@Chiswick Chap I'd like to add that last sentence about what the black pill ideology and incels view as the consequence of being an unattractive man, specifically a man who does not fit the supposedly established criteria of "looks, money, status" that they focus on so much. I think it's an important detail to add because it's directly tied to biological determinism: not only is black pill ideology based on biological determinism, but the consequences are also heavily reliant upon it, meaning it's relevant for this article. Regarding the issue of brevity, that last sentence is very quick and it still keeps that subsection of the article short while providing a very good summary of the overall worldview of blackpill/incels. What are your objections to that short sentence being added? HarvardJock (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks for discussing. It still seems to me that it's a consequence for the incels, but doesn't add anything worthy of note about determinism itself. The other thing is that the section seems unbalanced and one-sided; the claim that "looks", for example, are determined ignores the fact that a man's physique depends on exercise (not to mention cosmetic surgery), so the general nature-vs-nurture argument applies here too: "looks" depend, like all other aspects, on both "nature" and "nurture". Perhaps it would be better to find a source for that side of things if you want to add anything to the section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Okay thanks. I'll revisit this topic later on when I find more sources, as I'm editing other pages related to this topic (incels, blackpill, genetic determinism, etc.). Will discuss again here before I make any changes. HarvardJock (talk) 06:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
- OK, I've added a brief mention of these factors, with ref. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
