Discussion NUANCE ENJOYER I.E. THE TWITTER USER WHO POSTS ANTI-BLACKPILL FINDINGS

[biomarxist]

Who is he and is he legit?

View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816983536701964376

 

[Ron.Belgrade]

the shorter u are the more fucked ur life will be

its that simple

 

[biomarxist]

the shorter u are the more fucked ur life will be

its that simple

but it seems your reproductive success doesn't depend on it, atleast according to the posted stoody. What gives? High iqcels must weigh in on this

 

[Ron.Belgrade]

High iqcels must weigh in on this

@WorthlessSlavicShit @DarkStar

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

So basically just another alt-righter/hereditarian who is fully convinced that everything about racial differences worldwide is because of genes, but who for some reason decided to try to "Prove the incel wrong!"

Gotta say I'm not impressed much with this guy.

but it seems your reproductive success doesn't depend on it, atleast according to the posted stoody. What gives? High iqcels must weigh in on this

Of course, that's the role of facial attractiveness.

"Our data suggest that male facial attractiveness, but not tallness, is a significant predictor of men’s reproductive success"

Dumbasses be like: "All the incel stats are American only, if you aren't American it's completely different for you:soy::soy::soy:." Meanwhile, studies from my country be like: Physical attractiveness influences reproductive success of modern men Here we examined associations between men’s...

incels.is

Mofo legitimately just did the same as those researchers did. He admitted that there's proof that taller men have better relationships with more attractive women, and that tall men have something of an edge over short men, but decided that that alone proves the blackpill wrong.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816565952248729680#m


Mofo is trying to dab on us by showing that it's autism and not height. I can't from this.

Yeah, I never would've guessed that, as @AsiaCel said, it's autism that breaks a man.

View: https://x.com/MengHu13/status/1812524477634191820#m


"I will defeat the inkwells by showing that they would've always been sexless and that they aren't just normies cucked by modernity, blackpill deboonked."


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1810911379861426370#m


Is he genuinely trying to debunk the blackpill by proving that PUA is bullshit and even good-looking guys can't just slut it up? This is such a misunderstanding of what we are talking about, holy shit.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1807621721908011146#m



View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1807832552780226705#m


Literally the stat @GeckoBus posted a couple of times, brutal autismpill.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1806685300720324915#m


Brutal heightpill.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053#m


This is by far the most interesting post I've seen from him so far, and also the one that took the biggest beating in the comments, to the point that I was audibly laughing at it.

For the obvious, there's the fact that focusing solely on extraversion as a factor there seperate from the others, is like when people noticed that kids that do well in school are also confident about their abilities, and started believing that the kids are doing well because they are confident, and not that they are confident because they are doing well. Same cargo cult-tier conclusion here. Wow, it's almost like there could be a link between extraversion and physical attributes that can make social interaction easier for you, such as, I don't know, being strong and attractive?

Some friend of his was even freaking out in the comments about this because people were pointing this out, so he spammed another study this guy posted showing a relatively weak association between attractiveness and extraversion:


View: https://x.com/observer_b73589/status/1805592780925776204#m


Which prompted another guy to post another study, which not only found a robust association between attractiveness and extraversion in both genders, but also between physical strength in men and it (which just so happens to be another thing correlated with male sexual success according to what this guy posted):

One only needs to search "extraversion attractiveness correlation" on Google Scholar to find hundreds of studies on this. Also, there's absolutely nothing on how much extraversion matters for people of different looks categories. Like, if some extroverted normie gets laid more than a better looking introverted guy, it could serve as "proof" that extraversion is what makes the difference, even if an ugly guy gets nothing no matter what.

Would that really be impossible? I can easily imagine a scenario where say, an ugly guy already used to social exclusion tries asking out women a few times, gets turned down always, then a bunch of normies who already know that they can get laid if they try hard ask out dozens of women, rack up more one-night-stands then introverted Chads who are loyal to their Stacy gfs, and then somebody would look at that and say that that proves that extraversion is what matters to get laid.

And even if we accept that extraversion is completely seperate from looks, face, body and so on, when you add up the other factors, face and body already equal extraversion and with age they overwhelm it, meaning that it's still a nasty study if you are an ugly, weak/manlet oldfag, which more people here are than many copers think.

I swear, I still just genuinely don't understand why there's this trend of alt-right hereditarians and genetic determinists who have apparently decided that genes can explain all the human differences in the world... EXCEPT apparently whether somebody gets laid, finds love, gets married and has children or not. Well, not somebody, but men specifically, absolutely all of this delusional cope and gaslighting is always targeted at men specifically, NOBODY has ever told or ever will tell women that anything except their looks matters when it comes to their chances of finding a man, there's legitimately a thousand times as many Flat Earthers as there are people who think that women's personalities matter instead of their looks, but for some reason, people are obsessed with telling men the opposite when it's BLATANTLY not true.

It's just so bizarre, do those rightwingers just believe the media narrative on incels and believe that we are all far-right white supremacists, and so they believe that this is some rival movement/community or whatever taking their potential recruits, so they try to discredit the blackpill to stop that or what?

Also love how he focuses solely on sex and dating, when the blackpill and lookism are about looks in general and the effect they have on absolutely all social interactions, not just the romantic ones.

 

[biomarxist]

So basically just another alt-righter/hereditarian who is fully convinced that everything about racial differences worldwide is because of genes, but who for some reason decided to try to "Prove the incel wrong!"

Gotta say I'm not impressed much with this guy.


Of course, that's the role of facial attractiveness.

"Our data suggest that male facial attractiveness, but not tallness, is a significant predictor of men’s reproductive success"

Dumbasses be like: "All the incel stats are American only, if you aren't American it's completely different for you:soy::soy::soy:." Meanwhile, studies from my country be like: Physical attractiveness influences reproductive success of modern men Here we examined associations between men’s...

incels.is

Mofo legitimately just did the same as those researchers did. He admitted that there's proof that taller men have better relationships with more attractive women, and that tall men have something of an edge over short men, but decided that that alone proves the blackpill wrong.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1816565952248729680#m


Mofo is trying to dab on us by showing that it's autism and not height. I can't from this.

Yeah, I never would've guessed that, as @AsiaCel said, it's autism that breaks a man.

View: https://x.com/MengHu13/status/1812524477634191820#m


"I will defeat the inkwells by showing that they would've always been sexless and that they aren't just normies cucked by modernity, blackpill deboonked."


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1810911379861426370#m


Is he genuinely trying to debunk the blackpill by proving that PUA is bullshit and even good-looking guys can't just slut it up? This is such a misunderstanding of what we are talking about, holy shit.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1807621721908011146#m



View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1807832552780226705#m


Literally the stat @GeckoBus posted a couple of times, brutal autismpill.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1806685300720324915#m


Brutal heightpill.


View: https://x.com/nuance_enjoyer/status/1805553213371990053#m


This is by far the most interesting post I've seen from him so far, and also the one that took the biggest beating in the comments, to the point that I was audibly laughing at it.

For the obvious, there's the fact that focusing solely on extraversion as a factor there seperate from the others, is like when people noticed that kids that do well in school are also confident about their abilities, and started believing that the kids are doing well because they are confident, and not that they are confident because they are doing well. Same cargo cult-tier conclusion here. Wow, it's almost like there could be a link between extraversion and physical attributes that can make social interaction easier for you, such as, I don't know, being strong and attractive?

Some friend of his was even freaking out in the comments about this because people were pointing this out, so he spammed another study this guy posted showing a relatively weak association between attractiveness and extraversion:


View: https://x.com/observer_b73589/status/1805592780925776204#m


Which prompted another guy to post another study, which not only found a robust association between attractiveness and extraversion in both genders, but also between physical strength in men and it (which just so happens to be another thing correlated with male sexual success according to what this guy posted):

One only needs to search "extraversion attractiveness correlation" on Google Scholar to find hundreds of studies on this. Also, there's absolutely nothing on how much extraversion matters for people of different looks categories. Like, if some extroverted normie gets laid more than a better looking introverted guy, it could serve as "proof" that extraversion is what makes the difference, even if an ugly guy gets nothing no matter what.

Would that really be impossible? I can easily imagine a scenario where say, an ugly guy already used to social exclusion tries asking out women a few times, gets turned down always, then a bunch of normies who already know that they can get laid if they try hard ask out dozens of women, rack up more one-night-stands then introverted Chads who are loyal to their Stacy gfs, and then somebody would look at that and say that that proves that extraversion is what matters to get laid.

And even if we accept that extraversion is completely seperate from looks, face, body and so on, when you add up the other factors, face and body already equal extraversion and with age they overwhelm it, meaning that it's still a nasty study if you are an ugly, weak/manlet oldfag, which more people here are than many copers think.

I swear, I still just genuinely don't understand why there's this trend of alt-right hereditarians and genetic determinists who have apparently decided that genes can explain all the human differences in the world... EXCEPT apparently whether somebody gets laid, finds love, gets married and has children or not. Well, not somebody, but men specifically, absolutely all of this delusional cope and gaslighting is always targeted at men specifically, NOBODY has ever told or ever will tell women that anything except their looks matters when it comes to their chances of finding a man, there's legitimately a thousand times as many Flat Earthers as there are people who think that women's personalities matter instead of their looks, but for some reason, people are obsessed with telling men the opposite when it's BLATANTLY not true.

It's just so bizarre, do those rightwingers just believe the media narrative on incels and believe that we are all far-right white supremacists, and so they believe that this is some rival movement/community or whatever taking their potential recruits, so they try to discredit the blackpill to stop that or what?

Also love how he focuses solely on sex and dating, when the blackpill and lookism are about looks in general and the effect they have on absolutely all social interactions, not just the romantic ones.

bookmarked this post bucko