blackpill is mildly interesting because it shows how easy is to brainwash cattle with a few surveys. It's worth making studies on it to teach people to combat misinformation

>>84368015
I understand how its deceptive to use extremely narrow spans of climate patterns to deny that there's an overall trend or how covid tests with low sample sizes can portray the vaccine as intentionally harmful. Still, I wonder how they can wave away the differences in male-rated vs female-rated attractiveness, or the many studies that reinforce that money makes dating and marriage much easier for men, or how aggressiveness is more attractive to women. Not that there aren't scenarios where incel/blackpill types use incomplete data, but the most fundamental and obvious examples and their takeaways are mostly true.

>>84368075
Being attractive makes life easy is misinformation?

>>84368089
It's cause if u published a study saying women are superficial who are primarily driven by instincts is recipe for career failure. They need to tow party line which is women and men are equal and deep down what matters is that your good boy

>>84368015
funny because thats how liberal capitalist countries operate with their own propaganda. every insane progressive idea is "science based"

>the incel wiki is technically now peer reviewed
Holy kek

File: 132412343214`2134.jpg (40.2 KB)

40.2 KB JPG

>>84368015
>They essentially admitted that incels use well sourced papers but framed them deceptively to push an agenda. Why are we wasting our money on this?
BTFO by reality wave.
Hysterically trying to create blue pill phantom.
>facts are offensive
>how can we dismiss THE FACTS!

File: 1753772379781816.png (519 KB)

519 KB PNG

>>84368015
>framed them deceptively
jewish pilpul, there's no way to frame black pill content one way or another, there's just the way it is

>>84368253
>it is completely impossible to editorialize
Ok anon

>>84368015
>They essentially admitted that incels use well sourced papers but framed them deceptively to push an agenda.
The entire right wing identity

>>84368015
I can tell you that a lot that's cited on the scientific blackpill isn't actually well-sourced. They have a habit of citing preprints and papers that have horrendously small sample sizes (think e.g. n=9). That's not to say all the papers they cite are bad, plenty of them are perfectly legitimate, but taken in aggregate it's pretty obvious that in many cases they are looking for something to reinforce the ideology rather than building their world view on the most credible evidence available. Otherwise why aren't they extensively citing people who have extensively studied human mating like David Buss, whose findings clearly indicate that a man's socioeconomic status is the greatest single-variable predictor of his attractiveness, which essentially debunks the black pill and instead reinforces a strand of the red pill? Makes literally no sense.

File: 1745882012648742.jpg (157.4 KB)

157.4 KB JPG

>>84368800
Don't be silly, Asmongold is rightoid and cannot read.

>>84369076
He's partially right. Leftists ignore human nature because they seek utopia, which is impossible, not as a matter of resource management or lack of desire to get there, but by our nature we have already chosen this Hell of our making. We have rejected the Garden, there will be no return.

Asmon understands this, but we must also read and understand, particularly the great philosophers and writers of all time. Think Aurelius' Meditations or Augustine's Confessions. We read not just to absorb information to repeat, but to understand that which was worth being communicated, timeless ideas, epic poetry and truths from before our civilization.

They don't want the public to ever focus on the possibility that our government is a manipulation machine.
You can fight manipulation or taxes, but you can't fight both because they hide behind good. That's how taxes came about, they were used for good once a upon a time.

File: 1765323620107285.jpg (120.1 KB)

120.1 KB JPG

>>84368015
Why aren't they doing the same study on feminists?