A few months ago someone posted an article on the male loneliness epidemic. I had shared my thoughts in the comments on that post. But I think that article and a lot of comments are under the impression that "redpill" content/ideology is still in vogue or relevant in today's world. It still has its followers and influencers for sure, but it's not at the forefront of cultural discussions anymore. To think otherwise is outdated, the redpill era died around 2022/2023 and was replaced by a more incel-derived "blackpill" era.

Thanks to TikTok, what was once relegated to niche internet forums became mainstream. The biggest influencer from this internet phenomenon is Clavicular, who is currently getting articles written about him in press outlets such as The Hollywood Reporter and People.

I am no stranger to talking about looks (side note: I would have taken more time to write that out and discuss broader topics, such as "types," if I had known it would have gotten as much attention as it did). And I have been around looksmaxxxing spaces on the internet since about 2022. I'll try to make this as brief and simple as I can.

What is the blackpill?

The blackpill is a deterministic outlook on life. It states that your genetics determines the quality of your life, and if you were not born with advantageous bone structure and height, then "it was over before it even started." You won't be successful in life, you won't find love, and you will end up a lonely, pathetic person wishing you'd been born looking better.

How does this differ from the redpill?

The redpill has some overlap with the blackpill. Both believe that men are the true victims of society. That feminism has been detrimental, this and that, and the other. The redpill, however, insinuates that you can self-improve. There's almost zero focus on improving looks, and it's almost entirely focused on making money and increasing your status.

A core belief of the redpill is that all women are gold diggers, and in order to get laid, you need to make a ton of money. The blackpill does not entirely dispute this, but it does say that if a woman chooses you for money, she will never actually love you. And that you are paying a lot of money for affection and attention that an attractive man gets for free.

I think that explanation in and of itself should show you the difference between the two.

What's looksmaxxxing? Are looksmaxxxing and the blackpill interchangeable terms?

They are not.

Looksmaxxxing is what guys do to look better, to increase their rankings on the looks scale. So that they can start getting laid (primarily) or start to "mog" (i.e., outshine everyone in a room).

In certain blackpill spaces looksmaxxxing is seen as cope, since, again, your life was determined by genetics and there's nothing you can do to fix this.

You might think looksmaxxxing consists of losing body fat, getting a skin care routine, dressing nicely, hygiene, and cologne. And that is part of it, all of that stuff is considered "softmaxxxing" but there's also "hardmaxxxing" as in surgeries and other more serious treatments such as steroids and peptides (which technically occupy a grey area between soft and hard maxxxing). An example of a popular surgery is double jaw surgery, here's the subreddit for it so you can see examples. If your jaw was not properly developed and you have a recessed chin (or a pushed-in chin), then a double jaw surgery is something you can do that would greatly increase your attractiveness. Although it does carry quite a bit of risk. There are other surgeries that people do on their eyes, their noses, ear pinning, there's a lot.

It is essentially a belief that your best investment is going to be in how you look. It's a bit of a running joke that instead of going to college, you should invest in plastic surgery, and that will do more to make your life better than a degree.

How do they view women? How do they view themselves?

The belief is that women are hypergamous. That they will only want to date up, and it's significantly easier for women to date and get laid, even if they are below average looking. And that even an above average looking man will have trouble since they aren't the holy grail of attractiveness.

Here's a brief explanation of their rating system.

• Sub-5

5 is considered average; sub-5 means below average. Not even that you don't get attention but that you get negative attention from the people around you.

• Low-Tier Normie / Low-Tier Becky
• Mid-Tier Normie / Mid-Tier Becky
• High-Tier Normie / High-Tier Becky

The "normie" categories are all average categories. Ranging from on the low side of average (LTN) to above average (HTN). The High Tier categories are where a lot of attractive actors sit, think romcom leads, the boy/girl next door types.

• Chad/Stacy

Essentially unobtainable beauty. Taylor Hill or Henry Cavill.

Depending on who you're talking to, someone would say that "life starts at HTN" or that life doesn't exist unless you're "Chad." And that if you're anything below that, you might as well not even exist.

How did it get popular?

The first instance most people probably heard of it was likely in 2014 when Elliot Rodger committed a mass shooting at a University. He was a member of a looksmaxxxing forum (the original looksmaxxxing forum, I believe), which led to the site being shut down and thus delaying any chance of its popularity. If you go back and watch and read what Elliot Rodger believed, it makes more sense in today's context now that this thought process has been more normalized.

In 2023, TikTok started promoting this content. Primarily from "edits" here's an example and coinciding with that were also the rise of a few influencers. All leading up to Clavicular, and how dominant he is on social media (thanks in part to funding from Peter Thiel). He was a kid posting on looksmaxxxing forums, was a micro celebrity in the niche, became a slightly bigger internet celebrity on TikTok before streamers started bringing him on leading to his insane fame.

Conclusion

Going back to the initial tildes post that I linked to. That whole thing was essentially saying, if you're just a good person, then someone will want to date you or fall in love with you or want to have sex with you or whatever. And I think part of the reason why looksmaxxxing stuff has taken off is that it feels more honest. It's not coddling you, and if you do improve your looks, you're going to see better results in dating than if you read feminist literature or something. So the takeaway ends up being that one of these places was telling me the truth.

Like, on a broader scale, it's a response to the body positivity stuff from the 2010s. When everyone was being told that it's okay if you're obese, it's healthy, it's beautiful. And there was just kind of a sense of performance to all of it.
The effort to change what people are attracted to, or to shame people for not being attracted to a certain thing. Has it gone too far? Probably, but I think that's why it took off initially and why it grew so quickly.

I obviously have my own personal experience about this, and so I very obviously know that it's not just what's inside that counts. Normal everyday people will make assumptions about you based on the way that you look. And I don't think it's a morally wrong thing to acknowledge that it happens, nor do I think it's a morally righteous thing to pretend like it doesn't.

An odd question to ask, I'll admit, but I think it's worth asking.

It's hard to have a public conversation today about political or politicised topics because people will pipe up and tell you that you're crazy and your ideas are completely backwards. And the reason why people say this is often driven by conflicts between personally held values rather than the ideas themselves. As a result, these conversations usually end up with both sides arguing past eachother and no concensus is ever made; nobody is happy.

One of the more common reasons for these arguements is typically because one party believes in egalitarianism - the belief that all people should be treated the same - and the other one does not. It's particularly strange to see given that so many countries have egalitarianism as a cornerstone to their government and laws. Yet we still see many people trying to take away rights and freedoms from certain classes of people.

Regardless of any particular conversation, what do you think is the best way to convince someone in the value of egalitarianism? How do you convince someone that they're not part of a higher class who has power over another?

Where are your beliefs and principles born from? What does it take for them to change? Do you have a conscious way that you manage and shape your own belief, or does it just happen? How much control over it do you think you have? Do you think that's different from the control others have?

don't know exactly what to title this so that'll do. this is maybe a topic that could fit in ~talk but since it's something i came up with i'll put it here for now. move if necessary. i also don't know if it will "work" in the sense that it'll generate a discussion, but we'll see. never know until you try.

anyways, i am a writer at heart and to put a long story short one of the more interesting concepts i have going on is the social/political ideology of "homaitism", an ideology which at is core opposes property entirely and seeks to establish shared ownership of everything in a society. in a more Wikipedian serse, i think this best describes the ideas at play here:

[Homaitism is] the general term applied to a collection of far-left political philosophies and ideologies which, broadly speaking, reject the ideas of property ownership and sometimes small government. Many Homaitist schools of thought advocate the establishment of a large social net, the socialization of the most important services in a society (such as those of fire, police, healthcare, and so on), and the formation of a government which serves most if not all of the needs of its people. Others resolve that this is incompatible with a Homaitist society and suggest a more communal organization to society, in which groups are formed voluntarily on the basis of need rather than through the establishment of a state authority.

i think it goes without saying that there are some significant flaws in this idea, which is primarily what i want to explore. my main questions here that i'd be interested to hear people's responses to about this, if there's anything to be said (which maybe there's not? dunno):

1. what impression you get from that as an idea. far too utopian? far too many holes to be viable? impractical but not impossible? possible on a certain level? things like that.

2. are there reservations or flaws you see beyond the obvious questions of whether this is utopian or in any way viable?

other comments about the general idea here are also welcome (especially if you think some of these ideas are dumb and contradictory and/or would not work together at all). if people don't think this is enough to go off of i'll try to post some of the more detailed writings/sketches i have which elaborate on it more.