InanimatePragmatist
There is nothing for your genetics.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2025
- Posts
- 3,679
- Reputation
- 4,781
Here is the original post. https://looksmax.org/threads/how-can-you-even-be-blackpilled.1505336/#post-21566703. Here are the Users within it. One blackpilled, one bluepilled. @LiL 369 @disillusioned
Part One: Easily influenced kids and the blind following a narrative.
This might be one of the most perfectly naive misinterpretations of the blackpill I've read yet, so let me dismantle your comfortable illusions point by point. You mock blackpillers as impressionable kids, yet ironically fail to see your own naivety. You think blackpill believers are puppets? No, they are simply those who’ve removed the blindfold. What you perceive as weakness is merely clarity. Teenage boys are noticing early now and what you still refuse to accept. That genetic determinism is fundamentally correct, and optimism is a poor replacement for evidence. Calling truth “well written sentences” doesn't invalidate it. Reality isn't about age, it’s about accuracy. Your attempt to discredit via condescension is just lazy arrogance.
You complain that blackpillers cherry pick extremes. The ugly and the beautiful and pretend this disproves blackpill truths. In reality, it illustrates exactly the fundamental principle of sexual selection. Biological inequality. The extremes are not exceptions, they're evidence of a bell curve that does not treat men fairly. Nature itself is a harsh selection process. Your "fairness" never existed, and claiming otherwise is pure delusion. Blackpill doesn’t promise doom for every average man but it reveals the sobering reality that the "average" man is neither desirable nor prioritized. This isn’t pessimism, it’s biological realism backed by countless studies you conveniently ignore.
Part Three: Muh hollow cheeks, muh sharp eyes, etc etc.
You laugh at the precise measurements of attractiveness as “soy,” yet betray your own ignorance of biology. Women subconsciously assess genetic health markers such as orbital tilt, facial width, cheekbones, symmetry which has been proven scientifically countless times. "Overall facial harmony" is exactly that. A combination of precise biological signals of health, genetic fitness, and testosterone. Your mockery of these traits reveals not wisdom, but ignorance of how evolution shaped human attraction. Facial analysis isn't some shallow male invention, it's innate biology operating beneath conscious awareness. Your dismissal doesn't disprove science, it only proves you misunderstand it.
Part Four: Gymmaxing.
You claim gym physiques don’t guarantee female attention. Congratulations, you've found a half truth but you again miss the point. Gymmaxxing alone isn’t salvation. No informed blackpiller claims this. The physique is supplementary. Face and height are primary, muscles alone never overcome subpar genetic traits. you mischaracterize gymmaxxing as a blackpill staple, when in reality it’s just a secondary coping mechanism. Even blackpill theory clearly states: face > height > body. You either deliberately misunderstand this hierarchy, or you argue against a straw man to pretend you’ve won.
Yet I shall concede to one agreement here. A lot of men here do go over the top for a stronger body. Even though it will never do much for them at all. There is only so much you can do in the end. Most of the times, it is too little, too late.
Part Five: Real life vs the blackpill.
You say you’ve observed couples who are average, or even below average. Yet you’ve spotted the exception that proves the rule. Most pairings are assortative, people match within similar attractiveness and value ranges. Blackpill never denied assortative mating but what it emphasizes and what you conveniently ignore, is that the lower-status male rarely finds genuine desire from attractive women. He finds tolerance, practicality, or necessity yet no real passion. Your “regular couples” aren't proof against blackpill, they're proof of it. Yes, sub-average men marry and reproduce. If you examine their relationships closely, nearly it is always conditional, transactional, or merely stable conveniences. Desire? Passion? Rarely found. Stability isn’t love. it’s practicality.
Even your point about how so many are together, that we should just look outside. I can say the same thing back. Do you know them? Do you know how it is deep down in their bedroom? You know normies are great at masking and pretending that all is good yes? You are just ignoring all sides of the rotten reality.
Part Six: Hypergamy and shallowness.
You mock the idea of hypergamy and female selectivity. Do you deny female nature itself? Hypergamy is documented extensively across anthropology, evolutionary biology, and sociology. Women choose upwards, financially, genetically, socially. Exceptions exist but exceptions do not erase biological imperatives. You claim women aren’t shallow because average people pair together. Again, this doesn’t disprove hypergamy, it confirms assortative mating. They chose what they could realistically attract. Women don't settle down. they settle for.
Part Seven: Finale. Just go outside JFL.
Your conclusion tries to shame realism as being out of touch. Yet reality itself disproves you daily. Society and dating apps are not separate realities, they reflect human nature at scale. The algorithm isn't lying. It’s showcasing evolutionary preference without politeness or mask. Your refusal to acknowledge this is intellectual cowardice masquerading as optimism. Your entire critique isn’t wisdom, it's naive escapism. Your rejection of blackpill truths is born from discomfort, not evidence. You offered nothing but poorly constructed half-truths and emotional coping. The blackpill isn’t pessimistic, it’s honest. You haven’t disproven the blackpill. You've merely proven your inability to face it. Enjoy your humanimal fantasies. Reality waits patiently.
Part One: Easily influenced kids and the blind following a narrative.
This might be one of the most perfectly naive misinterpretations of the blackpill I've read yet, so let me dismantle your comfortable illusions point by point. You mock blackpillers as impressionable kids, yet ironically fail to see your own naivety. You think blackpill believers are puppets? No, they are simply those who’ve removed the blindfold. What you perceive as weakness is merely clarity. Teenage boys are noticing early now and what you still refuse to accept. That genetic determinism is fundamentally correct, and optimism is a poor replacement for evidence. Calling truth “well written sentences” doesn't invalidate it. Reality isn't about age, it’s about accuracy. Your attempt to discredit via condescension is just lazy arrogance.
Part Two: Cherry Picking Evidence.You complain that blackpillers cherry pick extremes. The ugly and the beautiful and pretend this disproves blackpill truths. In reality, it illustrates exactly the fundamental principle of sexual selection. Biological inequality. The extremes are not exceptions, they're evidence of a bell curve that does not treat men fairly. Nature itself is a harsh selection process. Your "fairness" never existed, and claiming otherwise is pure delusion. Blackpill doesn’t promise doom for every average man but it reveals the sobering reality that the "average" man is neither desirable nor prioritized. This isn’t pessimism, it’s biological realism backed by countless studies you conveniently ignore.
Part Three: Muh hollow cheeks, muh sharp eyes, etc etc.
You laugh at the precise measurements of attractiveness as “soy,” yet betray your own ignorance of biology. Women subconsciously assess genetic health markers such as orbital tilt, facial width, cheekbones, symmetry which has been proven scientifically countless times. "Overall facial harmony" is exactly that. A combination of precise biological signals of health, genetic fitness, and testosterone. Your mockery of these traits reveals not wisdom, but ignorance of how evolution shaped human attraction. Facial analysis isn't some shallow male invention, it's innate biology operating beneath conscious awareness. Your dismissal doesn't disprove science, it only proves you misunderstand it.
Part Four: Gymmaxing.
You claim gym physiques don’t guarantee female attention. Congratulations, you've found a half truth but you again miss the point. Gymmaxxing alone isn’t salvation. No informed blackpiller claims this. The physique is supplementary. Face and height are primary, muscles alone never overcome subpar genetic traits. you mischaracterize gymmaxxing as a blackpill staple, when in reality it’s just a secondary coping mechanism. Even blackpill theory clearly states: face > height > body. You either deliberately misunderstand this hierarchy, or you argue against a straw man to pretend you’ve won.
Yet I shall concede to one agreement here. A lot of men here do go over the top for a stronger body. Even though it will never do much for them at all. There is only so much you can do in the end. Most of the times, it is too little, too late.
Part Five: Real life vs the blackpill.
You say you’ve observed couples who are average, or even below average. Yet you’ve spotted the exception that proves the rule. Most pairings are assortative, people match within similar attractiveness and value ranges. Blackpill never denied assortative mating but what it emphasizes and what you conveniently ignore, is that the lower-status male rarely finds genuine desire from attractive women. He finds tolerance, practicality, or necessity yet no real passion. Your “regular couples” aren't proof against blackpill, they're proof of it. Yes, sub-average men marry and reproduce. If you examine their relationships closely, nearly it is always conditional, transactional, or merely stable conveniences. Desire? Passion? Rarely found. Stability isn’t love. it’s practicality.
Even your point about how so many are together, that we should just look outside. I can say the same thing back. Do you know them? Do you know how it is deep down in their bedroom? You know normies are great at masking and pretending that all is good yes? You are just ignoring all sides of the rotten reality.
Part Six: Hypergamy and shallowness.
You mock the idea of hypergamy and female selectivity. Do you deny female nature itself? Hypergamy is documented extensively across anthropology, evolutionary biology, and sociology. Women choose upwards, financially, genetically, socially. Exceptions exist but exceptions do not erase biological imperatives. You claim women aren’t shallow because average people pair together. Again, this doesn’t disprove hypergamy, it confirms assortative mating. They chose what they could realistically attract. Women don't settle down. they settle for.
Part Seven: Finale. Just go outside JFL.
Your conclusion tries to shame realism as being out of touch. Yet reality itself disproves you daily. Society and dating apps are not separate realities, they reflect human nature at scale. The algorithm isn't lying. It’s showcasing evolutionary preference without politeness or mask. Your refusal to acknowledge this is intellectual cowardice masquerading as optimism. Your entire critique isn’t wisdom, it's naive escapism. Your rejection of blackpill truths is born from discomfort, not evidence. You offered nothing but poorly constructed half-truths and emotional coping. The blackpill isn’t pessimistic, it’s honest. You haven’t disproven the blackpill. You've merely proven your inability to face it. Enjoy your humanimal fantasies. Reality waits patiently.
