I’m officially blue pilled

[finnvx]

Yeah I’m good looking and women complement me and the black pill has some truth to it but it’s ultimately over.

I can’t talk to the bitches that complement me for my life I tried speaking what comes to mind or going about it with meaningless small talk but All interactions always end and I feel like I’m just interviewing them and they don’t have much interest in the conversation or just don’t know what to say like me. Even when they complement me or whatever they won’t make an effort to talk to me and I always hold the conversation usually just asking questions. Am I to just keep striking up a conversation? Would they just keep talking to me if they really liked me? Am I severely autistic?
I don’t know bros I’ve never been so pessimistic and truly in disparity I think it’s actually over boys there’s no hope.
Plz help

 

[mento]

there is always hope my friend.

bitches can't get wet from interview/interrogation-like questions, have fun with them, they're emotional creatures.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

HealthyGamerGG made a video about autism and gender identity but I haven't watched it yet. I think a lot of incels are like this and would be happier as girls. If you geniunely feel confident and comfortable as a man you shouldn't transition. Unfortunately there is no good way to transition right now, HRT is weak and you may just end up as a bonehon.

 

[mento]

not all women are emotional

no they are ALL emotional

 

[rafanrhoad]

it's like saying ALL men are trash, how would you like it women thought like that about ALL men huh?

ong

 

[mento]

it's like saying ALL men are trash, how would you like it women thought like that about ALL men huh?

I wouldn't care because I'm not 12 years old. And you wouldn't understand my point of view anyway because you're not a man, you're a sad ugly girl who is uncomfortable in her own skin so overdoses on new-age genderbending ideologies and thinks she can be happier as a man. spoiler alert; you won't be, enjoy the years of depression and low self-esteem while I snort bolivian coke off another model's ass. xoxo

 

[mento]

at least i have the balls to admit my struggles unlike your coward ass, you say i won't be happier as a man because you aren't yourself. You're also uncomfortable in your own skin, maybe that's why your using this website you hypocrite f**k. I am a man, not a childish drug addict like you.

you aren't a man and you will never be one.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

no they are ALL emotional

Probably men are biologically as emotional or more emotional that women, but are taught not to be because men when they get emotional are more of a danger to society

 

[sexlesstosexles]

It's not much about danger, is more that they are shamed for showing emotion like crying or empathy and that's why many of them repress themselves and act tough

Yeah but you have to wonder how did that tradition begin in the first place

 

[AtlasShrugs]

Yeah but you have to wonder how did that tradition begin in the first place

Precisely. Biological men hold a significant physical and athletic advantage over women (cry about it, trans athletes, you'll never be equal), and this is why men, over the development of our civilization, have learned to tighten their emotional range. It is a survival tactic. For a long time, men needed stoicism to fulfill their duties. But now, in the postmodern era, men are (technically) free to express their base emotional range.
The current new-wave progressive narrative states that this is "good." However, such an argument disregards the fact that emotional control is both a sign of maturity and advancement, and "emotional dysregulation" is not only a feminine trait but a mental deficit as well. Hyperemotional men are a danger to society: if they cannot regulate masculine impulses like aggression, anger, and physicality, people can get hurt. If they cannot regulate feminine impulses like indecisiveness, sexual deviance/animalism, and most personality disorders, they become hedonistic, impotent, or both. For the first example, think of Elliot Rodger, and for the second example, Nicholas Perry (commonly known as Nikocado Avocado). Both are "dangerous" in their own respects.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

Precisely. Biological men hold a significant physical and athletic advantage over women

and this is why men, over the development of our civilization, have learned to tighten their emotional range.

Non sequitor for me, I fail to see how the two concepts are connected.

For a long time, men needed stoicism to fulfill their duties.

If anything, it would seem from your original quote that women would need to be stoic, since they are at a disadvantage.

Hyperemotional men are a danger to society:

This is probably correct, but in the 50s and 60s when there were less bisexual females, so there were female incels going on killing sprees due to lack of male dating options. Probably wasn't as often as daily mass shootings though.

if they cannot regulate masculine impulses like aggression, anger, and physicality, people can get hurt. If they cannot regulate feminine impulses like indecisiveness, sexual deviance/animalism, and most personality disorders, they become hedonistic, impotent, or both. For the first example, think of Elliot Rodger, and for the second example, Nicholas Perry (commonly known as Nikocado Avocado). Both are "dangerous" in their own respects.

Never heard of him, looked him up seems to be some mukbang guy. Still an improvement over ancient hedonism where they would barf up their meals just to consume more. A lot of consumer culture is just capitalist brainwashing, they prey on females especially because females do 90% of the consumption or so I'm told. Lack of right to repair is sort of similar but is artificially imposed.

 

[AtlasShrugs]

Non sequitor for me, I fail to see how the two concepts are connected.

What I meant by this statement is as civilization developed through "hard times," it became advantageous for men to be stoic. I can see where my logic might have been confusing, as now, during the "easy times," the narrative being pushed through mainstream culture is that such attitudes are disadvantageous.

If anything, it would seem from your original quote that women would need to be stoic, since they are at a disadvantage.

I can understand where you're coming from. What I intended to convey is that because men are at a physical advantage, historically, the most demanding work fell to them. Men carried the boats and fought the wars. If a man weren't a practitioner of stoicism, he would not be able to bear the challenge of what was required of him. Women didn't need to be (as) stoic because of traditional gender roles, though there were some exceptions, like unmedicated childbirth. Yikes.

This is probably correct, but in the 50s and 60s when there were less bisexual females, so there were female incels going on killing sprees due to lack of male dating options. Probably wasn't as often as daily mass shootings though.

Source? I'm not debating you; I'm curious about this. Do you think this is more evidence for the incel ideology that postmodern society is a "woman's world"?

Never heard of him, looked him up seems to be some mukbang guy. Still an improvement over ancient hedonism where they would barf up their meals just to consume more. A lot of consumer culture is just capitalist brainwashing, they prey on females especially because females do 90% of the consumption or so I'm told. Lack of right to repair is sort of similar but is artificially imposed.

Yes, but we're veering dangerously close to ancient hedonism, sadly. Also, you have a good point about consumerism, though I don't think capitalism is entirely to blame for this, more the religion of consumerism that comes with late-stage capitalism. However, I fail to see how that relates to my point in this sense (when men either become hypermasculine or hyper-emasculated, they become dangerous). Can you clarify your line of reasoning?

 

[AtlasShrugs]

That's why we need to start the Matriarchal generational scientific revolution, we need to end this biological dimorphism and create a superior race where women are advantaged, the more physically adapted people we have the more benefits will be contributed to our species. Strong women should regulate their emotions just like men used to do before this progressive era.

And who says that the solution to postmodern disparity is furthering such disparity? Perpetuating the swing of the cultural pendulum won't solve any problems; it only furthers them in the opposite direction.

 

[AtlasShrugs]

That's why we need to start the Matriarchal generational scientific revolution, we need to end this biological dimorphism and create a superior race where women are advantaged, the more physically adapted people we have the more benefits will be contributed to our species. Strong women should regulate their emotions just like men used to do before this progressive era.

I've reviewed this statement and realize I may have miscalculated your intention. Did you mean an equal elevation of both sexes or a reversal of the current biological advantage of men over women in favor of women?

 

[AtlasShrugs]

Oh, I see. That makes infinitely more sense, thank you. I thought you intended to propose the extremist postmodern feminist agenda to create a superior Amazonian race where men are no longer biologically relevant or even present, for that matter. You are just talking about elevating both sexes to the fullest human potential.

 

[AtlasShrugs]

You're welcome, and it would also be very beneficial for a nation because both women and men can help each other build and construct important parts of our society like building/military/Olympics, the more people are physically adapted to survive the better, we can't just leave men do all the job and if we help more people get involved to work and fight together the better the outcome, and it would also help the women on the country who participate in world Olympics since they'll be so much physically developed compared to their competitors. And if our women where as advantaged as men we could have a much more stronger and larger military with higher chances of survival. And if we also work on this change maybe childbirth would be easier and less painful since they'll have more physical strength and we can make the healthy population grow.

This is precisely the mindset humanity should carry moving into the postmodern era. If a more extensive degradation or even a collapse of Western society were to occur, we would need as many strong, resilient human beings as possible. Again, it becomes a matter of who will "carry the boats."
I think this may well be the best solution for humanity that I have come across. If both sexes found themselves equally elevated (meaning true equality, not current progressive "equality," which is just a cover for turning blatant systemic misogyny into systemic misandry), even the sexual marketplace as it is now would cease. This would likely solve most incel's problems since emotionality and physical weakness have been ingrained as the norm for contemporary women.
It is important to note that much of the progressive female empowerment movement strays from this concept; however, such ideologies only encourage women to weaponize the underlying neurotic traits instilled in them by society for their gain (manipulating men for financial/sexual/status reasons, weaponizing baseless accusations, blackmail, lack of female-to-female loyalty (think of the movie Bride Wars), self-victimization, etc.). If more women practiced strength and stoicism as much as men have, I believe some true progress could be made in our society.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

What I meant by this statement is as civilization developed through "hard times," it became advantageous for men to be stoic. I can see where my logic might have been confusing, as now, during the "easy times," the narrative being pushed through mainstream culture is that such attitudes are disadvantageous.

I can understand where you're coming from. What I intended to convey is that because men are at a physical advantage, historically, the most demanding work fell to them. Men carried the boats and fought the wars. If a man weren't a practitioner of stoicism, he would not be able to bear the challenge of what was required of him. Women didn't need to be (as) stoic because of traditional gender roles, though there were some exceptions, like unmedicated childbirth. Yikes.

Ah I see

Source? I'm not debating you; I'm curious about this. Do you think this is more evidence for the incel ideology that postmodern society is a "woman's world"?

A blackpill incel video I seen. They said that because men died in wars there was less men than women so there were some female incels. Nowadays there is an equal amount of males and women, if there were more women the amount of male incels would decrease

Yes, but we're veering dangerously close to ancient hedonism, sadly. Also, you have a good point about consumerism, though I don't think capitalism is entirely to blame for this, more the religion of consumerism that comes with late-stage capitalism However, I fail to see how that relates to my point in this sense (when men either become hypermasculine or hyper-emasculated, they become dangerous). . Can you clarify your line of reasoning?

Nah. That dude you were talking about is a meme, he is just making videos to get rich. Doesn't even seem like hedonism to me, a lot of vids seem about eating too spicy foods. After watching 1 of his vids (didn't watch the whole vid) I realize everything is rigged now, everyone is just a character archetype. He is just a clone of the chef from Eureka. Our society is an illusion created either by Ai or aliens.

but yeah about capitalism. Early stage capitalism is ok, its just about bein' cool sellin' goods. Late stage is when its just a monopoly harder for small or new businesses to prosper

as for the hyper men ur probably right. i think its this way why 9 out of 10 criminals are male because of hypergamy. because women don't do as much violence as males because they have implied dating value. Males feel always alone deep down and feel cornered. Society used to say testosterone causes male violence but somebody made some new research saying it does not, it only causes violence because of male socialization and suggestions that violent is what males ought to be, not because of an inherent chemical propensity for violence.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

That's why we need to start the Matriarchal generational scientific revolution, we need to end this biological dimorphism and create a superior race where women are advantaged, the more physically adapted people we have the more benefits will be contributed to our species. Strong women should regulate their emotions just like men used to do before this progressive era.

agree

I've reviewed this statement and realize I may have miscalculated your intention. Did you mean an equal elevation of both sexes or a reversal of the current biological advantage of men over women in favor of women?

i am guessing they were referring to one of my recent posts. my post was about how humans have devolved from primitive man in the cranial capacity. brain volume of modern man supposedly is 87.5% compared to primitive man and modern female brain volume went to 75%. Primitive man and primitive woman had almost equal brain volume. I'm not convinced my plan will save all the incels since there is a flaw in plan. Firstly if my theory is correct, the reason the brain volume is what it is is today is because the bigger brain females were more likely to reject men than the bimbos.

 

[EvilBurger]

not all women are emotional

we are it’s literally built into our mental chemistry and fluctuates based on our hormonal cycle. it’s not a bad thing, it’s ju how it works.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

Oh, I see. That makes infinitely more sense, thank you. I thought you intended to propose the extremist postmodern feminist agenda to create a superior Amazonian race where men are no longer biologically relevant or even present, for that matter. You are just talking about elevating both sexes to the fullest human potential.

semi-based. I am in favor of this Amazonian female race because if there were more women than men, men would become more relevant. The problem is there is not enough demand for men because there is too much male surplus. Women rarely if ever approach men for dates and sex. I am anti-war and biologically men are like moths to wars and that has always managed the male population to the point where men became more desired by women. Most people are anti-war like me and prefer a new alternative and my alternative is simply having a larger female population from the getgo, by some sort of chemical that causes women to be more likely to birth female offspring than male offspring. And some kind of way to make a lot of adult males into girls, HRT is just ineffective for that and its too random.

The the other thing is an issue of language semantics. I realize the term hedonism just confuses the conversation, its like the word love. The way people use the word love you cannot tell if they are talking about romantic love or just donating a few bux to a homeless man. This is similar to how the word hedonism just confuses the conversation. Words like gluttony, excess, sloth, comfort, health, etc. exist. For example, someone could argue that "being a hard worker" is just a form of hedonism because it is avoiding pain and maximizing pleasure because they are trying to avoid being a homeless man living in the cold. Or that exercise is hedonism because they feel better after exercise. Or that people should sit in unhealthy chairs that hurt their back, because luxury chairs are hedonism. Or even that people need to eat food when they aren't hungry (gluttony), because not eating the food is wasteful hedonism, like in the 50's when they would say not to leave the dinner table till they ate every last crumb. Hence why hedonism isn't a great addition for conversational vocabulary.

 

[sexlesstosexles]

Same thing with the word emotions. Men are as emotional as women. Its just the type and style of emotions are different.