In my previous posts I said:
"Being able to socialize and work with others is pretty important in many jobs and positions."
Many being the operative word here. You could have stepped in and said, "The jobs I am applying for are not of that nature," instead of being snarky. I guess given the context of the thread, it's to be expected though.
I also said that an alternative is to apply to jobs which don't have social requirements, which was another opportunity to say "I am applying to those jobs, but they still require references," and we could continue the conversation from there. But again, I understand now that this is perhaps too much to ask for. Clearly, explaining why these "normie" standards make sense from a business owner's or recruiter's perspective make perfect sense struck a nerve. Unfortunately, even if your job is very socially isolated, you still have to communicate with your boss once in a while, so you will have to socialize minimally. Therefore, the people who have references simply have a stronger application than you, one that is more attractive to employers.
Okay, when viewed from that perspective, yes life is "unfair." But I think it's more unfair, and detrimental, to hire people who don't meet the requirements of the job. I believe in meritocracy, not "ableism" or affirmative action. Yes, it sucks that IQcels, mentalcels, truecels got the short end of the genetic lottery and thus struggle in life. However, I don't think anyone wants to look at ugly models (without some sort of SJW agenda), hire stupid scientists, or rely on socially stunted diplomats. It simply makes no sense.
Another perspective is that life is "fair" in that we get what we "deserve." Why does an ugly person DESERVE a modeling gig? Sure, he didn't choose his genetics - that's unfair to him personally. He didn't choose to be ostracized. But that's what he gets because that's what his genes can afford him. It's unfair on the personal level, but it's "fair" on the global level, which is exactly why the natural selection cycle perpetuates and why incels are ignored and downtrodden. We simply don't have the social capital to be relevant. This is a bitter pill to swallow, but humanity as a whole is probably better off with worker bee incels who don't breed than with "fair" "equality" with incels having access to all the things that normies and Chads do. We are pollution to the gene pool and if we reproduce, it is in violation of the laws of nature and against the benefit of our species. Only the fittest, in all senses of the word, "deserve" or are entitled to pass on their genes - that's how we got to this point as a species in the first place. Just because we have the same DRIVE to reproduce doesn't mean we have the same merit.
