It doesn't matter what it is to you. A dollar could be a lot of money to you. But it isn't. Same shit.
All definitions are subjective and relative.
A dollar to a nigger in sub-saharan Africa is a lot of money, whilst to somebody with a billion dollars it mean anothing. There isn't an absolute value to what counts as a lot of money vs. not a lot of money.
Using celebrities to prove your point is low IQ. Is Jeff Bezos a Gigachad? Because I can assure you, any woman would hop into bed quicker with him than any random TikTok Chad.
Yes, he's extremely high-status, therefore extremely attractive to foids and they want his superior genes to spread.
He isn't really. Even without his fame, he's a good looking prettyboy.
Justin Bieber does not look like a Chad though, and he is definitley a feminine soyboy like most pretty boys. Even the Chad-looking pretty boys are extremely soy, like Hasan Piker.
They want his status more than his "superior genes". Do you not understand how fame works?
The reason why status is extremely attractive to women is because of the fact that it's indicative of superior genes retard. If a man is capable of obtaining extremely high-levels of status, it probably means that he has very good genetics so women want to breed with him. Reproduction is about spreading your genes, so when women don't think your worthy of your genes being spread, it means that mother nature has rejected you as being a biological inferior.
Being Chad is based off physical appearance and what comes with that physical appearance in most cases. I don't see your point here.
Physical appearance is highly correlated with being a high-value male who is attractive to women, but regardless of how you look, if you are in the top-tier of value as a male, this means that you are Chad. So somebody like Bill Gates would be a Chad, because even though he's a total beta male nerd, given his wealth and status, this means that he's extremely attractive towards women which would make him a Chad in my eyes. I define Chad by being in the top-tier of value as a man, you seem to define it by physical appearance, so we have different definitions.
then you don't understand what Chad is. And I don't understand why you keep trying to push this retarded point. Being a Chad means you are a top-tier male. It is defined by physical appearance. Prettyboys can be Chads. The guys in OP simply aren't. Being attractive to women alone is not enough to make you a Chad. High-tier normies are attractive to women. Doesn't mean they're Chads.
Okay fine, I would define Chad as being the highest in the sexual value hierachy as a man. So to be a Chad, you have to be at the top in terms of sexual value, so you can't just be attractive to women, you have to be extremely attractive to women. You need to be the type of guy that can easily have sex with 100+ women, if you are that type of guy you are a Chad. But again, not defined solely by physical appearance, but by sexual value, which is highly correlated with appearance but not a 1-to-1 correlation.
Nigga if 20% of people got all the pussy, there would be world-wide riots. You're right about 20% of men getting more pussy than the bottom 80% but that's just common sense. The better looking/ higher status/ NT you are the better and more pussy you'll get. Doesn't change the fact that 50th percentile men also easily get pussy. Also doesn't change the fact that being in the top 20% alone doesn't make you a Chad.
Well we live in a monogamous society not a polygamous one. In a polygamous society this would definitely happen. In long-term romantic relationships, most normies are not incels and can find a long-term romantic/sexual partner. In casual sex though, I guarentee you 20% of men are having 80% of casual sex. I would concede that being in the top 20% doesn't make you Chad thoguh, being Chad means that your exceptionally high in value as a man, just being attractive to women doesn't cut it, your value has to be at the top.
I can define the color blue as pink. Do you not understand how big of a difference there is being an 80th percentile man and a 99th percentile man when it comes to getting women and how they treat you? it's a night and day difference.
Probably, again though Pareto Distributions happen within Pareto distributions, so that's another pareto distribution worth of increased value.
Yes, somebody at the 99th percentile is going to be far more attractive than men at the 80th percentile, but 80th percentile men will be far more attractive than the rest. Now of course, if you aren't 80th percentile, you can still get laid and find a long-term romantic and sexual partner.
The only men that actually wind up becoming true incels are the ones that are in the bottom 5%, you have to be exceptionally low in value to be an incel. You have to be a subhuman bottom of the barrel genetic inferior to reach our level of value and status.