No empathy for incels

[prettyboislime]

There’s always a reason for inceldom nigga, and it ain’t your looks.

I won’t elaborate because if you have a sentient brain it’s easy to tell Incels always have the worst, most bitter, most out-of-touch, most annoying personalities ever. You can’t talk to them about anything, they’re boring, insecure, etc


If you’re incel u unironically deserve it because u probably have giga shit personality. imagine being a virgin past 16 let alone 18 just fucking lol. these literal asylum patients really wonder why every girl wants nothing to do with them

 

[Deleted member 9801]

Agreed bro, watch incels jump on your neck tho, this is incel site tbh

 

[traveler]

inceldom become apparently early on

lack of social skills/ overprotective parents
below average looks

 

[prettyboislime]

Agreed bro, watch incels jump on your neck tho, this is incel site tbh

Inb4 a 24 year old KHHV NEET with brutal aspergers tries to leave a hate comment on this. they’re so fucked jfl

 

[Deleted member 9801]

inceldom become apparently early on

lack of social skills/ overprotective parents
below average looks

They are not mutually exclusive, but correlation does not imply causation

 

[Deleted member 4362]

Muh personality

 

[prettyboislime]

Muh personality

You’re prime example jfl. U deserve the inceldom bro and most incels have personality like u tbh tbh

 

[mogstar]

You can’t really have a word on this tbh, it’s like a rich guy telling homeless niggas that it’s easy to make millions, you’ve had abundance since you can remember, ur personality is a genetic too, the negative feedback Incels receive throughout their lives also doesn’t help them one bit

 

[Deleted member 4362]

You’re prime example jfl. U deserve the inceldom bro and most incels have personality like u tbh tbh

oh no the 16 year old mutt says I have bad personality what will I do.

 

[prettyboislime]

You can’t really have a word on this tbh, it’s like a rich guy telling homeless niggas that it’s easy to make millions, you’ve had abundance since you can remember, ur personality is a genetic too, the negative feedback Incels receive throughout their lives also doesn’t help them one bit

Shut the fuck up you 6’4 INCEL, you need a lobotomy

 

[prettyboislime]

oh no the 16 year old mutt says I have bad personality what will I do.

not just me cunt jfl. if only you could see public opinion on you tbh. but ur autistic so it’s expected u don’t understand social cues

 

[mogstar]

Shut the fuck up you 6’4 INCEL, you need a lobotomy

6’5 im not an incel I’ve been doing okay in the past few months, still not there yet, I’m just saying that u can’t have a word on this because you’ve never been unattractive so it’s a pointless argument

 

[Deleted member 4362]

not just me cunt jfl. if only you could see public opinion on you tbh. but ur autistic so it’s expected u don’t understand social cues

You need to maximise your looks as much as possible because you are lacking heavily in brain function.

 

[Deleted member 4362]

You can’t really have a word on this tbh, it’s like a rich guy telling homeless niggas that it’s easy to make millions, you’ve had abundance since you can remember, ur personality is a genetic too, the negative feedback Incels receive throughout their lives also doesn’t help them one bit

Physical Attractiveness is the Strongest Predictor of Initial Romantic Interest in Both Sexes; No Evidence Male Personality Plays Any Role for Women (Luo & Zhang, 2009)

Further support that [Rules 1 & 2](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/be-attractive-dont-be-unattractive) do indeed narrowly refer to physical attractiveness, despite [suggestions to the contrary](http://archive.is/ggYvD).

***
Abstract link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447

> J Pers. 2009 Aug;77(4):933-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x. Epub 2009 May 18.
>
> **What leads to romantic attraction: similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study.**
>
> Luo S, Zhang G.
>
> Department of Psychology, Social Behavioral Science Building, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA.
>
> **Abstract**
>
> Years of attraction research have established several "principles" of attraction with robust evidence. However, a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity. The current research was designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. Social Relations Model analyses demonstrated that initial attraction was a function of the actor, the partner, and the unique dyadic relationship between these two. Meta-analyses showed intriguing sex differences and similarities. Self characteristics better predicted women's attraction than they did for men, whereas partner characteristics predicted men's attraction far better than they did for women. **The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness.** Finally, there was some support for the reciprocity principle but no evidence for the similarity principle.
>
> PMID: 19558447 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x

Find full-text via sci-hub (see sidebar).

***

#MAJOR FINDINGS
###MALE ATTRIBUTES THAT PREDICTED A WOMAN'S ROMANTIC INTEREST

1. Physical attractiveness (*rs* = 0.88, *p*<0.01)
2. Sport/Exercise involvement or interest (*rs* = 0.48, *p*<0.01)

###THINGS THAT DIDN'T

1. [Big Five Personality Traits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)
2. [Affect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_affectivity)
3. [Attachment Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Styles)
4. Self-esteem
5. Political leanings
6. Values
7. Social interest
8. Similarity

##Full comment on this finding by the authors:

> **It is remarkable that the strongest predictor of initial attraction in a speed-dating context was partner’s physical attractiveness, and, most importantly, men and women showed an extremely similar pattern. This finding was highly consistent with the results reported in several other speed-dating studies we mentioned earlier** (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fisman et al., 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007). **It therefore seems a very solid finding that men and women are equally strongly drawn to physically attractive partners.** This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners—whereas men prefer youth and physical attractiveness in their partners, women give more weight to partners’ earning potential and commitment to a relationship. Evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006). **One may argue that speed-dating fits better a short-term context rather than a long-term mating context. It is important to note that some of the published speed-dating studies** (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007) **were not based on college student samples but on community adult samples. These participants actually paid to participate in the commercial speed-dating service with the hope to find a life partner. This should be considered as more like a long-term context. Nevertheless, they yielded a similar pattern as found in the college student based samples in Eastwick and Finkel and the current research. Moreover, Eastwick and Finkel did an excellent job ruling out several potential alternative explanations for this finding. For example, even when explicitly asked to consider long-term partners, both sexes continued to favor physical attractiveness. Thus, the lack of sex difference on preference of Speed-Dating Attraction physical attractiveness does not seem to be due to differences in the mating strategy people are taking.**
>
> **Then how do we reconcile these findings? We consider a fundamental difference between mating preference research and attraction research—whereas mate preference or ideal partner research focuses on conscious, rational cognitions about an ideal partner, attraction research studies less conscious and more spontaneous feelings and behaviors. The difference in findings from these two fields indicates that human beings’ rational, conscious mind can be independent from their behaviors in real-life encounters.** In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. Would that suggest that humans’ conscious, rational thoughts are more a product of evolutionary principles, whereas their actual behaviors can be irrational and not necessarily in their best interests (in terms of reproductive success)? This question warrants further examination.


#SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS

###PARTICIPANTS
* N=108 college students; 54 men; 54 women
* Mean age = 19.5 (range 17 to 26)
* Ethnic breakdown not reported, but likely [all white](https://uncw.edu/oira/documents/FactSheets/Enrollment-Demographics/Updated%20Fall%202009-Spring%202016/Enrollment_by_Race_Fall_2015.pdf)

###PROCEDURE
* 6 speed-dating events; each 1 hr long; max 10 women and 10 men at each event (group)
* Each participant's photo was taken at the event and independently judged later for physical attractiveness (below)
* duration of each speed-date: 5 min
* men rotated; women stayed seated

Physical Attractiveness assessment

* Eight research collaborators independently rated each participant's photo on a 1-7 scale, with 1 being "very unattractive", 4 being "average", and 7 being "very attractive"
* interrater agreement was 0.86
* Mean rating for a participant = their final attractiveness score

Romantic interest questionnaire

* consisted of the following questions: "Would you be interested in seeing this partner again after the speed-date event?" (answer yes/no), "How much do you like this person as a potential date?" "How interested are you in getting to know this person better?" and "How comfortable do you feel being around this person?" (answer on a 5 pt scale)
* filled out by participants at the event then again after the event (after it was revealed whether their date partner had romantic interest in them based on the at-event questionnaire, this was to test reciprocity, which turned out to be significant)

Other questionnaires

* included a background questionnaire, inventories of political attitudes, personal values, interests, general personality, affectivity, attachment, and self-esteem
* administered pre-event

Obvious caveat

* This study only identifies predictors of initial romantic interest, and does not address which factors might predict a change in the magnitude and/or direction of romantic/sexual desirability over more prolonged or repeated interactions, via such processes as the [propinquity effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propinquity#Propinquity_effect) and [mere exposure effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_attraction#Mere_exposure/exposure_effect) (which would serve to increase romantic interest), or their antithesis, [social allergy](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00115.x) (which decreases romantic interest). [Halo effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Role_of_attractiveness) suggest physical attractiveness would probably hold primacy in predicting sexual/romantic receptiveness for a variable but limited period of time, after which, [dyad-specific idiosyncrasies are likely to emerge](http://pauleastwick.com/s/HuntEastwickFinkel2015PSci.pdf) ([2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513804000066)). The salience of physical attractiveness in maintaining (as opposed to initiating) a long-term relationship, progression towards marriage, and subsequent marital satisfaction, [may also differ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011637/).

 

[mogstar]

Physical Attractiveness is the Strongest Predictor of Initial Romantic Interest in Both Sexes; No Evidence Male Personality Plays Any Role for Women (Luo & Zhang, 2009)

Further support that [Rules 1 & 2](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/be-attractive-dont-be-unattractive) do indeed narrowly refer to physical attractiveness, despite [suggestions to the contrary](http://archive.is/ggYvD).

***
Abstract link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447

> J Pers. 2009 Aug;77(4):933-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x. Epub 2009 May 18.
>
> **What leads to romantic attraction: similarity, reciprocity, security, or beauty? Evidence from a speed-dating study.**
>
> Luo S, Zhang G.
>
> Department of Psychology, Social Behavioral Science Building, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, NC 28403, USA.
>
> **Abstract**
>
> Years of attraction research have established several "principles" of attraction with robust evidence. However, a major limitation of previous attraction studies is that they have almost exclusively relied on well-controlled experiments, which are often criticized for lacking ecological validity. The current research was designed to examine initial attraction in a real-life setting-speed-dating. Social Relations Model analyses demonstrated that initial attraction was a function of the actor, the partner, and the unique dyadic relationship between these two. Meta-analyses showed intriguing sex differences and similarities. Self characteristics better predicted women's attraction than they did for men, whereas partner characteristics predicted men's attraction far better than they did for women. **The strongest predictor of attraction for both sexes was partners' physical attractiveness.** Finally, there was some support for the reciprocity principle but no evidence for the similarity principle.
>
> PMID: 19558447 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00570.x

Find full-text via sci-hub (see sidebar).

***

#MAJOR FINDINGS
###MALE ATTRIBUTES THAT PREDICTED A WOMAN'S ROMANTIC INTEREST

1. Physical attractiveness (*rs* = 0.88, *p*<0.01)
2. Sport/Exercise involvement or interest (*rs* = 0.48, *p*<0.01)

###THINGS THAT DIDN'T

1. [Big Five Personality Traits](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits)
2. [Affect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_affectivity)
3. [Attachment Style](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Styles)
4. Self-esteem
5. Political leanings
6. Values
7. Social interest
8. Similarity

##Full comment on this finding by the authors:

> **It is remarkable that the strongest predictor of initial attraction in a speed-dating context was partner’s physical attractiveness, and, most importantly, men and women showed an extremely similar pattern. This finding was highly consistent with the results reported in several other speed-dating studies we mentioned earlier** (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008; Fisman et al., 2006; Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007). **It therefore seems a very solid finding that men and women are equally strongly drawn to physically attractive partners.** This finding, however, appears to be inconsistent with the widely accepted finding in evolutionary research indicating a fundamental sex difference in their preferences for long-term partners—whereas men prefer youth and physical attractiveness in their partners, women give more weight to partners’ earning potential and commitment to a relationship. Evolutionary research does suggest that these sex differences in mating preferences tend to diminish or even disappear when short-term mating contexts are primed (e.g., Li & Kenrick, 2006). **One may argue that speed-dating fits better a short-term context rather than a long-term mating context. It is important to note that some of the published speed-dating studies** (Kurzban & Weeden, 2005, 2008; Todd et al., 2007) **were not based on college student samples but on community adult samples. These participants actually paid to participate in the commercial speed-dating service with the hope to find a life partner. This should be considered as more like a long-term context. Nevertheless, they yielded a similar pattern as found in the college student based samples in Eastwick and Finkel and the current research. Moreover, Eastwick and Finkel did an excellent job ruling out several potential alternative explanations for this finding. For example, even when explicitly asked to consider long-term partners, both sexes continued to favor physical attractiveness. Thus, the lack of sex difference on preference of Speed-Dating Attraction physical attractiveness does not seem to be due to differences in the mating strategy people are taking.**
>
> **Then how do we reconcile these findings? We consider a fundamental difference between mating preference research and attraction research—whereas mate preference or ideal partner research focuses on conscious, rational cognitions about an ideal partner, attraction research studies less conscious and more spontaneous feelings and behaviors. The difference in findings from these two fields indicates that human beings’ rational, conscious mind can be independent from their behaviors in real-life encounters.** In our particular case, it seems that women’s attraction feeling is dominated by partners’ physical attractiveness, just as their male counterparts, even though it is possible that when prompted to think about preferences for a potential mate, women would give priority considerations to characteristics like earning potential. Would that suggest that humans’ conscious, rational thoughts are more a product of evolutionary principles, whereas their actual behaviors can be irrational and not necessarily in their best interests (in terms of reproductive success)? This question warrants further examination.


#SUMMARY OF METHODOLOGY AND CAVEATS

###PARTICIPANTS
* N=108 college students; 54 men; 54 women
* Mean age = 19.5 (range 17 to 26)
* Ethnic breakdown not reported, but likely [all white](https://uncw.edu/oira/documents/FactSheets/Enrollment-Demographics/Updated%20Fall%202009-Spring%202016/Enrollment_by_Race_Fall_2015.pdf)

###PROCEDURE
* 6 speed-dating events; each 1 hr long; max 10 women and 10 men at each event (group)
* Each participant's photo was taken at the event and independently judged later for physical attractiveness (below)
* duration of each speed-date: 5 min
* men rotated; women stayed seated

Physical Attractiveness assessment

* Eight research collaborators independently rated each participant's photo on a 1-7 scale, with 1 being "very unattractive", 4 being "average", and 7 being "very attractive"
* interrater agreement was 0.86
* Mean rating for a participant = their final attractiveness score

Romantic interest questionnaire

* consisted of the following questions: "Would you be interested in seeing this partner again after the speed-date event?" (answer yes/no), "How much do you like this person as a potential date?" "How interested are you in getting to know this person better?" and "How comfortable do you feel being around this person?" (answer on a 5 pt scale)
* filled out by participants at the event then again after the event (after it was revealed whether their date partner had romantic interest in them based on the at-event questionnaire, this was to test reciprocity, which turned out to be significant)

Other questionnaires

* included a background questionnaire, inventories of political attitudes, personal values, interests, general personality, affectivity, attachment, and self-esteem
* administered pre-event

Obvious caveat

* This study only identifies predictors of initial romantic interest, and does not address which factors might predict a change in the magnitude and/or direction of romantic/sexual desirability over more prolonged or repeated interactions, via such processes as the [propinquity effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propinquity#Propinquity_effect) and [mere exposure effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_attraction#Mere_exposure/exposure_effect) (which would serve to increase romantic interest), or their antithesis, [social allergy](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00115.x) (which decreases romantic interest). [Halo effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect#Role_of_attractiveness) suggest physical attractiveness would probably hold primacy in predicting sexual/romantic receptiveness for a variable but limited period of time, after which, [dyad-specific idiosyncrasies are likely to emerge](http://pauleastwick.com/s/HuntEastwickFinkel2015PSci.pdf) ([2](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513804000066)). The salience of physical attractiveness in maintaining (as opposed to initiating) a long-term relationship, progression towards marriage, and subsequent marital satisfaction, [may also differ](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4011637/).

Read everything

 

[prettyboislime]

6’5 im not an incel I’ve been doing okay in the past few months, still not there yet, I’m just saying that u can’t have a word on this because you’ve never been unattractive so it’s a pointless argument

You need to maximise your looks as much as possible because you are lacking heavily in brain function.

2 of the most aspie people in the forum trying to tell me NT is nothing and looks are everything. literal 6’5 incel trying to tell me it’s not about personality

Coincidence? Now we just wait for James sapphire and whatever other incel schizos to join their side on the debate.


@GetShrekt youre part of schizo club u just don’t know it bro. brutal, sorry

 

[ascension]

I am incel, decent looking but I've been incapacitated by childhood abuse/neglect and being sent to an all boys school

 

[Deleted member 4362]

Read everything

No point entertaining anything ‘intellectual’ on the forum.

We already proved what we are saying with hundreds of studies & empirical data, this place is just for shitposting at this point, mirin ur post count though

 

[mogstar]

2 of the most aspie people in the forum trying to tell me NT is nothing and looks are everything. literal 6’5 incel trying to tell me it’s not about personality

Coincidence? Now we just wait for James sapphire and whatever other incel schizos to join their side on the debate.


@GetShrekt youre part of schizo club u just don’t know it bro. brutal, sorry

? I’m not an incel even bro I’m just saying that looks affect the way u act due to how differently people treat you compared to an ugly guy

 

[mogstar]

No point entertaining anything ‘intellectual’ on the forum.

We already proved what we are saying with hundreds of studies & empirical data, this place is just for shitposting at this point, mirin ur post count though

OP is a troll

 

[prettyboislime]

OP is a troll

No point entertaining anything ‘intellectual’ on the forum.

2 of the most aspie people in the forum trying to tell me NT is nothing and looks are everything. literal 6’5 incel trying to tell me it’s not about personality

Coincidence? Now we just wait for James sapphire and whatever other incel schizos to join their side on the debate.


@GetShrekt youre part of schizo club u just don’t know it bro. brutal, sorry

You cannot avoid this brutal fact. call me a troll call me whatever, but only one of us is correct and it’s not you how can an incel tell a non-incel what life is like? you do not experience it

 

[mogstar]

You cannot avoid this brutal fact. call me a troll call me whatever, but only one of us is correct and it’s not you how can an incel tell a non-incel what life is like? you do not experience it

How many times do I have to say it jfl

 

[prettyboislime]

How many times do I have to say it jfl

You lost your virginity at like 19-20 4 years later than everybody and you’re 6’5, you even said u can’t make friends cuz of ur looks jfl ur so brutally aspie nigga. the fact u still debate me even though proof is on my side, tells me how autistic u are. just shut up and go on with your day coping if you don’t wanna hear this brutal reality

 

[mogstar]

You lost your virginity at like 19-20 4 years later than everybody and you’re 6’5, you even said u can’t make friends cuz of ur looks jfl ur so brutally aspie nigga. the fact u still debate me even though proof is on my side, tells me how autistic u are. just shut up and go on with your day coping if you don’t wanna hear this brutal reality

I did however see some brutally deformed narrow skulled nigga with a massive underbite and bug eyes pull a decent bitch yesterday tbh

 

[Deleted member 4430]

you 6’4

yes, im 160cm

 

[mogstar]

yes, im 160cm

Nigger you’re still doing this and you’re literally 30 yo and a virgin

 

[Deleted member 11097]

Been saying this for years

They are socially retarded, literally 0 hobbies, no conversation whatsoever, and think they’re better than everyone while literally having nothing to offer

 

[JBcollector]

No pls give me sympathy

 

[Deleted member 4430]

Nigger you’re still doing this and you’re literally 30 yo and a virgin

indeed, if im 30, youre 170cm

everyone can claim whatever they want here, just like the chap with 50,000 posts that he has a GF now

 

[Pendejo]

I won’t elaborate because if you have a sentient brain it’s easy to tell Incels always have the worst, most bitter, most out-of-touch, most annoying personalities ever. You can’t talk to them about anything, they’re boring, insecure, etc


If you’re incel u unironically deserve it because u probably have giga shit personality. imagine being a virgin past 16 let alone 18 just fucking lol. these literal asylum patients really wonder why every girl wants nothing to do with them

 

[mogstar]

Been saying this for years

They are socially retarded, literally 0 hobbies, no conversation whatsoever, and think they’re better than everyone while literally having nothing to offer

I hope literally no one responds to this tbh, you’re probably the best looking Nigga in psl rn jfl

 

[mogstar]

indeed, if im 30, youre 170cm

everyone can claim whatever they want here, just like the chap with 50,000 posts that he has a GF now

You’re 28 my bad

 

[Deleted member 4430]

You’re 25 my bad

 

[Deleted member 2729]

There are people that are unironically truecels and its not their fault but its very few. However, your genes are your life, always has been. If you deny that, you are very low IQ

 

[Deleted member 19398]

 

[JBcollector]

Been saying this for years

They are socially retarded, literally 0 hobbies, no conversation whatsoever, and think they’re better than everyone while literally having nothing to offer

So basically be a clown to get pitty sex

 

[prettyboislime]

View attachment 1798578

Son you’re incel because of poverty. I saw your $25 mud shack bro i’m so sorry. Not even NT can fix this issue

 

[aBetterMii]

Incels

 

[Deleted member 19398]

Son you’re incel because of poverty. I saw your $25 mud shack bro i’m so sorry. Not even NT can fix this issue

I'm not an incel I've had sex multiple times
But poor theory for disproving blackpill

 

[Pendejo]

I'm not an incel I've had sex multiple times

Mogs me.

 

[Curry Suicide]

 

[ManletBlackcel]

Hmm so I’m incel because muh personality and not because I’m 5’5, black and ugly? Just lol.

 

[prettyboislime]

Hmm so I’m incel because muh personality and not because I’m 5’5, black and ugly? Just lol.

> 5’5

> black

> ugly



if you were NT, you would’ve had the formula to a charismatic slayer. You ever heard of Kevin Hart? But since you’re autistic, instead you’re a self hating black version of ER.

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Agreed bro, watch incels jump on your neck tho, this is incel site tbh

You're an incel.

 

[ManletBlackcel]

No point entertaining anything ‘intellectual’ on the forum.

We already proved what we are saying with hundreds of studies & empirical data, this place is just for shitposting at this point, mirin ur post count though

Exactly. Niggas want to say looks don’t matter on website that’s literally called looksmax. Just lol at the irony

 

[Curry Suicide]

Why are you hating on us incels? its not our fault we are ugly

 

[john2]

This thread is a huge cope. Out here you're making a thread like this and meanwhile on discord you're bullying currycels simply because they are curry, they were born ugly and they're involuntarily celibate because of their ugliness (which has nothing to do with their personality).

 

[RecessedChinCel]

NT Means nothing if you don’t have the looks.

Yes most self identified “incels” are just low-mid tier normies who become demotivated when they become blackpilled.

But that doesn’t mean trucels don’t exist.

And not everybody can just be NT. Many people in BP communities have autism and don’t have the looks to compensate for their absolute social ineptitude.

For guys like this no amount of NT or personality will help them :

Remember OP you are 6’3, above average looking, mulatto cosmic race. Your reality is absolutely opposite to that of a truecel.

 

[ManletBlackcel]

> 5’5

> black

> ugly



if you were NT, you would’ve had the formula to a charismatic slayer. You ever heard of Kevin Hart? But since you’re autistic, instead you’re a self hating black version of ER.

Just be a celebrity bro. Kevin hart ain’t ugly also

 

[Deleted member 12002]

Hmm so I’m incel because muh personality and not because I’m 5’5, black and ugly? Just lol.

You better start being white. Start doing more white guy stuff.