Theory NAXALT, the Only Fallacy You Need to Know as an Incel

[Bulbasaur]

When discussing various topics revolving around modern dating, NAXALT will basically be the only logical fallacy thrown at you by midwits. The structure is simple, and we've seen it a bazillion times:
Incel: Women only want chads, look at this dating app data, the majority of likes go to the top 5%...
Soy: Well, not all...

NAXALT stands for "not all X are like that," as opposed to AWALT, or "all women are like that." The fallacy lies in the rejection of a strong statistical trend, which can be demonstrated empirically, in favor of individual exceptions. Meaning, if the majority of couples under the age of 30 meet online, and if the majority of women indeed go for the most attractive men, it simply doesn't matter that a Reddit user knows John, who's not that good-looking, and who met Sally offline. It's the "begging the exception fallacy," and it's anecdotal.

NAXALT can always be made in the face of any generalization one dislikes. In practical reality, there will always be exceptions, no matter how small or irrelevant. And it takes no brainpower to do so. One can make a generalization like "Birds fly," only to be met with, "Excuse me, penguins don't." And one can outsource the thinking to CuckGPT. A soy can just copy and paste a post made on this forum and ask the AI to "critique it." But the "critique" will come in the form of NAXALT.

 

[4sez]

Trvth

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Yep, exceptions don’t matter when the rule is overwhelmingly true, especially when these exceptions are usually misrepresented.

 

[retributor]

NAXALT might be some sort of self-gaslight for these pedantic cucks

 

[anon65]

Normgroids think that mentioning one outlier exception that happened years ago will change the truths of the world.

 

[DoomThreeKoala]

trvke

 

[glizzymcguire]

Yeah

 

[Grodd]

Yep, exceptions don’t matter when the rule is overwhelmingly true, especially when these exceptions are usually misrepresented.

 

[Grodd]

Yep normies are so hell bent on focusing on extreme exceptions and that are most of the time completely false.

 

[Bulbasaur]

Yep, exceptions don’t matter when the rule is overwhelmingly true, especially when these exceptions are usually misrepresented.

 

[Erenincel]

people simply don't understand statistics. Just because one in a hundred people is ugly and short and have girl friend doesn't mean the remaining 99 percent have any chance.

 

[xxectrapieces]

people simply don't understand statistics. Just because one in a hundred people is ugly and short and have girl friend doesn't mean the remaining 99 percent have any chance.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Femoids are on indivisible mass. If sophist wants to argue against it, order him to show 5'2 balding indian janitor with harem of breeding age foids.

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

Yep, exceptions don’t matter when the rule is overwhelmingly true, especially when these exceptions are usually misrepresented.

There are no exceptions to laws of blackpill.

 

[Bulbasaur]

There are no exceptions to laws of blackpill.

There are, it's just they are rare, thus, they are unimportant because they don't apply generally. To explain everything with blackpill would be to torture the blackpill. This is the difference between:

"See, see, there is this ugly guy in a relationship and he's not cucked!"
"No, no, he's actually not that ugly and he is cucked, let me use many words to explain..."

and

"See, see, there is this ugly guy in a relationship and he's not cucked!"
"Whatever. One in a thousand chance. Won't happen to me, realistically."

 

[Flagellum_Dei]

There are, it's just they are rare, thus, they are unimportant because they don't apply generally. To explain everything with blackpill would be to torture the blackpill. This is the difference between:

"See, see, there is this ugly guy in a relationship and he's not cucked!"
"No, no, he's actually not that ugly and he is cucked, let me use many words to explain..."

and

"See, see, there is this ugly guy in a relationship and he's not cucked!"
"Whatever. One in a thousand chance. Won't happen to me, realistically."

You're wrong. Every single one relationship that nonchad can have is cucked, because it's merely seen by foid as mean for reaching chad.

If there would be exceptions, it would mean that hypergamy doesn't universally come from foids' nature; if so, there would be no source of it. Also if there exist exceptions, show me said indian janitor with harem.

 

[Nicusor_delaBraila]

When discussing various topics revolving around modern dating, NAXALT will basically be the only logical fallacy thrown at you by midwits. The structure is simple, and we've seen it a bazillion times:
Incel: Women only want chads, look at this dating app data, the majority of likes go to the top 5%...
Soy: Well, not all...

NAXALT stands for "not all X are like that," as opposed to AWALT, or "all women are like that." The fallacy lies in the rejection of a strong statistical trend, which can be demonstrated empirically, in favor of individual exceptions. Meaning, if the majority of couples under the age of 30 meet online, and if the majority of women indeed go for the most attractive men, it simply doesn't matter that a Reddit user knows John, who's not that good-looking, and who met Sally offline. It's the "begging the exception fallacy," and it's anecdotal.

NAXALT can always be made in the face of any generalization one dislikes. In practical reality, there will always be exceptions, no matter how small or irrelevant. And it takes no brainpower to do so. One can make a generalization like "Birds fly," only to be met with, "Excuse me, penguins don't." And one can outsource the thinking to CuckGPT. A soy can just copy and paste a post made on this forum and ask the AI to "critique it." But the "critique" will come in the form of NAXALT.

Nice post brocel and holy fuck have you postmaxxed

 

[Bulbasaur]

Also, one has to differentiate between theoretical and practical certainty.

For example, it is possible to claim with with a theoretical certainty that it is impossible for a human to fly up in the air just by waving his hands really hard, as this has literally never happened in the history of mankind. Theoretical certainty, as far it can exist, exists only in physics and mathematics.

In social sciences, only practical certainty exists. And the blackpill is a social theory. Based on biology, but still a social theory. Meaning, were you to try really, really hard, you would find an ugly guy in a non-cucked relationship somewhere. And if facing this you want to maintain theoretical certainty of blackpill, you would have to fiddle with the meaning of word "cucked" post factum. You would be like: "No, no, he is a cuck because his wife asked him to take out the trash and he did." And this stretches the normal meaning of being a cuck unreasonably. It's better to say that there is like 90%+ chance of an ugly guy to be a cuck - a real cuck - and in the rest 10% or so, well, we simply don't know. Just making strong claims because they feel right helps no one.

And one simply has to live be the dictum of:
90% or higher chance = it will happen
50% chance = it will maybe happen
10% or lower chance = it won't happen

 

[Bulbasaur]

Nice post brocel and holy fuck have you postmaxxed

thank you, brocel

 

[mathematique]

When discussing various topics revolving around modern dating, NAXALT will basically be the only logical fallacy thrown at you by midwits. The structure is simple, and we've seen it a bazillion times:
Incel: Women only want chads, look at this dating app data, the majority of likes go to the top 5%...
Soy: Well, not all...

NAXALT stands for "not all X are like that," as opposed to AWALT, or "all women are like that." The fallacy lies in the rejection of a strong statistical trend, which can be demonstrated empirically, in favor of individual exceptions. Meaning, if the majority of couples under the age of 30 meet online, and if the majority of women indeed go for the most attractive men, it simply doesn't matter that a Reddit user knows John, who's not that good-looking, and who met Sally offline. It's the "begging the exception fallacy," and it's anecdotal.

NAXALT can always be made in the face of any generalization one dislikes. In practical reality, there will always be exceptions, no matter how small or irrelevant. And it takes no brainpower to do so. One can make a generalization like "Birds fly," only to be met with, "Excuse me, penguins don't." And one can outsource the thinking to CuckGPT. A soy can just copy and paste a post made on this forum and ask the AI to "critique it." But the "critique" will come in the form of NAXALT.

naxalite

 

[Bulbasaur]

naxalite

welcome, newfren

 

[mathematique]

welcome, newfren

i am just a naxalite warrior fighting for survival and equality

 

[arkaxfoidletslayer]

And one can outsource the thinking to CuckGPT

genuine subhuman activity especially when it's used as an attempt to counter political information. Artificial Israeli once said how it totally makes sense that jews hold the most powerful world positions even as 0.25% of the population because "in their culture they study alot and thrive for the best accomplishments" jfl.

 

[Caichan]

Yep, exceptions don’t matter when the rule is overwhelmingly true, especially when these exceptions are usually misrepresented.

 

[Misogynist Vegeta]

AWALT has always been as wrong as normalfags saying "they know a guy", Incel intellectuals should never argue that AWALT is a thing because there sometimes is actually a guy but there is also a couple o guys that win the lottery too, Would any rational person suggest to somebody that is living in poverty that they should stop complaining about there poverty because they can just win the lottery? No, This way of arguing for the truth of the blackpill will absolutely destroy normalfags as they will have no way to respond to it other than straight up denial.

 

[Pancakecel]

Yep, exceptions don’t matter when the rule is overwhelmingly true, especially when these exceptions are usually misrepresented.