did Vaush just BTFO all of .org's Blackpill arguments?

Do you think any "bluepiller", whether self proclaimed or not, has ever said something like "a midget burn victim in a wheelchair can date a supermodel with enough effort"?
I feel like the blackpill is just one giant strawman which it uses as justification to take it's views to the extreme
We make these hyperbolizations to make a point about how these discrepancies exist. If we can agree on the fact that the midget burn victim is at an inherent, nonfixable disadvantage, then you are also conceding that a 5'9 normie is also at a disadvantage compared to the 6'2 chad.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Imretarded?
Source? How different is the number from the one for women? Proof that its due to looks?

proof that its higher than for attractive men?

>dating apps which are meant to isolate mate finding down to looks only
>looks end up mattering a lot

your 2nd point is way too vague, you can def go viral due to attractiveness but its not the *only* way
most people get ignored on social media, period

thats not blackpilled, and popularity isnt anymore exterior than a good moral character lmao

most men dont want to have kids early as well
and wanting your husband to earn more isnt related to the blackpill nor is it necessarily caused by "women's nature" or some other bullshit, it can be cultural

What about more extroverted, more intelligent, etc.etc. people? Do you have any data on that or we're just gonna look at what suits the narrative.
I'd say people's looks largely cause them to behave and make choices according to a blackpill mindset in a way where it ends up being a self fulfilling prophecy.

Are you being vague on purpose? How masculine exactly? And How the fuck does this prove hypergamy??? If society was filled with ogre men then it would stop being hypergamy - so its not in their nature

Cultural

more vague points
idk why im arguing with this when you cant even take a strong position on anything
there are women IRL with non GL guys therefore wrong
holy fuck go outside you subhuman :lul:
 
  • JFL
Reactions: KpopmaxxingGuy and Eriot Lodger
The hole religion of Islam is based on incentivizing men to act in accordance with its commandments in order to be rewarded 72 virgins.
So the religion of islam can change the natural law? Cool that you admit to this
I gave you a poll
Which is of 0 relevance to the discussion, but thanks
provided a YouTube video
ok? i wanted to hear your arguments, not someone else's. tell me what i need to hear in the video and ill watch that segment
referenced a top psychologist
im not talking to the psychologist at the moment, and all im doing is providing real and valid arguments to his little theory
just admit you cant defend it and your belief in it from here on relies solely on his credentials and your blind faith.
How much evidence do you want?
I want some logical fucking counter-arguments to what i said in that comment. Or to some kind of explanation on how you arrive to your position beyond what ive already argued against and am currently waiting a response for.
Do you need proof that the sky is blue too?
Are you telling me you wouldnt be able to provide any if i asked you for it?
I would tell you to just leave the basement, but that would be rude.
And leaving the basement would do fucking nothing to help you with coming up with a counterargument to everything i said in my last constructive comment, which you ignored. You will still remain out of arguments, poor and homeless.
Others adviced me not to take you too seriously, so idk you might just be trolling.
Why are my troll arguments stumping you so hard? Isn't that a worse look for you and your friend's hypothesis of that "natural law"?
 
You even admit that you obviously see how you're gaslighting ugly people.
What do you mean? I've seen uglier people in relationships before. Cucked maybe but its still there. You need to know what strategies you must employ.
 
  • +1
Reactions: borismonster and URL code
then you are also conceding that a 5'9 normie is also at a disadvantage compared to the 6'2 chad.
bluepillers dont disagree with this as ive already said, they disagree with the weight it has on the person's SMV
 
blackpiller =:feelswah:
looksmaxxer = :incel::banhammer::banhammer::banhammer::chad:

I wouldnt say I have a black pilled philosophy, I treat people the same I always have, I just make sure I put effort in improving my looks because I understand on an intellectual level that it can help a lot in life.

I dont think women are whores for being picky on looks (thats the opposite of being a whore lol), I recognize I as a man have been doing the same thing to them.
yeah this view is pretty agreeable
quite different to most blackpill ones tho
 
  • Love it
Reactions: Imretarded?
So the religion of islam can change the natural law? Cool that you admit to this

Which is of 0 relevance to the discussion, but thanks

ok? i wanted to hear your arguments, not someone else's. tell me what i need to hear in the video and ill watch that segment

im not talking to the psychologist at the moment, and all im doing is providing real and valid arguments to his little theory
just admit you cant defend it and your belief in it from here on relies solely on his credentials and your blind faith.

I want some logical fucking counter-arguments to what i said in that comment. Or to some kind of explanation on how you arrive to your position beyond what ive already argued against and am currently waiting a response for.

Are you telling me you wouldnt be able to provide any if i asked you for it?

And leaving the basement would do fucking nothing to help you with coming up with a counterargument to everything i said in my last constructive comment, which you ignored. You will still remain out of arguments, poor and homeless.

Why are my troll arguments stumping you so hard? Isn't that a worse look for you and your friend's hypothesis of that "natural law"?
The discussion was about men's preferences of which you have no credibility to speak about. I demonstrated to you that men prefer modest women with self-respect over promiscuous sluts and you say that it's irrelevant. Why would I talk to you? You're a joke. You didn't even watch the video. Your paragraphs range from delusional to incoherent and I highly doubt you're even arguing in good faith. Go play with your dildos or something.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 65296 and KpopmaxxingGuy
yeah this view is pretty agreeable
quite different to most blackpill ones tho
Yeah I think the whole hate on casual sex thing isn't because of its moral implications. It's because most men are losers in that arrangement. I guarantee you the chad who's eating good is not complaining about women's lowered bonding capabilities. They can just find the virgin stacy after having their fun in college.
 
bluepillers dont disagree with this as ive already said, they disagree with the weight it has on the person's SMV
Sure, and blackpillers are saying that this holds so much weight that it is not possible to make a significant enough dent on your SMV using factors that you can control.
 
holy fuck go outside you subhuman :lul:
Yeah it sounds like this guy watched too much healthygamergg therapy videos and vaush worship compilations.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Eriot Lodger
The discussion was about men's preferences of which you have no credibility to speak about. I demonstrated to you that men prefer modest women with self-respect over promiscuous sluts and you say that it's irrelevant. Why would I talk to you? You're a joke. You didn't even watch the video. Your paragraphs range from delusional to incoherent and I highly doubt you're even arguing in good faith. Go play with your dildos or something.
Fucking retard, not it wasnt. It was about whether that preference is natural law, which you clearly cant prove.

You didnt demonstrate anything of relevance because youre blind and you have no reading comprehension.

All im doing is making valid points that challenge your theory and youre struggling to prove them wrong. Whether you talk to me or not doesnt concern that reality.

Ill watch the video when you tell me what the fuck im supposed to look for in it. Or you can just recite any relevant arguments from it, that'd also work. Otherwise what the fuck am i supposed to do? Respond to everything in it? No thanks
 
What do you mean? I've seen uglier people in relationships before. Cucked maybe but its still there. You need to know what strategies you must employ.
If I was extremely handsome I wouldn't be here. So looks matter a lot.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Imretarded?
Sure, and blackpillers are saying that this holds so much weight that it is not possible to make a significant enough dent on your SMV using factors that you can control.
you can make a dent relative to the baseline amount of effort you put it. You seriously believe a 5'9 normie basement dweller wouldnt have a better chance by becoming mega extroverted and socially skilled? You literally increase your total reach and potential capture of women interested in you, fact.

Will you have as much success as a 6'2 "chad" with a moderate social reach? Probably not, but its not a blackpill belief to think so. Normies are always freaked out when they see an unattractive man or woman with a significantly more attractive partner. They clearly dont see it as the rule, but as exceptions, just the way you brush off every example of it as an exception. Blackpillers just claim its impossible for it to happen
 
Yeah it sounds like this guy watched too much healthygamergg therapy videos and vaush worship compilations.
Go outside an do what? Only ever encounter people who agree with me on this? That is sure to make me agree more with you guys!
 
Fucking retard, not it wasnt. It was about whether that preference is natural law, which you clearly cant prove.

You didnt demonstrate anything of relevance because youre blind and you have no reading comprehension.

All im doing is making valid points that challenge your theory and youre struggling to prove them wrong. Whether you talk to me or not doesnt concern that reality.

Ill watch the video when you tell me what the fuck im supposed to look for in it. Or you can just recite any relevant arguments from it, that'd also work. Otherwise what the fuck am i supposed to do? Respond to everything in it? No thanks
Natural law was just hyperbole. Not sure if you're a literal autist or just interpreting things literally as a bad faith argument. Fact of the matter is that it's impossible for you, me or anyone to conclusively prove how anyone feels about anything. Psychology is not a hard science, but rather a pseudoscience at best. Your worldview is always going to be colored by what you want it be. You're a dirty Jew who wants women to be whores because you think that will undermine Aryan genes and give way for the new world order. That's your personal preference, but it has no bearing on the actual foundations of reality.
 
Btw op is openly homosexual and openly a cuckold
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 65296 and Eriot Lodger
Natural law was just hyperbole. Not sure if you're a literal autist or just interpreting things literally as a bad faith argument. Fact of the matter is that it's impossible for you, me or anyone to conclusively prove how anyone feels about anything. Psychology is not a hard science, but rather a pseudoscience at best. Your worldview is always going to be colored by what you want it be. You're a dirty Jew who wants women to be whores because you think that will undermine Aryan genes and give way for the new world order. That's your personal preference, but it has no bearing on the actual foundations of reality.
Fucking cope. Youre backtracking and lying

initially i said this:
What you just described isnt a law of the universe, its a cultural belief that depends on any given individual buying into it for it to apply to him and his relationship

which you said cant be true, since its a natural law (that being your entire fucking premise for disagreeing):
No, this is natural law and totally universal all throughout time and culture.

to which i said:
And im saying its not, since that preference is changing in the modern age (leading to women being more comfortable with subverting it)

to which you replied with this:
Well, your wrong. Jew mastermind and narcissistic psychopath Sam Vaknin says that men will always feel an aversion towards sluts.

>will always feel an aversion towards sluts
clearly not, as ive been arguing. some cultures feel less aversion towards high bodycounts, including our current western one compared to the past. And im of the firm belief we will successfully remove all of it completely one day!
 
Fucking cope. Youre backtracking and lying

initially i said this:


which you said cant be true, since its a natural law (that being your entire fucking premise for disagreeing):


to which i said:


to which you replied with this:


>will always feel an aversion towards sluts
clearly not, as ive been arguing. some cultures feel less aversion towards high bodycounts, including our current western one compared to the past. And im of the firm belief we will successfully remove all of it completely one day!
But you haven't demonstrated that. If you're a feminist that's fine, but most masculine men don't hold that standpoint. Culture change as we evolve, but not as fast as you're suggesting. Regardless, I've put forth several arguments as to why men aught to value modesty and faithfulness in women, although I may not have been as comprehensive as I could. So let me lay it out for ya!

A slut is a filthy woman who gets taken in every hole, has STDs, mental illness and hormonal problems from birth control medications. They are NOT reliable as an adequately nurturing mother and men don't respect them. If you marry a slut then chances are she won't love you, will cheat on you and ultimately divorce you as a means to reach financial success.
 
Culture change as we evolve, but not as fast as you're suggesting.
I think the change is significant, i mean, the fact that it varies so much from culture to culture tells you enough. Id describe what we have now as a halfway point between what it was like in nature and it being completely eliminated.
A slut is a filthy woman who gets taken in every hole, has STDs, mental illness and hormonal problems from birth control medications. They are NOT reliable as an adequately nurturing mother and men don't respect them. If you marry a slut then chances are she won't love you, will cheat on you and ultimately divorce you as a means to reach financial success.
Sorry this happened to you, but most women arent like this.
Hope this helps!
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Eriot Lodger
I think the change is significant, i mean, the fact that it varies so much from culture to culture tells you enough. Id describe what we have now as a halfway point between what it was like in nature and it being completely eliminated.

Sorry this happened to you, but most women arent like this.
Hope this helps!
It didn't actually happen to me. Lmao I do think I dodged a major bullet once though when my ex proposed that we got married and I declined. She was a hoe who had something like onlyfans.
 
  • JFL
Reactions: URL code
It didn't actually happen to me. Lmao I do think I dodged a major bullet once though when my ex proposed that we got married and I declined. She was a hoe who had something like onlyfans.
Brutal, i'd never date a non virgin
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Eriot Lodger
Brutal, i'd never date a non virgin
I see, I have been duped.
Giphy 2
 
I see, I have been duped.
View attachment 2918335
no i legitimately hold the beliefs i argued for
i just think preferences against high bodycounts are cultural and i was brought up to be this way
just personally though the idea that my wife was with other men before me is off-putting (hypothetically if i had a wife)
 
no i legitimately hold the beliefs i argued for
i just think preferences against high bodycounts are cultural and i was brought up to be this way
just personally though the idea that my wife was with other men before me is off-putting (hypothetically if i had a wife)
You haven't considered the full ramifications of sleeping around on the female psyche, the emotional toll it takes on her and why it makes practical sense for men to discard her. Women become attached to sexual partners more easily than men. It all makes sense if you understand biology. Your brain hasn't developed since the stone age, which Is evident by your own affect, despite a conscious effort not to feel this way.

When women had sex in primordial times, they had to become emotionally attached to that (cave)men in order to secure the presence of her male counterpart in raising that offspring. Now it's not hard to understand why that would screw with woman's psyche and render her undesirable for potential mates in a long-term relationship. I hope I explained it clearer this time.
 
You haven't considered the full ramifications of sleeping around on the female psyche, the emotional toll it takes on her and why it makes practical sense for men to discard her. Women become attached to sexual partners more easily than men. It all makes sense if you understand biology. Your brain hasn't developed since the stone age, which Is evident by your own affect, despite a conscious effort not to feel this way.

When women had sex in primordial times, they had to become emotionally attached to that (cave)men in order to secure the presence of her male counterpart in raising that offspring. Now it's not hard to understand why that would screw with woman's psyche and render her undesirable for potential mates in a long-term relationship. I hope I explained it clearer this time.
This would apply to all relationships though, and would be way stronger for LTRS with years of connection.
If we develop human replica sex robots would it be okay for women to sleep with a 100 of them? They would effectively still be like a nun
Or if theyre trully getting their pair bonding mechanism weakened by ONS, shouldn't they be able to actually feel it themselves? Being heartbroken after each one? AFAIK women complain about men who arent interested in LTRs only when theres a difference in expectation, but ive never heard women willingly going for one night stands knowing its never going to develop further, and then complaining they feel heartbroken afterwards. And why would they keep doing it if its that terrible?
 
This would apply to all relationships though, and would be way stronger for LTRS with years of connection.
If we develop human replica sex robots would it be okay for women to sleep with a 100 of them? They would effectively still be like a nun
Or if theyre trully getting their pair bonding mechanism weakened by ONS, shouldn't they be able to actually feel it themselves? Being heartbroken after each one? AFAIK women complain about men who arent interested in LTRs only when theres a difference in expectation, but ive never heard women willingly going for one night stands knowing its never going to develop further, and then complaining they feel heartbroken afterwards. And why would they keep doing it if its that terrible?
It's an addiction. Just have a listen to today's pop songs aims towards young women. Taylor Swift and Adelle singing about heartbreak and sluts encouraging women to be sluts (such as WAP). Women always go for Chad and get heartbroken when they realize he only wanted to use them for easy, temporary pleasure. They'll lie to themselves and say that it doesn't affect them, but depression and medication rates say otherwise. Robots are largely undiscovered territory, but I suspect it won't have that effect because it's missing the human element. Maybe in the far distant future when AI robots become indistinguishable from people, but who knows.
 
It's an addiction. Just have a listen to today's pop songs aims towards young women. Taylor Swift and Adelle singing about heartbreak and sluts encouraging women to be sluts (such as WAP). Women always go for Chad and get heartbroken when they realize he only wanted to use them for easy, temporary pleasure. They'll lie to themselves and say that it doesn't affect them, but depression and medication rates say otherwise. Robots are largely undiscovered territory, but I suspect it won't have that effect because it's missing the human element. Maybe in the far distant future when AI robots become indistinguishable from people, but who knows.
Im talking about women who have actual high numbers, theres no way theyre getting fooled over and over again, they know when a ONS will be just that. Why would they keep doing it? If one sexual experience is worth a heartbreak, then that emotional connection was nothing compared to an actual breakup from a LTR. I would never want to experience a breakup just because i get to have sex beforehand, its the worst feeling ever.

Therefore bodycount is a useless measure. 10 ONS bodies are waaay less destructive than 10 LTRs. Hell, one LTR might be comparable to 10 ONSs. So it should be called the LTRcount instead. What about getting gangbanged? Do you get attached to the 5 men simultaneously or nah? I dont think you can be attached to multiple people at the same time so its only one body at most. So a gangbang is effectively no more degen than sleeping with a single person. So if a ONS adds 0.1 to a woman's LTRcount, a gangbang would be the same.

In conclusion participation in gangbangs might be good indicator a woman isnt mentally broken from a high LTR count. Shun LTRs as much as possible and encourage participation in double penetration to reduce the harm done to women.
 
Im talking about women who have actual high numbers, theres no way theyre getting fooled over and over again, they know when a ONS will be just that. Why would they keep doing it? If one sexual experience is worth a heartbreak, then that emotional connection was nothing compared to an actual breakup from a LTR. I would never want to experience a breakup just because i get to have sex beforehand, its the worst feeling ever.

Therefore bodycount is a useless measure. 10 ONS bodies are waaay less destructive than 10 LTRs. Hell, one LTR might be comparable to 10 ONSs. So it should be called the LTRcount instead. What about getting gangbanged? Do you get attached to the 5 men simultaneously or nah? I dont think you can be attached to multiple people at the same time so its only one body at most. So a gangbang is effectively no more degen than sleeping with a single person. So if a ONS adds 0.1 to a woman's LTRcount, a gangbang would be the same.

In conclusion participation in gangbangs might be good indicator a woman isnt mentally broken from a high LTR count. Shun LTRs as much as possible and encourage participation in double penetration to reduce the harm done to women.
Ok, now I know you're trolling. It's been fun talking to you but I can't go on. We obviously have a lot of differing opinions and that's okay. Too bad your wrong though, but you can't always be right about everything. You can be emotionally attached to multiple people, obviously. And having gangbangs doesn't mean you're not engaging in LTRs, so that's a false dichotomy.
 
having gangbangs doesn't mean you're not engaging in LTRs, so that's a false dichotomy.
Theres no dichotomy, im saying there would be a negative association between gangbangs and LTRs as a proportion of total bodies

You can be emotionally attached to multiple people, obviously.
Last question - during gangbangs, do women get attached to the guys theyre jerking off as much as to as they do with the other three in in their front hole, back hole and mouth? What if theres a cuck in the corner, if it turns her on and is part of the sex act, is there a level of attachment to him?
 
  • JFL
Reactions: Eriot Lodger
Theres no dichotomy, im saying there would be a negative association between gangbangs and LTRs as a proportion of total bodies


Last question - during gangbangs, do women get attached to the guys theyre jerking off as much as to as they do with the other three in in their front hole, back hole and mouth? What if theres a cuck in the corner, if it turns her on and is part of the sex act, is there a level of attachment to him?
I'm sorry, I can't do it mate. I wouldn't know the answer to those questions anyway. I think that's enough internet for today.
 
I'm sorry, I can't do it mate. I wouldn't know the answer to those questions anyway. I think that's enough internet for today.
Aight ill email Sam Vaknin with these questions then so i can get the answers directly from the expert
 
why should anyone listen to that nigger who watches loli and horse porn
 



>Explains how people like you aren't interested in addressing underlying issues affecting men.

>Explains how blackpillers' beliefs about attractiveness and relationships have been skewed by cherry-picked data and misinterpretation.

>Explains how societal pressures and stereotypes contribute to the incel/blackpill mindset.

>Explains how various social and psychological factors, not just looks, influence one's success in dating.

>Explains how misogyny and toxic masculinity perpetuated within incel/blackpill communities contribute to their own issues.

>Explains how some individuals, regardless of appearance, find fulfilling relationships through empathy, communication, and personal growth.

>Explains why the fact that some below average men struggle with dating isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that it's all about looks.

>Everything said in the video is supported by psychological research and expert analysis.

>Provides practical steps and resources for incels to improve their outlook and well-being.



Where is YOUR evidence to back up your baseless claims about attractiveness and relationships? By all means, watch the whole video; I assure you, you can't debunk it.


>inb4 I get told to shut up by someone who hasn't watched the video and is triggered by these FACTS.
>inb4 someone says oppressing women is good.
>inb4 someone suggests enforced relationships.
>inb4 someone uses anecdotal evidence.
>inb4 someone cites dating statistics without an analysis of the broader context or societal factors.
>inb4 someone calls me a beta.
>inb4 someone says "cope" because his incel mind is challenged by a different perspective.

keep the discussion focused and refrain from resorting to the tactics mentioned above in the inb4 section. Be open-minded and engage with the video and discussion WITH SOURCES.

i'm open to having my mind changed, but only with reliable sources that provide a comprehensive substantiation of the claims and account for all the complexities involved.

dnr
 



>Explains how people like you aren't interested in addressing underlying issues affecting men.

>Explains how blackpillers' beliefs about attractiveness and relationships have been skewed by cherry-picked data and misinterpretation.

>Explains how societal pressures and stereotypes contribute to the incel/blackpill mindset.

>Explains how various social and psychological factors, not just looks, influence one's success in dating.

>Explains how misogyny and toxic masculinity perpetuated within incel/blackpill communities contribute to their own issues.

>Explains how some individuals, regardless of appearance, find fulfilling relationships through empathy, communication, and personal growth.

>Explains why the fact that some below average men struggle with dating isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that it's all about looks.

>Everything said in the video is supported by psychological research and expert analysis.

>Provides practical steps and resources for incels to improve their outlook and well-being.



Where is YOUR evidence to back up your baseless claims about attractiveness and relationships? By all means, watch the whole video; I assure you, you can't debunk it.


>inb4 I get told to shut up by someone who hasn't watched the video and is triggered by these FACTS.
>inb4 someone says oppressing women is good.
>inb4 someone suggests enforced relationships.
>inb4 someone uses anecdotal evidence.
>inb4 someone cites dating statistics without an analysis of the broader context or societal factors.
>inb4 someone calls me a beta.
>inb4 someone says "cope" because his incel mind is challenged by a different perspective.

keep the discussion focused and refrain from resorting to the tactics mentioned above in the inb4 section. Be open-minded and engage with the video and discussion WITH SOURCES.

i'm open to having my mind changed, but only with reliable sources that provide a comprehensive substantiation of the claims and account for all the complexities involved.

Who gives a fuck of what a pedophile+homosexual thinks?
 



>Explains how people like you aren't interested in addressing underlying issues affecting men.

>Explains how blackpillers' beliefs about attractiveness and relationships have been skewed by cherry-picked data and misinterpretation.

>Explains how societal pressures and stereotypes contribute to the incel/blackpill mindset.

>Explains how various social and psychological factors, not just looks, influence one's success in dating.

>Explains how misogyny and toxic masculinity perpetuated within incel/blackpill communities contribute to their own issues.

>Explains how some individuals, regardless of appearance, find fulfilling relationships through empathy, communication, and personal growth.

>Explains why the fact that some below average men struggle with dating isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that it's all about looks.

>Everything said in the video is supported by psychological research and expert analysis.

>Provides practical steps and resources for incels to improve their outlook and well-being.



Where is YOUR evidence to back up your baseless claims about attractiveness and relationships? By all means, watch the whole video; I assure you, you can't debunk it.


>inb4 I get told to shut up by someone who hasn't watched the video and is triggered by these FACTS.
>inb4 someone says oppressing women is good.
>inb4 someone suggests enforced relationships.
>inb4 someone uses anecdotal evidence.
>inb4 someone cites dating statistics without an analysis of the broader context or societal factors.
>inb4 someone calls me a beta.
>inb4 someone says "cope" because his incel mind is challenged by a different perspective.

keep the discussion focused and refrain from resorting to the tactics mentioned above in the inb4 section. Be open-minded and engage with the video and discussion WITH SOURCES.

i'm open to having my mind changed, but only with reliable sources that provide a comprehensive substantiation of the claims and account for all the complexities involved.

Isn't this a copypasta
 
  • JFL
Reactions: URL code
Who gives a fuck of what a pedophile+homosexual thinks?
no proof hes a pedophile
and being a homosexual doesnt automatically make you incorrect
 
  • +1
Reactions: Timmy
I watched the first 18 minutes of the video and came up with these arguments.

"Men also care about women’s appearances"
Yes, it is true. The problem is the double standards that women have. Women can demand tall guys, but men cannot judge a woman based on their weight (which is controllable).
“I know ugly men who are in relationship with hot girls”
Is he a betabux? Is he in an open relationship? Is the woman respecting him in the relationship? Is he getting cheated on?
"I know tall guys who are struggling because they're not good at opening up to people"
NTpill of blackpill already talks about this this.
"Women don’t care much about guys being weird"
He just mentioned that tall men are struggling because of their personality and proceeds to tell that women dont care about guys having weird personality
  1. 69% of high functioning autistic adolescents want relationships, but almost none succeed
  2. 44.6% of high functioning adult autistic men remain virgins, despite high sex/relationship drive
"...inability to open up/be emotional with others"
Women want men to be emotional about their problems and the problems they can relate to. If you do open up about something they can’t relate to, it will not be perceived as bad luck, but as a weakness and not being able to be good enough to deal with it.
"BP believes it requires immediate political change and overriding societal bias against men"
“Believe all women”, laws being skewed against men in divorces, diversity hiring, double standards when it comes to beauty standards, alimony laws, “women are wonderful effect”, etc. BP doesn't believe we require immediate change, some blackpillers do and rightfully so.
"Beauty is objectively in the eye of beholder; people might find asymmetric features attractive, like chipped tooth, asymmetric eyes"
Yes, symmetry isn’t everything. There is something called harmony, which means your facial features must go together to look attractive (e.g. Tyler Posey). Harmony is talked about often in this forum. Also, nichemaxxing is a thing (like WW mentioned). Subjectivity exists but objective attractiveness will help you attract the majority of the population, which is very important especially in the current dating market.
“...super pale means wealthy enough they didn’t have to work in the field; nowadays having a tan means being wealthy enough to go to tanning salon. This is not evolution, but trend/bias demonstrated by ultra wealthy/media”
Tan isn’t attractive because it shows youre wealthy, it is because tanned skin (with red undertone) will show more definition. Extremely pale skin signals sickness. Light skin with red undertone is the beauty norm in Asia.

I agree that social media pushes certain beauty standards. These beauty standards are different for men and women. Women are told to love themselves for who they are, and men are shown unattainable physiques (e.g. Chris Hemsworth in Thor), which shows the double standards that men face. This problem is congruent to the 6th point mentioned above.


The only reason this Vaush's video looked reasonable to you is because Wheat Waffles is dogshit at debating. He starts raging at Vaush right from the beginning like a low IQ faggot jfl. Both of them are insufferable and I couldn't watch the video any further.

BP remains undefeated :blackpill:
 

Similar threads

proibitio
Replies
41
Views
465
Mr_Bombo_mogs
Mr_Bombo_mogs
9cel
Replies
8
Views
628
gribsufer1
gribsufer1
LegitUser
Replies
62
Views
5K
PCT
PCT
Xangsane
Replies
208
Views
3K
Xangsane
Xangsane

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Zikel_Nut
Back
Top