It's very much over for most men
Blackpill The Blackpill Documentary Premiers in Few Hours. Grab your Whiskey
I mean no offence man, but being brutally honest, it feels shoddily put together, low quality, a lot of rambling, and not much substance at any point in the whole thing. It just doesn’t have an impact, which is unfortunate. FaceAndLMS produces extremely high quality material, that is the gold standard you should reach for.
Appreciate the effort, nonetheless.
I only made it through the first half and wasn't really that impressed. My criticisms would be:
-- Needs to start with a bold statement of "the problem" or your hypothesis/conclusion. At the moment, the nearest thing to this is a statement along the lines of "looks matter more than people think they do". Not exactly revolutionary.
-- Ideas are briefly introduced and not really elaborated on. The 15 minutes or so I watched moved from a 1950s-ish description of someone feeling socially isolated, to a statement that looks matter more than we think, to something about the 80/20 rule, to some material on low fertility ratios in the West. No evidence is provided in what I saw for looks mattering more than people think. The 80/20 rule -- okay, this is important, but what is the significance of it. The stats relate to online dating, and someone could easily say "well, online dating is shallow and superficial -- I agree" whilst still being bluepilled. Also, the obvious counter is that men outside the top 20% still have sex, date, and marry. What's your counter to that? Lowering fertility rates have a complex interlocking web of causes that are different in different cultures and range from the sociological to the economic to the psychological. Not really something you can just cover in three minutes and be done with.
-- Lack of connecting tissue between the different ideas introduced. The guy in the 50s social isolation doc clip, or whatever it is, is good looking, so what's the link from that to the idea that looks matter a lot. You then move from that to something about 80/20 rule on OKCupid. Since you haven't established that these top 20% of men are the best looking (they could be the smartest, or richest, or those with the best Magic the Gathering decks) what is the link there? Then you move to TFR. Is fertility declining because men are uglier? The viewer can't be sure what your argument is.
-- The talking heads are not named or even given credentials or identities. If I wanted to hear random people give their opinions on whatever, I could just browse Reddit.
-- You haven't used personal case studies of individual incel talking heads to help illustrate your point. To me the personal and psychological aspects of inceldom are the most interesting, so I thought that was disappointing. Maybe you see the documentary as more like a SCIENCE-laden argument for the blackpill. I suppose that's fine, though I think the flaws I mention above present it from working in that way effectively at the moment. I also wonder whether a documentary is the best format for things like the OKCupid studies, Tinder experiments, and summaries of blackpill-related academic articles. Seems like that kind of stuff is best in an infographic form with explanatory tests, or as blog posts or whatever. Summarising an academic paper or quantitative study in a documentary feels dry.
-- Feels kind of slow and visually unarresting at the moment.
-- Needs to start with a bold statement of "the problem" or your hypothesis/conclusion. At the moment, the nearest thing to this is a statement along the lines of "looks matter more than people think they do". Not exactly revolutionary.
-- Ideas are briefly introduced and not really elaborated on. The 15 minutes or so I watched moved from a 1950s-ish description of someone feeling socially isolated, to a statement that looks matter more than we think, to something about the 80/20 rule, to some material on low fertility ratios in the West. No evidence is provided in what I saw for looks mattering more than people think. The 80/20 rule -- okay, this is important, but what is the significance of it. The stats relate to online dating, and someone could easily say "well, online dating is shallow and superficial -- I agree" whilst still being bluepilled. Also, the obvious counter is that men outside the top 20% still have sex, date, and marry. What's your counter to that? Lowering fertility rates have a complex interlocking web of causes that are different in different cultures and range from the sociological to the economic to the psychological. Not really something you can just cover in three minutes and be done with.
-- Lack of connecting tissue between the different ideas introduced. The guy in the 50s social isolation doc clip, or whatever it is, is good looking, so what's the link from that to the idea that looks matter a lot. You then move from that to something about 80/20 rule on OKCupid. Since you haven't established that these top 20% of men are the best looking (they could be the smartest, or richest, or those with the best Magic the Gathering decks) what is the link there? Then you move to TFR. Is fertility declining because men are uglier? The viewer can't be sure what your argument is.
-- The talking heads are not named or even given credentials or identities. If I wanted to hear random people give their opinions on whatever, I could just browse Reddit.
-- You haven't used personal case studies of individual incel talking heads to help illustrate your point. To me the personal and psychological aspects of inceldom are the most interesting, so I thought that was disappointing. Maybe you see the documentary as more like a SCIENCE-laden argument for the blackpill. I suppose that's fine, though I think the flaws I mention above present it from working in that way effectively at the moment. I also wonder whether a documentary is the best format for things like the OKCupid studies, Tinder experiments, and summaries of blackpill-related academic articles. Seems like that kind of stuff is best in an infographic form with explanatory tests, or as blog posts or whatever. Summarising an academic paper or quantitative study in a documentary feels dry.
-- Feels kind of slow and visually unarresting at the moment.
well on most parts i agree, but on some ill try to explain.
subjects are not explained, is one thing right? i mean its not explained thoroughly, but you get the idea.
just because something is not explained all the way through doesn't cancel its legitimacy or makes it stupid. (its a 0$ budget doc).
if people don't want to believe that social media is damaging (because muh studies) then fuck them, it does damage them and they can look it up themselves.
same with demographics, anyone can look up the demographic winter and watch it- it proves the point. whenever you want to believe these studies are real or not, its really up to the person watching (unless he finally decides to google it, like any person should)
you don't need to be super logistical to get a msg through (while i agree it can be longer, and more detailed.) people nowdays are addicted to lootbox unboxings or asmr videos and that video is geared towards them. the interview at the end constantly hammers the point of 'look it up' which is essential to understand the blackpill. you cannot understand it fully if you don't look shit up no matter how much you compress or unpack it.
Watch the jewish media edit the fuck out of this and add bogus news reports on how Incels commit most mass-murders, oh wait...
Fuck all these haters of the doc. I ain’t about that pussy ass incels.co talk, pull up to the set and let my pistol talk.
its shit
it's over that last dude got lucky that he haven't got any mental illnesses only bad looks at least he can wageslave to do surgerymaxxx
Last edited:
Wasnt that great, inceltv videos are much better. Needs more statistics like rageagainsttdl gives on this site
JFL it was shit, what else
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
