Talk:Blackpill

From Incel Wiki

Expansion[edit source]

Any ideas on how to expand the blackpill article? I'd like to expand on each of the five thesises with data. You're free to propose ideas to me here or on Discord. Mahlo#2892

I would love to contribute. I've made my first edit (removing the poetry intro from this article). We get one chance to blackpill normies, so we have to 'cut our darlings' and get to the point. Also, I dislike that each edit has to be mod-approved before it goes live. It's very unsatisfying to contribute that way, and makes it impossible to run my regular wiki workflow. Limerencel (talk) 04:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Considered adding[edit source]

I was considering adding the following sentence: "One of the most alluring aspects of the black pill is that it gives vulnerable people an ideological basis whereby they could reject the barrage of "self-improvement" advice that is ubiquitous in media, advertising and day-today platitudes. As such, it serves as a shield for people who may otherwise have faced financial or emotional exploitation." Thebreeze (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

If you can make the statement more neutral, that'd be fine. Not all incel forums promote the blackpill conceptWilliam (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Nevermind[edit source]

Ignore todays drama. There is now consensus on the lede btw various political factions settled via PM. William (talk) This lede in particular was agreed upon by various political factions https://incels.wiki/w/index.php?title=Blackpill&oldid=27289

Proposal for new lede with focus on tribalism with the redpill[edit source]

A blackpill is pill jargon for an uncomfortable truth (a redpill) that nothing can be done about barring profound changes.

In the manosphere, the blackpill refers to a movement that emerged in opposition to the self-improvement enthusiasm of the redpill movement. Redpillers believe in a collection of "dating tricks" such as pickup artististry, game and bodybuilding. Blackpillers reject the long-term effectiveness of these tricks, regard them chadsplaining, and claim that for many men it is futile to fake confidence and get fit without plastic surgery, or even systemic changes or changes to human nature itself. It's over for such men and it's not their own fault, but a result of their looks, genes or other deterministic circumstances, as well as women's financial independence and freedom of sexual choice allowing them to ruthlessly choose based on looks. This resulted in considerable tribalism about the importance of looks between the redpill and blackpill communities driving many blackpillers to claim looks is all that matters. Other than that, blackpill and redpill knowledge is nearly identical.

Other blackpillers take a broader look at systemic impediments that aggravate men's dating success, for example the effect of affirmative action for women causing women to outearn men and making it harder for men to impress women due to women's preference to date up (hypergamy). Most blackpillers see women's emancipation, as well as a corruption of the gender roles as the main cause of the incel epidemic and increasingly unsteady sexual relationships. Many blackpillers hence propose returning to traditions, enforcing monogamy and restoring the natural subordination of women.[1] Many blackpillers regard the abolition of sexual sublimation as an existential threat and see modern society as a behavioral sink. Some blackpillers believe that a social collapse is inevitable and therefore advocate that ugly men should adopt a fatalistic and defeatist outlook.[2] Most blackpillers believe in the greatest happiness principle and are opposed to degeneracy. Most are atheist, but some promote cultural Christianity or other religions. Most blackpillers believe in evolutionary psychology and biological determinism, in which they scientifically ground their ideas. The science behind the blackpill is being collected in the Scientific Blackpill article and on the subreddit /r/BlackPillScience.

Not all blackpillers are incels (noncel blackpillers) and not all incels are blackpillers. Some public intellectuals have raised issues closely related to the blackpill. For example, the Norwegian sexologist Kristin Spitznogle largely agrees with the lookism aspect of the blackpill. The Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson agrees with the systemic issue of hypergamy and lack of enforced monogamy causing inceldom.

There's nothing wrong about what you wrote, and you can use that verbatim, just good to source it if you can.William (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Kept the vast majority of what you wrote in the lede[edit source]

However, it was too long so slimmed it down. If you want to go into further detail about redpill vs. blackpill, a separate section may be good.William (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

That new 2 sentence lede paragraph[edit source]

Is damn goodWilliam (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Do any meaningful amount of blackpillers propose changing female nature vis-a-vis desire?[edit source]

I don't see it and it wasn't cited so I got rid of that sentence that implied it was part of the blackpill. The common theme of the blackpill since the first definition by Paragon is very strong in biological essentialism. I mean Paragon basically meant the blackpill to mean 'women's sexuality can't be changed in any timeframe shorter than millions of years'. This continues into today, if you went into a modern blackpill space and told blackpillers to join in a movement to make incels more appealing to women (decrease cost of childbirth, reduce gender dimorphism, socially engineer eglitarian values etc), they'd just look at you funny.William (talk) 03:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't cite a source, but genetic engineering was considered on various forums. But it's a minor futuristic point so it's good thinking to drop it in favor of a shorter lede. Bibipi (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Fatalism[edit source]

Should be in any paragraph that discusses proposed solutions by blackpillers imoWilliam (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Moved big chunk of politics into Overview[edit source]

Now that the lede has a pretty good summary of political bent.William (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism[edit source]

Moving this point here before it is fully examined.

An alleged incorrect thesis: While the sexual revolution may have exacerbated inceldom, it does not logically follow that we can simply dial back the clock to previous gender roles and have greater sexual satisfaction. Thus, some argue the blackpill has an incorrect thesis that more rigid gender roles would be something anyone would even want to follow along with, with the advent of technology. In fact, there seems to be no correlation between how rigid gender roles are and how sexually dissatisfied a modern country is.[1] Japan is always rated the highest in sexual dissatisfaction, and yet has relatively rigid gender roles[2] for a developed country.

Overall, I'm finding a .4 correlation p = .05 regarding sexual satisfaction and gender inequality, which may also have to do with economic growth and population growth. Bibipi (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, it's more about monogamy enforcement, which the Japanese evidently do not do. Their economic exploitation of women has made their birth rate plummet which they are not actively fighting. Conversely, less gender progressivism in certain regards may have prevented their incels going berserk (though part of that is maybe also greater conformism/collectivism of the NE asian type). So Japan is worse but also better at the same time. Bibipi (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Another issue is that not all countries with high gender inequality have strict monogamy. Bibipi (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
"Overall, I'm finding a .4 correlation p = .05 regarding sexual satisfaction and gender inequality, which may also have to do with economic growth and population growth" Can you dumb that down for me and reference your data/calculation, including which countries you find gender equal? Mexico is fairly matriarchal yet rated the second highest in sexual satisfaction in that study. Their legislature is half women, more than the USA and other European countries. They have also always been fast with gender liberalizing laws. Poland is aso among the highest and while more conservative than other european countries on some issues anectodally, have been very feminist and liberal with regards to gender. Greece and the Netherlands also rank high in sexual satisfaction relative to the USA and the rest of the countries and are very gender liberal.William (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
With regards to monogamy 'enforcement' polygamy in Japan is very low (and outlawed) and nuclear families are encouraged. Guaranteed maternity leave for voluntary female work in Japan covers a period of 6 weeks prior to the expected birth date to 8 weeks after giving birth, that is not 'exploitation of gender roles in industrial society' given Japan has been against paternity leave for longer than most countries that adopt maternity leave.[1] It's an enforcement of gender roles in a society where women really want to work. Divorce rates are slightly lower than Sweden[2] yet is more sexually dissatisfied than the Sweden. What one would advocate from a monogamous perspective to reduce inceldom would be universal arranged monogamous marriages with legal rape, which is an opinion..., not JP 'vague cultural monogamy enforcement', which women have been able to subvert or opt-out-of if they want by just not dating or having sex at all, which they are increasingly.William (talk)
"Not enforcing monogamy" is not the same as "enforcing or allowing polygamy". It could also mean nobody pairs up at all, which seems to be the case in Japan. Arranged marriages were pretty much the norm nearly everywhere. When nobody does the arranging due to lack of culture and and overworked, aging populace, combined with non-optimistic governance and actual overpopulation issues then that is going to drop the birth rates of course. As mentioned in the main article, gender inequality is pretty low in Japan. Bibipi (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You cited an index that measures labor outcomes rather than cultural expectations and uses female life expectancy as a measurement of 'gender equality', so you are using higher female life expectancy as a measurement of less feminine gender roles, which is dubious at best. Women live longer than men in Japan than women live longer than men in the US years.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancyWilliam (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

GII[edit source]

Is not as good as the OECD gender pay gap in measuring roles rather than outcome). Japan has higher division of labor and women work less hours in Japan for lower pay than most developed countries, including the USA. And it doesn't have to do with any 'gender equality paradox' as Swedish women and women in other 'model gender-equal countries' earn more than in less gender-equal countries such as the US and Japan. https://www.oecd.org/japan/Gender2017-JPN-en.pdf William (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Refs[edit source]

Lede neutrality[edit source]

I removed that "Some add to this definition an entire controversial philosophy" because it was cumbersome since anyone who reads "blackpillers believe X" will get that it is a movement/philosophy. Currently, the lede is not neutral anymore as it highlights the worst members of the movement.

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. Bibipi (talk) 04:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It is impossible to spin the blackpill as something that is a scientific discipline rather than a claim with a cultish exterior, in an honest manner. People police the boundaries of the blackpill in ways they do not with 'incel'. Social ostrasization tactics, extreme shaming tactics (such as bullying), and suicide advocacy are universal to blackpill spaces since the term was adopted by any community, but the same cannot be said about the term 'incel' in incel spaces. 'incel' has an academic sociological foundation and a long history of a philosophically neutral definition that extends into academia, literature etc. If we were to use some prior time to use as an anchor as a definition to the blackpill, it's prior anchor was it's original definition of radical biological essentialism, which negates any personal methods of 'ascending' (including plastic surgery) as articulated by Paragon, not just lookism. And that method of analyzing the blackpill would not look like anything you or I have put forward for a lede. 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. hardcore Lookism overlaps but is a separate topic. Traditional conservatism also overlaps but is separate topic.
Also, This article has served as place for you to paint the blackpill as something that has scientific rigor, which is not what this article is about, but you can do whatever you want on the scientific blackpill page. You have written 90% of the content on the blackpill page, expanding it enormously in way that makes it seem like the wiki is a blackpill wiki rather than an incel wiki. I think you've put in enough of your opinion here and I'm done seeing this page turn into this monolith, or a political advocacy page that is pill-biased. Limerencel was just drive-by editing to make the lede more congruent with the rest of the page, which is mostly a boring repetition of facts to make the blackpill seem like a scientific discipline, which it is not. William (talk) 13:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)s
You are raising good points. Then I think we should make a clear distinction: You are right that there was and still is an extremely cultish blackpill movement on incels.co with an obnoxious hyperfocus on looks ("join us and LDAR" etc.), which I have admittedly never paid close attention to. Reddit also had lots of this (which presumably caused Reddit to shut down these subs), but there was a separate blackpill culture on Reddit in the same subs which was mostly about edgy memeing and scientific curiosity about dating studies (e.g. blackpillscience). It was edgy memeing (like political satire) about how hopeless the dating sphere seemed, rather than actual advice to give up, at least for me and I'm sure for many others (I've seen others describing it as "a place to vent"). So, these are two separate things.
Maybe we should after all move all of the science-y stuff to Scientific Blackpill (Summary) as discussed before. I'd also be willing to move the more political considerations to a user subpage as it adds aspects to the movement which were novel rather than descriptive. The only reason I started summarizing the Scientific Blackpill on Blackpill was that it already mentioned some science on looks and dual mating (much of which was wrong or outdated). Bibipi (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, If you can put what you put on this page in the blackpill article and move the fact repitition to the scientific article, that would be amazing.William (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok, then please unlock. Good comments about how lots of people (me including) understood the incel subs as a place to vent: https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelExit/comments/dqddyw/what_does_exit_mean_in_this_sub/f62negc/ Bibipi (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted back to agreed upon revision[edit source]

To avoid unecessary conflict, the page is at an agreed upon revision.William (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Would advocate taking a break from this page[edit source]

As it is taking up too much time, although it is much better than how it was before and thank you for improving itWilliam (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

New lede[edit source]

Altmark22, Limerencel and me have been discussing the lede. We came up with the following alternative which captures the current mainstream meaning better:

The blackpill is a philosophy that claims that looks are the most important factor in women's mate choices, dwarfing over factors such as personality 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, leading to rivalry with the redpill philosophy.

Many blackpillers argue that traditional gender roles suppressed 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.

Bibipi (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Would be good if the first sentence contained more information density that distinguished the blackpilll from just a belief in lookism (as it is indeed more than that), for exame also carrying the general philosophical underpinning from the first definition on, that women are sexually inflexible in desire. As far as NPOV, you want that route? Secondary sources call blackpiller boards 'a full-on death cult which is dedicated to extremism and trying to push people over the edge, and masks it's beliefs as satire or shitposting'. If there's 20 venters and 3 genuine peipley, the genuine people are influencing how people vent.

Also, advocacy goes beyond venting, from a legal and common sense standpoint. William (talk) 13:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Its worth noting that r/truecels were the first active blackpill board and were quite explicit they wanted legalized rape. That thought pattern continued into thousands of forum posts outside r/truecels and a blackpiller in Virginia even ran a congressional campaign advocating legal rape. To take that out of the lede seems odd, the belief in legal rape was even in r/truecels sidebar infobox ie not a minor detail.William (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as advocating suicide, blackpillers advocate suicide 5000x times more than enforced monogamy. And given the amount of suicides anecdotally ties to Braincells, including but not limited to it's founder, as well as the Anti-social/anti-moral:nice-guy ratio in blackpill boards, I'm not buying the 'its just a meme brah'.William (talk) 13:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been subject to harassment from the more feisty blackpillers before they got banned from .co, and 99 percent of them give 0 fucks about the harassment in their spaces. Most of their harassment is directed towards themselves but they also lash out at others verbally in a way that is beyond the pale for a 'support group', even of men. They aren't all evil people but there's a notable lack of self-awarness and awareness of what they are part of, similar to those in a cult, and this is from someone who largely agrees with a lot of their observations on how dating works s(which are not... like new or interesting Revelations give n most of the blackpill could have been found in widely read OkCupid blogs and mainstream digital journalism blogs and college classrooms before a buncha forums pretended like they discovered these things and stapled other beliefs onto the observations..William (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Where do blackpillers propose rape as a solution?[edit source]

The lede now mentions rape. I've never seen this being proposed, so it must be a small minority who advocates that. This brings into question whether the lede is still neutral. Bibipi (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It is also too much virtue signaling in the sense of "OMG HE SAID RAPE!!11". This kind of compliance testing is becoming boring/exhausting, especially when it is just shitposting. The question is also what they meant exactly. Bibipi (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

>I've never seen this proposed >virtue signaling
Then you have never read blackpill forums.


That's just casually searching one blackpill forum. Nathan's sites contain or used to contain more, I'm not sure which are still up. William (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The media makes a lot of horrible accusation against incels. Thing is those accusations don't come from nowhere, so this wiki seeks to separate incels from the blackpillers, so the blame lays accurately, ie on blackpillers and not incels at large. Point of this wiki was to be accurate, not to whitewash.William (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Also I would recommend doing some WaybackMachine research into r/Truecels, r/incels was a quarantine evasion of that sub and a few modern forums are splinters of r/incelsWilliam (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Whitewashing & propaganda[edit source]

eg on deleting fleshing out what enforced monogamy means and female sexual inflexibility and deleting a clear distinction between lookism and the blackpill, and starting a debate on obvious trends in the blackpillosophere. Don't do it, this wiki does not subscribe to any pills and is not a blackpill or bluepill or redpill or purplepill propaganda station. We don't want to be like 'oh the blackpill is just lookism, if you believe in lookism, then you also believe in x y z. Don't even write anything close to that manner here. Page is temporarily locked. Sources for contested material are provided in long-form temporarily and will be condensed later.William (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't whitewashing at all. Just read the comment in the edit history, I was merely streamlining it as few of your additions actually provided additional information. I did not even remove the part about rape. The lede already mentioned enforced monogamy and borrowed concepts from the redpill, so that the blackpill is not only about lookism is self-evident and thus unnecessary bloat. I also did not delete the part about female inflexibility, but restored the paragraph below where it came from. I agree now that rape is worth mentioning with the evidence you have provided. Still, the lede is unnecessarily bloated now. Bibipi (talk) 15:35, 10 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,[1] while others say the 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. Bibipi (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The lede now fails to capture more popular and general meanings of the blackpill[edit source]

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. Bibipi (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


From Urban Dictionary:

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

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.

  1. 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:

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.

Summary from this paper:

“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:

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

This is cherrpicked to fit your narrative. Google the word and what I wrote here is tame. As far as 'conspiratorial', maybe it's worth putting in the page the ties blackpillers have to the FBI. Surely a bunch of anon people using VPNs have no controversial state-backed agenda whatsoever.William (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Sirtyrionlannister is NOT Paragon[edit source]

I have spoken personally with sirtyrionlannister, he denies he is Paragon, and he does not share the same writing style. I thought that tyrion might have been Paragon which is why I asked him. Writing claiming sirtyirion is Paragon would need a citation, as it is a wild claim.

Paragon is known for being a prolific blog commentator, not a blogger himself. I will edit the page to correct this mistake. Anyone is free to ask Tyrion as well.William (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Not opposed to having the tyrionlannister stuff moved to its own page[edit source]

given his huge blog not once mentions the blackpill William (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Just delete it, upon further examination, this tyrionlannister fellows connection to the blackpill appears tenuous at best, and the section is quite poorly written also (very likely not authored by a native English speaker). It could also be rewritten and moved to a page concerned with 'tyrionlannister' himself, as he does appear to touch on incel-relevant subjects sometimes on his blog. Altmark22 (talk) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
ok done William (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)