly but nothing past that to allow you to grow and adapt and improve, you will feel alone and you will not help others even if you are peaceful. Everyone will become miserable and we will see the whole idea of "your right to extend your arm ends where your neighbour's nose begins" end. We will see that people DO owe each other and DO need each other, every single person, nobody left behind, and that there are too many people, too many cultures, and too many different schools of thought for everyone in your community to be personal to you right now (leading to communities and populations shrinking which is unfortunately what the elites want).
All we can hope to do is either to wake people up and reverse to an earlier stage of our society, as the blackpill has done by becoming widely heard of (e.g. people no longer say 'get a good haircut' but 'looks matter but are not everything' eventually we will get to 'looks matter by far the most and first most').
Or at worst we will reach this ruin, and if this is the easier path or the only one that works, we should be accelerationists in every way we can do so peacefully without alarming or directly hurting individual people. No rioting like in Louisville, but rather not helping anyone out, not caring for anyone but ourselves, no holding doors, no smiles to strangers, no refilling the milk jug, leaving cryptic, ominous, or hope-destorying messages lying around for anyone to see, ignoring or snubbing people, leeching, acting egotistic, and whatever else is not punishable or easy to judge but effective at demoralizing the masses.
People will get what they deserve, but slowly and discreetly, so they shall not notice that the pot of water is boiling until they themselves have become the villains of the story. Then it will be up to the normals to fix this mess of a society, not us who can't blow a feather anyway (metaphorically, I hope).
This will kill the spirits of the everyday people over time, because they will either be in awe at our courage or will simply think we are bad people since their stereotype paints us as such for things we can't control anyway (just world fallacy, karma, American Dream etc.).
It's a simple choice: either we blackpill everyone or we cause them to blackpill themselves. One way or another they will see the truth, slowly but surely.
I prefer the active stance of telling people the truth and telling them to stop lying to themselves and to everyone else, but if that doesn't work, demoralizing everyone is the next best way to make them realize what they're doing is wrong.
The hidden version of peaceful protests, the fish symbols in the Roman cities. We can't go outside and directly tell people that they are hypocrites and liars, but we can convince them or get them to convince themselves with time, and simply make the clock spin just a bit faster. Slowing it down is pointless unless we're actively turning the minute hand back. It's a lot easier to spin forwards than backwards but morally we should still try the direct path so long as it is safe for us to do so.
Once people realize they are the monsters not us, they will realize that we are indeed peaceful protestors, the Martin Luther Kings who use psychology to change the law and the world, not the Malcolm Xs who want to resort to violence before the last moment. Violence doesn't work, it's the only thing people listen to immediately but it also does nothing long-term. All violence has done for inceldom is make us out to be clowns. Psychologically changing people to accept their own biases and to work against their biases and themselves is the best way to make a positive change for us, and ultimately, for the world at large.
Updated original post to include more details, please read if curious.
Last edited:
