Trusted, Automoderated users
25,837
edits
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
I vote for restoring the slim lede we had before. Also please stop protecting pages and use talk pages instead. [[User:Limerencel]] should have done so before rewriting the entire lede too. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 04:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) | I vote for restoring the slim lede we had before. Also please stop protecting pages and use talk pages instead. [[User:Limerencel]] should have done so before rewriting the entire lede too. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 04:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
:It is impossible to spin the blackpill as healthy or some politically-neutral philosophy without ignoring that people police it's boundaries in ways they do not with 'incel'. Social ostrasization tactics, extreme shaming tactics (such as bullying), and suicide advocacy are universal to blackpill spaces, but not incel spaces. 'incel' has an academic sociological foundation and a definition that extends into academia, | :It is impossible to spin the blackpill as healthy or some politically-neutral philosophy without ignoring that people police it's boundaries in ways they do not with 'incel'. Social ostrasization tactics, extreme shaming tactics (such as bullying), and suicide advocacy are universal to blackpill spaces, but not incel spaces. 'incel' has an academic sociological foundation and a long history of a philosophically neutral definition that extends into academia, literature etc. I disagree the blackpill is a political movement, which usually involves some sort of meaningful advocacy outside echo chambers. It seems to be mainly a claim with a pseudo religious cult surrounding it. Regardless of whatever the blackpill meant in early 2017, hardcore [[Lookism]] overlaps but is a separate topic. [[Traditional conservatism]] also overlaps but is separate topic. [[User:William|William]] ([[User talk:William|talk]]) 13:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC) |