Is it sadder to feel like you belong with a group because you are all incels or because you all hate incels?

I'm guessing you feel like you belong to a group because you all hate incels together.

I've been forced into this so I don't understand, what's it like hang out with incels as a voluntary hobby?

fun fact: everyone on the right side is verified r/IncelTears member except the guy in the bottom right corner

I only knew the Chuck Swirsky-looking tranny to be one, but I thought as much. Is top left also an IT poster? He should be blackpilled as fuck with that face.

Attached: 4891.jpg (768x1024, 61K)

yes actually
he posted on r/amiugly i think so incels called him to join them but instead he sided with r/IncelTears an since then he sometimes posted there (don't know if he still does tho)

The short hair girl is qt. I'd like her to bully my virginity.

>tfw volcel
TURN
OFF
THE
BOT

Attached: 7B559746-49E6-41F8-94D8-33E71F28BDAB.jpg (494x494, 44K)

like anyone expected the people dedicating their life to stalking a bunch of virgins on the internet would look good

Attached: fear-not-m-lady-for-l-am-here-to-protect-2458542.jpg (600x1037, 93K)

You're retarded. lightspeed ugly = incel. It isn't some mindset.

I had a classmate with legit aspergers who got laid on a classtrip, he was the very definition of a 1/10 neckbeard, it was more of a pity fuck and the girl was a 2/10 too but he touched his first and probably only woman in his life and had intercourse with her that night, its more of a mindset than anything, I never heard him saying he wants to fuck qt3.14's, he just wanted to fuck a living breathing woman and the madlad jumped at the first opportunity to do so, you could probably do that too if you lower your standards by a large margin but instead you cry about it on mongolian basket weaving forums, its more of a mindset than anything and you literally can't prove me wrong

>provides anecdotal evidence
>"PROVE ME WRONG INCELS!!"
Troglodyte IQ. Here's some facts for you to brush off as flawed or insufficient though.
2 studies.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19558447 (2009)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5519305/ (2017)
These studies support the claim that physical attractiveness is the most accurate predictor of attraction. To clarify, I'm going to talk about the data from the first one, we can only assume it has gotten worse in recent years because of dating apps such as tinder which appeal to women. If you don't think that tinder appeals to women then you should look up the gini coefficient of tinder. Do you know which attributes did not affect the participants attraction? These: Self-esteem, Political leanings, Values, Social interest, Similarity. The participants were 108 college students; 54 men; 54 women. Avg. age 19 (ranging from 17 to 26). The activities in this study included a background questionnaire, inventories of political attitudes, personal values, interests, general personality, affectivity, attachment, and self-esteem, which as previously stated had no meaningful effect on attraction. You can look at the rest of the data yourself if you are interested. Mind you, this is what I came up with just after a quick search online, so evidence to support lookism obviously isn't scarce at all.

Why did I waste any energy trying to prove something to a baiting retard who can't defend his own views and resorts to anecdotes that are probably made up and/or exaggerated? Beats me, I'm not a very smart guy but at least I'm not as retarded as you.

Attached: 1549137301193.png (691x669, 562K)

B-but muh exception MUH EXCEPTION RULES OUT EVERYTHING ELSE STOP USING DATA FICTION OVER FACTS REEE
based and actuallyusingdatatodisproveanecdotspilled

Attached: 1541657590404.gif (250x203, 136K)

data this data that, if this was a simulation or something I would agree with you based on the studies you provided that it's actually impossible to get a girl unless you look chadlike, however this is real life and your studies are BTFOed by the millions of millions of below average men, men with crippling diseases, down syndromes etc who were able to have intercourse because your data can't account for everything that can happen. For example you could have lots of money, your studies don't say anything about money affecting attractions, thots love money, its literally the fastest way to get laid since you can buy sex. What about alchool? If you manage to get a chick drunk enough by yourself sexual tension should form unless you sperg out really bad. Your studies don't say anything about substances affecting attracion.Those studies seem to be based on the assumption that attraction is the same for everyone when in reality thats very far from the truth, not every woman is the same just like you arent the same as other men. People have come out with the most creative ways known to man to pick up chicks based on the type of chick they had to pick up and have sex but if you go purely by data without even trying to do something just because you don't think you have the looks and by the way you probably don't look as ugly as you think you do of course you don't get to have sex and just blame it on the chads who won the genetic lottery when in reality you probably can't read people very well and try the same aproach for everyone

Is Jow Forums the dumbest board on Jow Forums?