Forget the Blue Pill vs Red Pill.... The Black Pill is the..

Former dating coach for women who gave up on the coaching because of women's unrealistically high standards. lol

He's a freak for having such high standards at his weight. Both men and women should be more grounded and dispense with unrealistic standards.

When you go out in public, how many couples do you see where the woman is fatter than the man (compared to vice versa)? How many couples where the dude is shorter than the woman? How many where the dude gets in a long-term relationship or marriage to a woman with kid/s from other men (compared to vice versa)?

Men will date and marry down (marry a woman who's less attractive, lower income, status, has kids from prior relationship/s, etc) at a much higher rate than women. Point in fact, women rarely marry down. So on average, the point stands... women are the shallower of the two sexes.

Edit: I looked it up on Wiki and the "black pill" asserts that women never marry less attractive men. Therefore, it's a philosophy that deals in absolutes and nihilism. imo, it's pure bologna. Again, look at the actor Peter Dinklage. Despite the odds, he attained success, found a wife and has a child.

Compared to the red/purple pills that suggest there are some general rules of thumb about human nature... aspects of human nature and relationships that society either lies about or doesn't tell you when you're growing up. Red pill is not about absolutes. It doesn't say exceptions don't exist, nor does it adopt the philosophy of nihilism/hopelessness. imo, it seems that black pill is the philosophy of incels.

The label "incel" is thrown around with such frequency because it's commonly used as form of shaming language or name-calling, not because we're surrounded by incels in our society.
So it's popular as a label/name-calling and spammed (on the internet and in pop culture) much like the name "bitch" is spammed.

However, it's really not effective at shaming MGTOW because most of these men aren't incel. Mostly, there are MGTOW who casually date women ("pump and dump," but avoid long term commitment with them such as marriage), MGTOW monks (volcel or voluntary celibate), and so on (with other groups who aren't incel). You see, for shaming language to have any effect, you have to at least convince your target that there's some truth to your shaming.

I was thinking he could bring up relationship examples from the past, 90's or whatever, and pretend that times haven't changed (with the advent of dating apps like tender, etc). lol

I too had 9s and 10s interested in me back in the 90's, when I was in my twenties. However, the dating & relationship parameters have changed since then, with dating apps and the proliferation of social media. There are studies and stats available now that have proved this. Women get all the attention they need thanks to digital platforms and feel less of a need to be in real lasting relationships. So "these days," given that women mostly just crave attention, they now get that attention online. For physical needs, they can easily go from hookup to hookup and be completely satisfied riding the CC well into their 30's. They "don't need no man," because they can earn a living on their own and remain independent (at least until baby rabies kicks in, just before their bio clock expires). Modern tech and a "progressive" society has made it so they can afford to pass over decent guys who are at or even a bit higher than their own status.

Basically, if you haven't settled down, the argument is that you're an incel and/or special needs.

Something you're forgetting is that many (if not most) single women are emotionally damaged by their 30's, after having relationships with dozens (or, in some cases, perhaps up to hundreds) of men. That statement is not just anecdotal either. I've talked to women that I dated, to try & figure them out and improve my dating skills.

One woman, who I've been in contact with for years, admitted that one of her boyfriends from 12 years ago "ruined" her for other men. He was former special forces in the military, etc and she still loved him, communicating with him off & on for the past 12 years (maybe going on 13 years now). All according to her own words. After dating X number of men, the bar gets set and they establish expectations for the quality of man they think they deserve. Also, they lose the ability to pair bond from spending too many years riding the CC.

Of course, as soon as I realize a woman is damaged and she hasn't worked through issues (that she's had for many years), I let her go. I'm not a psychologist. It's not my job and probably not in my ability to patch them up emotionally & mentally.

Feminism convinces women to prioritize education (a multi-trillion $ industry) and career (doubling the supply of labor, halving the per unit cost of labor), and postpone or forgo family. These are huge economic incentives for business/industry and govt to promote feminism. Social engineering is done through mass media & the education system. They're able manipulate the psychology of millions of people, through means that easily reach millions of people.

Which begs the question, is feminism truly promoted because it's good for women or is it promoted to satisfy industry's profit expectations? Is it good for ALL women to wait until they're older, delay having children (increasing the risk that their kids will have autism or other health & mental deficiencies) or not have kids at all?

If women want to become careerists, more power to them.. On individual, per person basis, I'm not against this at all. What I'm against is the social stigma associated with being a stay at home mom, as if raising the next generation isn't important work.

Also, a longer term problem with single mother households and kids raised by daycare facilities, is that statistically (on average) kids from these households are lower IQ and several times more likely to become criminals. Crime rates go up and productivity decreases, the economy suffers long-term.

We all like to think that we're independent and not affected by outside influences, like the media and societal pressures. In fact, one of the feminist mantras is that women are strong & independent. However, in reality, people rarely make big decisions (like career and family) without experiencing some influence from the society around them. imo, this is true for men and women. What's interesting tho, in Psychology studies women rate much higher in agreeableness than men, meaning that women are more susceptible to group think and following their peers. Thus, it could be argued that women are easier to influence through social engineering.

If feminism could figure out how women can be a successful careerists and form loving families capable of raising kids properly (where one or more of the actual parents raises the kids, rather than kids being raised in daycare), that'd be great.  Maybe convince women to accept men who are willing to be stay at home fathers (settling for man who makes less $'s), so that she can be the careerist and primary bread-winner, or whatever the solution might be.

I just looked up incel in Wikipedia and there was a picture of SCMB. I reported it and then they correctly placed Crius' picture up instead.

Yep. His videos are gold... comedy and truth about the womenz.

I wouldn't worry about it. Haters gonna hate no matter what you do. You can cherry-pick haters in any group and pretend that person represents the whole group. In fact, there are plenty of haters and irrational types to go around in your party of choice. Shall we examine some of these people and label the whole party as whacko?

Red pill is philosophy about female nature and relationships. It's not a movement, religion, or politics. People can decide individually if part/s of it has any relevance in their lives or which are shite posted by some random bum on the internet.

However, when pseudosciences such as creationism, identity politics (millions of genders and other various SJW-isms), or Medicare/welfare for all (including all illegals/non-citizens), is being spouted by the leadership of major political parties, that's when your internal alarm ("this shit is crazy") should be going off. These are the instances that we should be speaking out, instead of towing the line and going along with the herd (specifically, the flawed view/treatment of politics as a team sport).

Thanks for that. It seems not many people are willing to debate in a civil manner. The country is so polarized these days.

Hell no, I wouldn't want her dating any "pump & dump" PUA's, or PUA's masquerading as MGTOW's. By the same token, if I had a son, I wouldn't want him dating any of the carousel riding or gold-digging ho's that guys like Bill Burr and Coach Greg Adams jokingly warn us about.

I concur on healthcare policy, but I question the feasibility of it. Current govt spending levels and economy are fundamentally broken. Such massive spending increases won't be sustainable over the long-term. The Dems proposition of opening the borders and Medicare for all non-citizens makes little sense, considering we already can't get our deficit spending under control. The economy is a house of cards. They've managed to post-pone the negative effects (particularly inflation) & eventual collapse through debt and clever policy (such as establishing the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, propping up its value). The good times will end eventually, when other countries lose faith in the USD and jump ship for some other reserve currency. I read China or China & a group of Asian countries are in the process of formulating one.

Unfortunately, in regards to military policy, we see the same problems with any establishment candidate (Republican or Democrat). Overall, Obama didn't de-escalate our involvement in the ME. Libya air strikes, record number of drone attacks (in countries like Pakistan), Benghazi, etc. And Hillary planned on ratcheting it up, if she were elected, because she openly stated that she wanted our jets in Syria to enforce a no-fly zone (against Russian and Syrian airforce). Such a policy could've damn well started WWIII.

Sorry, but so far, Trump has done more to de-escalate our military involvement in the ME than the past several presidents. I'm curious if he'll change this policy if he's re-elected for a 2nd term, since he'll know he has nothing to lose (with presidents being limited to two terms).

The likely reason we see this persistence of establishment politicians treating the ME as if it were on our proverbial chess board is that security of the petro-dollar (and by proxy, our reserve currency status) is dependent on stability in the ME, because the petro-dollar is a deal our govt set up with some ME countries (back in the 70's or something). Again, in line with reasons I stated previously, if we lose reserve currency status, our economy is screwed.

Dudes give other dudes shit all the time. Guys have threatened me with violence, told me to die, etc. That's actually worse than the rape comment in your link.
I don't know that it's necessarily black pill. Some people have a mean/evil streak or maybe they are evil (or psychotic, if you don't prescribe to notions of good and evil).