Talk:Blackpill: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
4,690 bytes added ,  15 April 2020
Line 154: Line 154:


: What is funny about all this is that ''you'' have your own obvious agenda and propaganda. You declare arranged marriage as rape and claim to know for certain that the best state can be achieved with some kind of mutual, loving and equal relationships. Though what is the data you base this assumption on? Historically, most marriages were arranged, which does not necessarily mean they involved rape. Though, evidently many women, do seem to desire to be manned around and coerced into sex as prevalences of rape fantasies and rape kinks suggest. How do you explain that some people are absolutely convinced that sexual relationships are best when treating the woman as a child,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK357A7ELBY</ref> while others say the [[bluepill|opposite]]. At least three not necessarily mutually exclusive possibilities come to mind: (1) It's all feminist propaganda seeking to weaken and domesticate men for the mere purpose of making them controllable and docile, while at the same time maximizing economic exploitation of the females. (2) The domestication actually has economic benefits as it results in a more stable environment. AFAIK there are many results that do suggest so. (Though it might be detrimental in the extreme, i.e. domesticating the male too much resulting in inhibition and demotivation and ultimately destruction.) (3) There is high variance on the female hypergamy spectrum, resulting in people making very different experiences, i.e. some women may desire being manned around and subordinated, but others function well in a more equal setting. Evidently, many marriages are very mutual and last a long time, so that certainly seems plausible (though of the N=5 of long-lasting marriages, the woman often still does shit tests). Humans are only moderately polygynous with around 35% of women living in harems, or so, also suggesting that many women should be adapted for the monogamous/equal setting. However, harem wives presumably had offspring with the highest survival rates due to a wealthy and high status father/family, so one should expect substantial harem adaptations in women imo, which actually often involved them living separately and well in a group of women being sort of slaves. Then there is also overwhelming historical evidence of female subordination. It seems like a stretch to explain this as arbitrary oppression, since maybe it actually has some benefits. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
: What is funny about all this is that ''you'' have your own obvious agenda and propaganda. You declare arranged marriage as rape and claim to know for certain that the best state can be achieved with some kind of mutual, loving and equal relationships. Though what is the data you base this assumption on? Historically, most marriages were arranged, which does not necessarily mean they involved rape. Though, evidently many women, do seem to desire to be manned around and coerced into sex as prevalences of rape fantasies and rape kinks suggest. How do you explain that some people are absolutely convinced that sexual relationships are best when treating the woman as a child,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK357A7ELBY</ref> while others say the [[bluepill|opposite]]. At least three not necessarily mutually exclusive possibilities come to mind: (1) It's all feminist propaganda seeking to weaken and domesticate men for the mere purpose of making them controllable and docile, while at the same time maximizing economic exploitation of the females. (2) The domestication actually has economic benefits as it results in a more stable environment. AFAIK there are many results that do suggest so. (Though it might be detrimental in the extreme, i.e. domesticating the male too much resulting in inhibition and demotivation and ultimately destruction.) (3) There is high variance on the female hypergamy spectrum, resulting in people making very different experiences, i.e. some women may desire being manned around and subordinated, but others function well in a more equal setting. Evidently, many marriages are very mutual and last a long time, so that certainly seems plausible (though of the N=5 of long-lasting marriages, the woman often still does shit tests). Humans are only moderately polygynous with around 35% of women living in harems, or so, also suggesting that many women should be adapted for the monogamous/equal setting. However, harem wives presumably had offspring with the highest survival rates due to a wealthy and high status father/family, so one should expect substantial harem adaptations in women imo, which actually often involved them living separately and well in a group of women being sort of slaves. Then there is also overwhelming historical evidence of female subordination. It seems like a stretch to explain this as arbitrary oppression, since maybe it actually has some benefits. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
== The lede now fails to capture more popular and general meanings of the blackpill ==
Now the lede is all conspiratorial about shitposting having a hidden agenda.
The most popular meaning of the blackpill is that pickup artistry and other redpill-y snake-oil dating advice is useless advice because it all comes down to determinism, luck and genetics. The most general meaning is "external locus of control implying infeasible or hard external solutions". So what you are writing accurately reflects some stuff on incels.co, but it overly narrowly focuses on a particular vocal group using the blackpill label. In fact YOU are injecting your own political agendas regarding UBI here, linking to your own blog, then calling out others to push their's, hmm. Below are a bunch of definitions which are more accurate IMO. You can mention the rape advocacy and the hard good-geners bend in the respective subsection for incels.co. [[User:Bibipi|Bibipi]] ([[User talk:Bibipi|talk]]) 13:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
----
From Urban Dictionary:
{{quote|Blackpilled
The term is given a negative connotation as it is often associated with the "incel" and doomer communities. However, one doesn't need to be a part of either to become blackpilled.*
A state of mind brought upon by the realization of harsh truths: seeing reality/society for what it truly is beyond the illusion of "equality" we are led to believe. It is the understanding that '''life is ultimately unfair and that "winners" and "losers" are determined, for the most part, by circumstances beyond one's control (looks, wealth, mental condition, height, race, family, luck, etc.).''' The despair that arises from taking in the blackpill can be crippling and might drive some to the brink of insanity (thus the expression: Cope or Rope). However, it is also necessary stage in reaching enlightenment when paired with the whitepill.
Damn, it really is over for _____, he has the face of a subhuman and he knows that he will never breed. He has truly blackpilled himself into another dimension.
The Buddha is a notable blackpilled person.
Cope or Rope Buddy, once you're blackpilled you can never go back.
by papa cap 3.0 November 07, 2019}}
{{quote|Black Pill
A catastrophic prophecy or spiritless prophesying for the future that is not necessarily grounded in reality. A red pill gone hopelessly bleak.
John had swallowed too many red pills over the last few sleepless nights and tried to black pill me that the race war would be happening any day now.
Because of a bad breakup, Steven black pilled himself into believing that all women would cheat on him no matter what. A month later, he unexpectedly swallowed a white pill when he came and his new girlfriend kept sucking, proving the existence of a divine spirit and a glorious future for mankind.
#black pill#black-pilled#black pilled
by 100%fresh November 18, 2016}}
Definition proposed by Altmark22 and [[User:Limerencel]]. JamesFT's definition has been used word for word by [[FaceandLMS]]:
<blockquote>The blackpill is a philosophy that claims that [[looks]] are the most important factor in female human mate choice, dwarfing over factors such as confidence, intelligence, and even money and status. It also borrows observations from the [[redpill] in regards to female nature, i.e claims of rampant female [[hypergamy]] and disloyalty.
It follows from this that one's [[SMV]] is largely fixed, or at least very difficult to increase, which leads to opposition to the redpill philosophy.
Many blackpillers argue that traditional gender roles supressed women's superficial preferences regarding male looks, and without reinstating these traditional gender roles,[4][5] there is no hope for men that women deem unattractive.</blockquote>
Summary from [https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.07600.pdf this paper]:
{{quote|“the  black  pill,” a collection of facts about romance and dating which would show there is no personal solution to systemic dating problems.}}
Sidebar from /r/blackpillscience:
{{quote|Preconscious biases and preferences towards an array of traits mediate inter-group social conflict, intra-group low-status of an individual among peers, and access to mating opportunities. These biases thus structure the interpersonal experiences for a given individual. It is popularly claimed that some of the more immutable traits, such as facial physical attractiveness, height and visually discernible race/ethnicity, play a comparatively minor role in animating social and sexual exclusion. The purpose of this subreddit is to bring this claim's veracity under methodical scrutiny. Lookism Aware, Considers Lookism Salient, External Locus of Control}}
17,538

edits

Navigation menu