Serious Majority of blackpill is just water knowledge

[fokusin]

I feel like once people understand the bp once they understand it all, majority of bp is just water knowledge that most people should know by default. Even when I am reading high iq posts or watch bp youtubers I barely even see anything new about bp.

 

[Mr. Agent Clark]

I feel like once people understand the bp once they understand it all, majority of bp is just water knowledge that most people should know by default. Even when I am reading high iq posts or watch bp youtubers I barely even see anything new about bp.

The only reason why i watch so much blackpill is because there is so much gaslighting virtue signaling manipulation etc

 

[LeFrenchCel]

That's why discussions here always end up being the same

Everything has been discussed already

 

[Animecel2D]

That’s why I need to consume it everyday or I’ll die

 

[fokusin]

The only reason why i watch so much blackpill is because there is so much gaslighting virtue signaling manipulation etc

All normies use the same arguments

 

[yeetbender.koala]

That’s why I need to consume it everyday or I’ll die.

 

[underballer]

yes but ppl always think they're better looking than they are

 

[Allah (Real)]

I feel like once people understand the bp once they understand it all, majority of bp is just water knowledge that most people should know by default. Even when I am reading high iq posts or watch bp youtubers I barely even see anything new about bp.

That's because blackpill is pretty much already solved, it's a near completed theory. But I don't agree with "once people understand the bp once they understand it all" because there are still people who only apply it to dating when blackpill is actually much more broad and horrific than just that.

 

[GeckoBus]

That's because blackpill is pretty much already solved, it's a near completed theory. But I don't agree with "once people understand the bp once they understand it all" because there are still people who only apply it to dating when blackpill is actually much more broad and horrific than just that.

very few people actually take it to its natural conclusion. If you have open mind and you are very curious and willing to consume a lot of info, the BP turns into a study of reality itself. It becomes philosophical real quick. Thats also where you start discovering the best defenses of it, in the philosophical realm. Once you start grasping shit like value judgements, how people get their ethical systems, fact-value collapse and how that makes incels and counter-incels interpret each others claims - there is no going back. Even if they deleted every fucking trace of BP from internet, you can always philosophically reconstruct it. It keeps rising from the ashes.

It's like an STC in warhammer 40k. Once you grasp the blueprint and the logic of it deeply, it can not be taken from you anymore. You dont need studies anymore or anything. You can just go straight to philosophical arguments and point out cognitive biases and logical fallacies people have. Example - someone debunks a BP study to you. Let's say they are even right. You can still get them by just asking them why tf they even care so much? Where does this value judgement come from, that you need to defend women so fucking hard, that you bother to read papers and debunk them, just so you can disagree with some half-dead looser online?

They wont be able to answer. Because the entire reason they do it is a personal bias (pro-female bias, anti-male bias etc). And they cant give a rational account for that.


View: https://imgur.com/a/gy0DATS

View attachment systems-06-00027-g001.png

 

[fokusin]

They wont be able to answer. Because the entire reason they do it is a personal bias (pro-female bias, anti-male bias etc). And they cant give a rational account for that.

Majority of normies don't even know how to formally substantiate in the first place, they are just goons and compromise hegel dialect

 

[fokusin]

That's because blackpill is pretty much already solved, it's a near completed theory. But I don't agree with "once people understand the bp once they understand it all" because there are still people who only apply it to dating when blackpill is actually much more broad and horrific than just that.

I feel like a good portion of blackpillers actually apply it outside their dating life

 

[SmhChan]

You can still get them by just asking them why tf they even care so much? Where does this value judgement come from, that you need to defend women so fucking hard, that you bother to read papers and debunk them, just so you can disagree with some half-dead looser online?

Bro came back from his hiatus gave us a proper gaslighting tactic.

 

[Allah (Real)]

very few people actually take it to its natural conclusion. If you have open mind and you are very curious and willing to consume a lot of info, the BP turns into a study of reality itself. It becomes philosophical real quick. Thats also where you start discovering the best defenses of it, in the philosophical realm. Once you start grasping shit like value judgements, how people get their ethical systems, fact-value collapse and how that makes incels and counter-incels interpret each others claims - there is no going back. Even if they deleted every fucking trace of BP from internet, you can always philosophically reconstruct it. It keeps rising from the ashes.

It's like an STC in warhammer 40k. Once you grasp the blueprint and the logic of it deeply, it can not be taken from you anymore. You dont need studies anymore or anything. You can just go straight to philosophical arguments and point out cognitive biases and logical fallacies people have. Example - someone debunks a BP study to you. Let's say they are even right. You can still get them by just asking them why tf they even care so much? Where does this value judgement come from, that you need to defend women so fucking hard, that you bother to read papers and debunk them, just so you can disagree with some half-dead looser online?

They wont be able to answer. Because the entire reason they do it is a personal bias (pro-female bias, anti-male bias etc). And they cant give a rational account for that.

I personally never viewed it as a study of reality, so if you can please elaborate, I always saw it as more of a theory of human social relations. Blackpill can be reconstructed because it pretty much is a science (and i don't say this lightly). If all human knowledge about evolution was deleted, we would still formulate it again because it best fits with the data. What surprises me more is how late blackpill came to be. It took thousands of years for mankind to question the belief of the ancient Greeks that beautiful people are good, which arose from the first instinct, to people realizing beautiful people are only perceived as good which derives itself from the questioning of the instinct.

 

[Mr. Agent Clark]

That's because blackpill is pretty much already solved, it's a near completed theory. But I don't agree with "once people understand the bp once they understand it all" because there are still people who only apply it to dating when blackpill is actually much more broad and horrific than just that.

Yeah blackpill affects every single aspect of your life basically. How people in general treat you, your quality of life, job, studies, sports, even videogames. Yes videogames. If you have a deep voice in a military simulator game people will follow your orders more, believe more in you etc. They can even tolerate blatant tactical mistakes, disrespect or even racial slurs. Or in a point and click game, what matters is your brain to hand connection. All is about genetics in every aspect of life.

 

[VisitMENK]

Duh it feels like you niggas keep repeating the same water bullshit over and over

 

[VisitMENK]

Blackpill feels like common sense

 

[Allah (Real)]

Yeah blackpill affects every single aspect of your life basically. How people in general treat you, your quality of life, job, studies, sports, even videogames. Yes videogames. If you have a deep voice in a military simulator game people will follow your orders more, believe more in you etc. They can even tolerate blatant tactical mistakes, disrespect or even racial slurs. Or in a point and click game, what matters is your brain to hand connection. All is about genetics in every aspect of life.

I would honestly be ok with the blackpill if it only affected romantic relationships, as crazy as that sounds. But blackpill straight up kicks in the moment you are born (ugly babies are already treated different, you can look this up I'm not kidding) then fucks you up until the day you die.

 

[GeckoBus]

I personally never viewed it as a study of reality, so if you can please elaborate, I always saw it as more of a theory of human social relations. Blackpill can be reconstructed because it pretty much is a science (and i don't say this lightly). If all human knowledge about evolution was deleted, we would still formulate it again because it best fits with the data. What surprises me more is how late blackpill came to be. It took thousands of years for mankind to question the belief of the ancient Greeks that beautiful people are good, which arose from the first instinct, to people realizing beautiful people are only perceived as good which derives itself from the questioning of the instinct.

Just look at the image I attached to my previous reply to you. Basically, the blackpill opens up the more you get into it, until you start asking very basic philosophical questions about epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. For instance, how do people come to value judgements about incels? How do they arrive at ethical conclusions and how are these conclusions justified at all. This is question that is important for every single worldview ever, including incels worldview.

An example of this: The is/ought problem as raised by David Hume during the enlightenment. Chiefly put - you can not derive an "ought" - a moral PRESCRIPTION/LAW from an "is" - an OBSERVATION. For example, seeing someone stab somebody tells me nothing about whether stabbing someone is good or bad. When people assume that an observation has an "obvious" moral content, we call this a "fact-value-collapse." They are collapsing their own moral judgement ("ought" - what "ought" to be done/thought about this) and what they are actually seeing (someone getting stabbed).

Let's apply this to the blackpill. When researchers interpret incels as violent, extremist, evil etc, they are applying a whole range of moral value judgements on incels and their viewpoints. However, the funny thing is that incels are not the only people saying blackpilled shit. Marketing agencies use the blackpill all the time. Women openly talk about shit like "pretty privilege."

Another example of a case where talking about blackpilled shit is perfectly accepted by society is race. Racism is just lookism. Nobody can see "race" as a concept. They can only see your looks. For example, when ukrainian refugees were imported to the west, did anyone complain? Also notice, nobody complains when ethnic women are imported to the west, they only care about ethnic male migrants.

So from this we can conclude that its not the content that makes normies and incel researchers judge incels are evil. Because we see the same content discussed in different contexts but there is no backlash. So what makes them judge the claim differently when it comes to incels?

We have a whole bunch of "is" observations: Looks matter, race matters. But they only become offensive when subhuman men talk about them and complain about how they are affected by them. So we can isolate it down to this: The messenger is the message for normies. If an ugly subhuman complains about looks = he is evil and wrong. If a black man complains about race = its fine and we need to change that.

This tells us, they literally only hate our message because we are fucking ugly. They dont even hate the message, just us (ugly men). They are actually confirming our viewpoint while trying to debunk us. They dont understand this because they are philosophically retarded and dont get basic shit like is/ought distinctions etc.

Most blackpill claims are completely value neutral. They dont imply anything negative or positive about either gender, unless you interpret them that way. They are all "is" and zero "ought." Example: alpha fucks/beta bux (af/bb).
The idea that woman are sexually promiscious and fuck only selected few men is not controversial at all when a feminist says it YOU SLAY KWEEN.
But if we say it, we are suddenly evil and need to be censored.

Further, you also easily interpret af/bb as reflecting negativly on BOTH genders, since it implies that men with looks (chads) begin acting exactly like women if given the opportunity. They manipulate, they fuck around, they pump and dump etc. So the whole blackpill could be understood as a general negative commentary on mankind as a whole, not just one gender. But do people ever interpret it that way? Fuck no, because they come into the discussion loaded with value judgements, judgementy they assume are obvious and irrefutable. And then they judge the data through the lense of these pre-supposed judgements and think they are right.

The people critiquing incels are just as extreme as incels basically. They operate on moral laws they think are absolute, universal and need to be defended with imprisonment and censorship if necessary. Yet they call incels extremist and shit, its fucking hilarious.

I know this was convoluted but please, check out the graph I put in my previous reply, look into is/ought problem, value judgements, munchhausen trilemma and other things. Thats all.

 

[Mr. Agent Clark]

Blackpill feels like common sense

Its totally not common. Normies use the term "common sense" with the meaning of "evident truth". Its a stupid concept based on a logical error known as ad populum

 

[GeckoBus]

Bro came back from his hiatus gave us a proper gaslighting tactic.

Not really, it's actually an epistemic question. Basically we are asking, how do you come to that conclusion and why is it justified?
At that point they are done. Because providing objective justification for a moral claim is extremely difficult, some would say impossible. For instance, if they give you another observation or reason, we can just be a dick and ask why THAT justifies the first thing.

For example lets say we asked them, why are you so obsessed with defending women and attacking subhuman men online?
They would say something like, "because human rights and justice bla bla"
Then you go "ok but that does not answer my question. How does the concept of human rights make it so that you have to attack incels online and defend women?" .They are just begging the question by dropping more criteria without answering your original question.

basically just imagine it like this.
We ask, "Why X?"
and they go
"because Y"
we counter "Why does Y justify X"
and then they just start dropping more Ys.
Every single "Y" they mention, we can also ask why that is important btw. So if they mention that they defend foids cuz human rights, we can ask, why do human rights matter. Also by which standard of "human rights?" Is there really only one definition of human rights? And that definition is universally true and just can not be doubted.

Why not "incel rights?" Or something like that. They will just throw ad hominems at you and call you silly and shit, but just point out thats not an argument.

But anyway, at this point they will not get it and either just repeat what they said, or they will say something like "my morality is right, it just is." That would be an appeal to blind faith, meaning they have just exposed themselves as a moral extremist, someone who just assumes their moral values are absolute, universal, can not be doubted and worse, have to be defended with aggression and violence if necessary (since they are actively attacking incels and defending women). So they are doing exactly what they are accusing incels of doing - being an extremist and advocating for forceful application of their extreme moral code.

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Allah (Real)]

Just look at the image I attached to my previous reply to you. Basically, the blackpill opens up the more you get into it, until you start asking very basic philosophical questions about epistemology, metaphysics and ethics. For instance, how do people come to value judgements about incels? How do they arrive at ethical conclusions and how are these conclusions justified at all. This is question that is important for every single worldview ever, including incels worldview.

genuinely, thanks for writing this, this is true blackpill right here

This tells us, they literally only hate our message because we are fucking ugly. They dont even hate the message, just us (ugly men). They are actually confirming our viewpoint while trying to debunk us. They dont understand this because they are philosophically retarded and dont get basic shit like is/ought distinctions etc.

This is the aspect of the blackpill that pisses me off irl because I have to be conscious of it constantly. The messenger seems to matter more than the message, this applies to humor, the same joke gets different responses depending on who says it and it drives me insane. Even conversation starters and small talk are not safe. Forget arguments and trying to change people's minds, maybe chad with the same opinions as me can do that. The truth is ad-hominem is ALWAYS present it's just either stated or kept in the heart.

 

[fokusin]

Not really, it's actually an epistemic question. Basically we are asking, how do you come to that conclusion and why is it justified?
At that point they are done. Because providing objective justification for a moral claim is extremely difficult, some would say impossible. For instance, if they give you another observation or reason, we can just be a dick and ask why THAT justifies the first thing.

They just try to shift topic after this lmao

 

[GeckoBus]

This is the aspect of the blackpill that pisses me off irl because I have to be conscious of it constantly. The messenger seems to matter more than the message, this applies to humor, the same joke gets different responses depending on who says it and it drives me insane. Even conversation starters and small talk are not safe. Forget arguments and trying to change people's minds, maybe chad with the same opinions as me can do that. The truth is ad-hominem is ALWAYS present it's just either stated or kept in the heart.

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the literal content of the message. We see this in society all the time. It is very fascinating and worth thinking about for a while. For example, people talk about killing an innocent person. But when they turn off grandpas life supply in the hospital, are they not "killing an innocent person?"
When someone shoots 300 afghan farm boys with a sniper rifle, they stand up and salute him at football games and shit.
When some incel stabs 3 people in a mall, its a terrorist attack.

They also all think in these weird consequential ethical ways that make no fucking sense. Consequentalism = the consequences of an event determine whether the event is good or bad. This makes no sense, because as we will see from my example in a second, you have to define which consequences are bad and good PRIOR to making the judgements. It is completely fucking arbitrary.

So here is an example: Going by consequence alone, how tf does it make a difference whether someone dies from natural causes or from being murdered? In both cases, the families looses a person bla bla - the result is identical. Why it the event worse when someone dies from being killed, rather from dying in a car crash or something?

Nobody cares that 100000s people die in car crashes a year. Nobody calls it some BS like "an epidemic of violence" kek. But the outcome is factually the same as if 100000s of people were murdered.

Another retarded example, lets use the holocaust for this kekfuel shit: When you ask normies, "why is the holocaust worse than other genocides in history" they will 100% make appeals to these:
- number of people killed
- method of killing used

Problem: The first one implies that human life is quantifiable. Oh oh, not good not good. More people killed = worse, right? That means that a country with more people has "more value" than other countries for example.
It also means that if you kill less people to save more, that's justified right? More people = more value. I am granting a whole bunch of philosophical implications here but for the sake of argument lets say they agree (trolley experiment).

Ok, most people in the trolley experiment sacrifice less people to save more.
Aight, so when the Nazis genuinely believed they could save the german people (80 million at the time) by killing six million jews...

no comment.
(basically the entire ww2 turns into giant trolley experiment lmao).
We could push this even further with more funny examples how turning human value into a number is retarded, but lets move on.

Point two, method of killing. At some point the normie will kind of understand the numbers thing is retarded, because it implies that every other bad event in history was not as bad as the holocaust, meaning, they are "downplaying other peoples suffering." They cant do that, so they will appeal to method aka "the holocaust was executed systematically and with precision in cold-blooded manner, making it worse."

This is fucking retarded. It would mean that if I shoot someone with a gun, the crime is worse than stabbing them, cuz gun is more complex mechanism than knife. If I beat a baby to death with a baseball bat, thats better than frying it with a laser beam. I love this logic.

But everything I have mentioned so far is just a sort of philosophical cat-playing-with-mouse game, where we grant them their bullshit and make fun of it. In reality we could just go straight for the jugular and ask the is/ought questions, bring up munchhausen trilemma etc. At that point its just fucking over though.

As @fokusin said here:

They just try to shift topic after this lmao

They will not answer you or even just resort to insults.
Let's take my holocaust example. If I brought that up in the way I laid out, they 99% of the time say something like "WOW WOW SO YOU ARE SAYING THE HOLOCAUST WAS GOOD?!"

Even though I never did that. They dont understand mental hypotheticals. This is why debate is pointless with these people, they dont get basic philosophical shit like this and just assume a bunch of beliefs as absolute givens that can not be refuted. Then they try to convince others through manipulation and violence, while screaming at them how they are violent and extremist and instead should listen to their own retarded, unfounded beliefs, which are ironically based on extremist thinking.

 

[oldNgreycel]

you can lead a horse to water... but then some roastie will fuck his big horse cock and the horse will just forget all about the water.

 

[Allah (Real)]

Exactly. It has nothing to do with the literal content of the message. We see this in society all the time. It is very fascinating and worth thinking about for a while. For example, people talk about killing an innocent person. But when they turn off grandpas life supply in the hospital, are they not "killing an innocent person?"
When someone shoots 300 afghan farm boys with a sniper rifle, they stand up and salute him at football games and shit.
When some incel stabs 3 people in a mall, its a terrorist attack.

The reality is there is an explanation for all this. The state is a monopoly of "legitimate" violence, when the US Military launches precision strikes on Taliban infants it's ok because at the end of the day it benefits the interests of the American bourgeoisie. But Allah kicked them out of afghanistan so i guess that didn't work out so well for them lol. But when a random incel goes ER it's an action done outside of the framework of legitimate violence, also its a good opportunity to use as an excuse to ban guns and demonize people suffering from mental health problems

 

[SmhChan]

Not really, it's actually an epistemic question. Basically we are asking, how do you come to that conclusion and why is it justified?
At that point they are done. Because providing objective justification for a moral claim is extremely difficult, some would say impossible. For instance, if they give you another observation or reason, we can just be a dick and ask why THAT justifies the first thing.

For example lets say we asked them, why are you so obsessed with defending women and attacking subhuman men online?
They would say something like, "because human rights and justice bla bla"
Then you go "ok but that does not answer my question. How does the concept of human rights make it so that you have to attack incels online and defend women?" .They are just begging the question by dropping more criteria without answering your original question.

basically just imagine it like this.
We ask, "Why X?"
and they go
"because Y"
we counter "Why does Y justify X"
and then they just start dropping more Ys.
Every single "Y" they mention, we can also ask why that is important btw. So if they mention that they defend foids cuz human rights, we can ask, why do human rights matter. Also by which standard of "human rights?" Is there really only one definition of human rights? And that definition is universally true and just can not be doubted.

Why not "incel rights?" Or something like that. They will just throw ad hominems at you and call you silly and shit, but just point out thats not an argument.

But anyway, at this point they will not get it and either just repeat what they said, or they will say something like "my morality is right, it just is." That would be an appeal to blind faith, meaning they have just exposed themselves as a moral extremist, someone who just assumes their moral values are absolute, universal, can not be doubted and worse, have to be defended with aggression and violence if necessary (since they are actively attacking incels and defending women). So they are doing exactly what they are accusing incels of doing - being an extremist and advocating for forceful application of their extreme moral code.

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was just jesting. I agree it's the only way to interact with normies whenever they try to put you on the spot to humiliate you.

They actually do it to even their own detriment. Like, I had an argument the other day with my parents about rich getting richer because of our corrupt economy and how workers, specially contracted workers, aren't financially very insured. Even though, they both harp on about corruption in our country, they were baffled when I asked why are govts and corporates entitled to so much wealth? Why do billionaires or even millionaires exist when 99% of work is done by others? Why do govts get to control where our money goes? (btw, I'm talking about my shithole country since in Europe, govts actually look after their people to an extent.) It's like the matrix movie. Everyone is just happy with the slop that trickles down. The movie is metaphorically too accurate.

Normies typically hold up political correctness and societal morality as universal truths. For example, they shame men for not standing up for foids yet when it's the other way around, men are told they are not entitled to foids' help. They justify it with vague and unsubstantiated notions established by both right and left. Left says foids are systematically oppressed. How, in a 'lawful society' where men cannot use their natural advantage, they have over foids? We have no fucking idea. While right keeps rehashing the same old bs that foids are so 'smol' and 'weak' and they need men's help. Yet, foids in primitive and hunter gathering societies do just fine on their own.

@Kamanbert raised a good point other day that Men are just too fucking confused in the modern age. Because these lies have been repeated via political means so many times throughout the years, they have been accepted as universal truths. But I digress.

Our sense of morality and societal norms are just based on status, power, and looks and yet we try to pretend it's not. While you'll find some so-called 'misanthropes', 'neutrals', 'nihilists' in the wild, they go apeshit on you if you so much even say something a little negative about foids. Even a lot of 'blackpill' stuff that users here spout have so much bias. For example, users here wouldn't put 'darwin sexual selection' on a pedestal if all the foids looked like nigresses; they would rather scoff at it.