![Nordicel94](/data/avatars/m/46/46221.jpg?1666117024)
Nordicel94
Pancake-faced viking-cel
★★★★★
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2022
- Posts
- 412
One of the most infuriating arguments in bluepillers' arsenal is the "I know I guy..."-argument.
It usually goes like this (as you all know): "I know a guy who's 5'5 and ugly who has a stunning, model girlfriend".
There's 3 reasons why this is bullshit:
1. They just make it up. It's very convenient to just make something up in an online argument because there is no way to verify the claim. Of course you can't ask them them for proof or they'll say: "I'm not about to dox my friend".
2. If this relationship exists, the bluepiller is highly likely to majorly underestimate the man's looks and highly overestimate the woman's looks. In actuality, they are probably close to being looks matched. They will also most likely make him shorter than he actually is in order to feed their narrative.
3. If the relationship is indeed as described, the guy is a one in a million unicorn, a statistic anomaly, and should not be applied to the average dating market as an example. It would be like encouraging gambling addicts to keep gambling because they "know a guy who hit the jackpot".
The disingenuous nature of bluepillers should be studied. Fuck 'em all.
It usually goes like this (as you all know): "I know a guy who's 5'5 and ugly who has a stunning, model girlfriend".
There's 3 reasons why this is bullshit:
1. They just make it up. It's very convenient to just make something up in an online argument because there is no way to verify the claim. Of course you can't ask them them for proof or they'll say: "I'm not about to dox my friend".
2. If this relationship exists, the bluepiller is highly likely to majorly underestimate the man's looks and highly overestimate the woman's looks. In actuality, they are probably close to being looks matched. They will also most likely make him shorter than he actually is in order to feed their narrative.
3. If the relationship is indeed as described, the guy is a one in a million unicorn, a statistic anomaly, and should not be applied to the average dating market as an example. It would be like encouraging gambling addicts to keep gambling because they "know a guy who hit the jackpot".
The disingenuous nature of bluepillers should be studied. Fuck 'em all.