Discussion The blackpill is more complicated and nuanced than you think

[LeFrenchCel]

The blackpill isn't a simple generalization that can be applied to everything in life without any nuance. The blackpill is a multitude of smaller laws that, combined to each other, makes it a much harder concept to understand than what we may think at first glance.

Something that many people, normscum like brocels, need to learn is that most things in life aren't fully black and fully white.

The face/height debate is the perfect start of what I want to illustrate.

Ask a woman if she'd rather have a tall bf or a short bf. No matter what the other characteristics are, let them aside. 100% will go for a tall bf. (Water)

Ask a woman if she'd rather have a handsome bf or an ugly bf. Again, putting aside any other criteria. 100% will go for a handsome bf. (Once again, water)

Now, mix both. Ugly tall bf or handsome short bf? Again, putting aside everything else, and focusing only on height and face.

Well, some will say the former, some the latter.

Because not only it depends on two different criteria instead of only one, but also because of the nuances to which those criteria are applied.

It depends of how tall/short the guy is, of how handsome/ugly he is, or simply personal preferences. If a guy is 6'1 or 6'8 then the importance of face won't be the same. Height on a 9/10 guy will be less of a factor than on a 5/10 guy. And depending on those various degrees of height and face, the answers to the height/face debate can vary pretty much easily.

And this is why this debate lasts for so long and why despite years of debate we can't reach a clear and definitive answer. Because there isn't one.

You see how twisted it can get by taking into account only TWO criteria?

If you start adding all the other possible ones (race, NTness, hair color, baldness, money, dick size, environment, luck, etc.), and take into consideration all the different degrees of anyone of them, we end up with a concept that is much more complicated to grasp than the "only looks matter" motto we all had in mind at first glance.

The existence of outliers can be explained by all of this, and does not make the blackpill irrelevant. It only proves the complexity of it. An ugly guy having a gf can be explained by many more things than just "he got lucky" or "muh the blackpill is bs".

If the blackpill was that simple, we would all be 5'0 ugly balding autists with shitty jobs. But it's not the case. We're diverse in a lot of ways. Because the blackpill itself is diverse.

 

[McFlurryCel]

ok

 

[Multicell]

High-IQ take, brocel.

You explained the nuance showing you cannot reduce everything to one slogan. Respect for actually thinking in variables instead of coping with absolutes.

 

[wereq]

ok

 

[Onyx]

And this is why this debate lasts for so long and why despite years of debate we can't reach a clear and definitive answer. Because there isn't one.

in a way, yes

I agree with all this

 

[CRASH THE CUCK]

 

[Slut_Annihilator298]

Absolutes, being simplistic, are good for those poor souls who are just learning about the blackpill, and to get a good general idea of it. But of course there are nuances to all this. Real life, and the truth itself, most of the time, from what I've seen, is always so much more complex and nuanced.

 

[cathuluelitist]

The tenets of the "blackpill" are very simple at its core. It can be distilled into the "determinism" prong and the "nihilism" prong.

The determinism prong is that there exists a gendered and racialized hierarchy of sexual attractiveness, based largely on variables that are immutable and/or predetermined at birth. (These same variables also determine life outcomes beyond sex and romance.) The nihilism prong is an application of the determinism prong. It simply suggests that for men below a certain threshold, they should give up on sex and romance, because it is an irrational endeavour—that is, on a balance of probabilities, the expected negatives outweigh the expected positives.

No reasonable person objects to the truth of the determinism prong, though there are quite a few unreasonable people out there. The nihilism prong is what most people object to. But the problem with most objections is that they don't object to the truth or falsity of the nihilism prong itself; they object to the social consequences of the nihilism prong being accepted.

Part of this has to do with humans being socially conditioned to feel disgust at unproductive men; I suspect there is an evolutionary basis for this. That's why there's a lot of over-the-top rhetoric about the blackpill being "spiritual decay" or "cultural rot" and its adherents being "pathetic". But I will acknowledge that there are negative externalities to the blackpill: If a man accepts he has no prospect of ever starting a family, he will have little incentive to be ambitious—he will do the bare minimum needed to keep a roof over his head and slop in his belly. He can alleviate his isolation with games and sedate his urges with pornography. (There's a bit of a "chicken-and-egg" discussion to be had about whether it is NEEThood that causes romantic struggles; or whether it is the romantic struggle that causes NEEThood, but I digress.) If the aforementioned man's family members are willing and able to support this lifestyle then he will not need to do anything at all.

But none of this is an argument against the blackpill itself. What someone chooses to do with the blackpill is up to them entirely. (It is also up to the individual, based on their lived experience, to decide whether they are above or below the threshold of "giving up".) Someone who chooses to give up could find some reason to stay productive—like a deep intellectual interest in their profession. Or maybe they have an expensive hobby, like visiting every Michelin-starred restaurant in the country, or sleeping with a high-end escort every month, that isn't compatible with NEEThood.

 

[Multicell]

And at the same time, some single factors alone can be totally brutal by themselves. We all know that also.

 

[Squatting Slavcel]

it never began for frenchcels

 

[Moth]

If someone isn't already aware of this, they're an idiot.

 

[Moth]

If someone isn't already aware of this, they're an idiot.

And yet at the same time, I rarely see people in blackpill spheres speak of this.

 

[St3v3Cel]

The blackpill isn't a simple generalization that can be applied to everything in life without any nuance. The blackpill is a multitude of smaller laws that, combined to each other, makes it a much harder concept to understand than what we may think at first glance.

Something that many people, normscum like brocels, need to learn is that most things in life aren't fully black and fully white.

The face/height debate is the perfect start of what I want to illustrate.

Ask a woman if she'd rather have a tall bf or a short bf. No matter what the other characteristics are, let them aside. 100% will go for a tall bf. (Water)

Ask a woman if she'd rather have a handsome bf or an ugly bf. Again, putting aside any other criteria. 100% will go for a handsome bf. (Once again, water)

Now, mix both. Ugly tall bf or handsome short bf? Again, putting aside everything else, and focusing only on height and face.

Well, some will say the former, some the latter.

Because not only it depends on two different criteria instead of only one, but also because of the nuances to which those criteria are applied.

It depends of how tall/short the guy is, of how handsome/ugly he is, or simply personal preferences. If a guy is 6'1 or 6'8 then the importance of face won't be the same. Height on a 9/10 guy will be less of a factor than on a 5/10 guy. And depending on those various degrees of height and face, the answers to the height/face debate can vary pretty much easily.

And this is why this debate lasts for so long and why despite years of debate we can't reach a clear and definitive answer. Because there isn't one.

You see how twisted it can get by taking into account only TWO criteria?

If you start adding all the other possible ones (race, NTness, hair color, baldness, money, dick size, environment, luck, etc.), and take into consideration all the different degrees of anyone of them, we end up with a concept that is much more complicated to grasp than the "only looks matter" motto we all had in mind at first glance.

The existence of outliers can be explained by all of this, and does not make the blackpill irrelevant. It only proves the complexity of it. An ugly guy having a gf can be explained by many more things than just "he got lucky" or "muh the blackpill is bs".

If the blackpill was that simple, we would all be 5'0 ugly balding autists with shitty jobs. But it's not the case. We're diverse in a lot of ways. Because the blackpill itself is diverse.

 

[Pancakecel]

 

[nihilum]

 

[nihilum]

it never began for frenchcels

 

[INVERTER]

It's pointless to argue this though because people will just use the .0001% chance of success that an ND, short, wrong race, high inhib ugly guy has an excuse to say the BP is false. No one is arguing that someone with all of the worst traits could NEVER succeed. just that's it's so unlikely you may as well say it's over. Combining this with the fact that people in 2026 are generally unapproachable makes it even worse

 

[Yunoo]

High iq thread

 

[Autistic Uggo]

And this is why this debate lasts for so long and why despite years of debate we can't reach a clear and definitive answer. Because there isn't one.

This is why I find height vs. face debates so boring. There isn't a concrete answer to these debates. While women generally prefer tall and handsome men, there is still individual and cultural variation in their preferences. Women like different flavors of Chad. You can't reduce their preferences to some mathematical formula. Biology and sociology are rarely that simple. Your mileage will always vary depending on the woman and community in question.

I think the impact of inceldom is a more interesting discussion. It's easier to measure and quantify. The health effects of isolation and loneliness have been well-documented. That's why I think your age and behavior are better proxies for 'truceldom' than your failos are. People can exaggerate how ugly they are online, but it's harder to fake how miserable and emotionally dead you feel. Trucels have different posting and writing habits than fakecels. Oldcels tend to be more despondent and hopeless than youngcels.