u/Odd-Help6890

But the black pill (Rehab room and Wheat Waffles) says even mid white chicks only want white chads. This should not be happening.

I’ve lost count of how many comments I’ve seen across thread after thread started by Indian men claiming that Indian women always go for white men, despite there being little to no evidence to support that claim.

Most interracial marriage statistics actually suggest that Indian men marry outside their ethnicity at similar or even higher rates. While some niche datasets do show Indian women marrying out at slightly higher rates, the overall difference does not appear to be particularly significant.

More broadly, Indian people have one of the lower rates of marrying outside their ethnicity compared with many other groups.

There are also people who argue that some Indian men deliberately fuel gender wars online. I’ve even seen claims that subreddits such as r/SplendidaBrown are largely Indian men role playing as Indian women in order to create the impression that Indian women idolize or exclusively prefer white men. I’m not saying that claim is true, but it’s something I’ve seen people speculate about and thought was worth mentioning.

The reason the Black Pill is so difficult to argue against is that it has defeatism built into it.

You point out an unattractive man with an attractive woman? “He’s rich, so that doesn’t apply to me.” He’s poor? “He isn’t autistic like I am.” He has the same disadvantages? “He’s an exception.” And if every other explanation fails, the relationship can simply be dismissed as a “freak accident.”

You can do this indefinitely. Every counterexample can be explained away while the conclusion remains unchanged: “It might happen to other people, but it won't happen to me.”

This is why I don't think the Black Pill is really an ideology or coherent position. I think it is a neurosis that likely belongs on the depressive spectrum. I have dysthymia, and I've experienced similar “blackpills” about subjects completely unrelated to dating. When you're depressed, it's possible to develop extremely convincing beliefs that everything is hopeless, and then selectively interpret evidence to reinforce them.

That doesn't mean every observation made by Black Pillers is necessarily false. Some claims about attractiveness, dating, and social dynamics may have genuine merit. The problem is when the worldview becomes unfalsifiable when no possible counterexample can ever count against it.

If a belief can explain away every piece of evidence that contradicts it, in what sense is it still a rational position?

In countries such as the Philippines, Thailand, India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, China, sub-Saharan Africa, and so on, you could be a white dude who is 5'3", balding, scrawny, or obese, working a low-status job in your home country, and still have a line of women happy to date you.

Even in wealthier countries like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, where it can be a little harder, there are still plenty of women who seem genuinely obsessed with white men. My co worker is a fat, modest height, poorly groomed Scottish guy, and he still managed to meet his wife while spending a year in Japan.

I’ve also seen plenty of white guys say that dating is impossible for them and that they’ve essentially given up on finding someone, with some claiming that they have no other option because they can’t attract white women but can get women from other countries who they refuse to date.

How different would that universe would look from the prospective of humans living there.

When people criticise r/SplendidaBrown, some defend it by pointing out that there is supposedly a male equivalent, r/SouthAsianMasculinity. But the two subreddits are fundamentally different.

On r/SplendidaBrown, South Asian women who date South Asian men are often portrayed negatively, while relationships with non South Asian men, particularly white men, are placed on a pedestal. There also seems to be a strong fascination with interracial dating, especially with white men and Korean men.

By contrast, on r/SouthAsianMasculinity, men expressing a preference for Indian women is generally treated as normal, while preferences for white women can actually be criticised or downvoted.

What makes r/SplendidaBrown particularly strange is the hostility toward Indian men and the tendency to promote the idea that non Indian men are inherently better. The subreddit also frequently posts memes and content celebrating dating outside the community, particularly with white men.

If the equivalent content were posted here, such as memes celebrating Indian men dating white women, I suspect it would be heavily downvoted and the comments would be far more critical.

For those that do not know - https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/1vhrj3q/random_unprovoked_attack_along_a_sidewalk_in/

live in London and have spent time in several student towns. I'm genuinely not exaggerating when I say that, over the last three years, every interracial lesbian couple I've come across has involved a White woman paired with either a Black woman, an Indian woman, or an East Asian woman.

At the same time, most White women I see seem to date other White women.

That made me wonder: why do Black, Indian, and East Asian women appear to be much less likely to date one another?

Even the The Guardian is (finally) covering this

Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are unlikely to simply collapse. These companies are highly diversified, have enormous financial resources, and can acquire or invest in emerging competitors before they become major threats.

People often point to examples like AOL, Blockbuster, Barings Bank, and Sears as evidence that dominant companies can disappear, but those businesses were far less diversified and operated in industries where technology was still relatively basic and less interconnected. They were often built around a single product, service, or business model, making them much more vulnerable to disruption. Today's leading technology companies operate on a completely different scale, with global platforms, ecosystems, infrastructure, and multiple revenue streams.

Google operates Search, YouTube, Android, Chrome, Google Cloud, Gmail, Maps, Workspace, and AI products like Gemini, with most of its revenue coming from advertising. Amazon runs Amazon .com, AWS, Prime, Prime Video, Twitch, Alexa, Kindle, a global logistics network, and a growing advertising business. Microsoft develops Windows, Microsoft 365, Azure, GitHub, LinkedIn, Xbox, Bing, and AI products like Copilot. Apple designs hardware including the iPhone, Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods, while also operating services such as the App Store, iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Pay, and Apple Intelligence. Meta operates Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads, while investing heavily in AI through Llama and Meta AI, as well as virtual and augmented reality through products like Quest and Ray Ban Meta smart glasses.

Their cloud computing businesses are effectively a long term oligopoly in an enormous and growing market. AWS and Microsoft Azure dominate the sector, while Google Cloud remains a distant third but continues investing because of the strategic importance and future potential of cloud infrastructure.

Once companies, governments, and developers build their infrastructure on these platforms, switching becomes extremely difficult and expensive. Even when customers leave, they are often just moving from one major provider to another rather than leaving the ecosystem entirely.

Because of their scale, ecosystems, financial strength, and ability to acquire promising companies, I find it unlikely that the Mag 7 of 2050 will consist entirely of companies founded in the 2030s that do not exist today. Many companies with the potential to become future leaders may already be acquired, integrated, or influenced by today's technology giants before they have the chance to become independent challengers.

Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta are unlikely to simply collapse. These companies are highly diversified, have enormous financial resources, and can acquire or invest in emerging competitors before they become major threats.

People often point to examples like AOL, Blockbuster, Barings Bank, and Sears as evidence that dominant companies can disappear, but those businesses were far less diversified and operated in industries where technology was still relatively basic and less interconnected. They were often built around a single product, service, or business model, making them much more vulnerable to disruption. Today's leading technology companies operate on a completely different scale, with global platforms, ecosystems, infrastructure, and multiple revenue streams.

Google operates Search, YouTube, Android, Chrome, Google Cloud, Gmail, Maps, Workspace, and AI products like Gemini, with most of its revenue coming from advertising. Amazon runs Amazon .com, AWS, Prime, Prime Video, Twitch, Alexa, Kindle, a global logistics network, and a growing advertising business. Microsoft develops Windows, Microsoft 365, Azure, GitHub, LinkedIn, Xbox, Bing, and AI products like Copilot. Apple designs hardware including the iPhone, Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, and AirPods, while also operating services such as the App Store, iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Pay, and Apple Intelligence. Meta operates Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads, while investing heavily in AI through Llama and Meta AI, as well as virtual and augmented reality through products like Quest and Ray Ban Meta smart glasses.

Their cloud computing businesses are effectively a long term oligopoly in an enormous and growing market. AWS and Microsoft Azure dominate the sector, while Google Cloud remains a distant third but continues investing because of the strategic importance and future potential of cloud infrastructure.

Once companies, governments, and developers build their infrastructure on these platforms, switching becomes extremely difficult and expensive. Even when customers leave, they are often just moving from one major provider to another rather than leaving the ecosystem entirely.

Because of their scale, ecosystems, financial strength, and ability to acquire promising companies, I find it unlikely that the Mag 7 of 2050 will consist entirely of companies founded in the 2030s that do not exist today. Many companies with the potential to become future leaders may already be acquired, integrated, or influenced by today's technology giants before they have the chance to become independent challengers.

Everyone has now seen the statistics that, by around 2030, just under 50% of women aged 24–44 are projected to be single and childless, with many more women likely to experience loneliness compared with women in previous generations.

Many people blame men, arguing that there is a shortage of eligible or high quality men available.

Ultimately, however, the dating market is what it is. Women who are unable to attract the men they desire for a long-term relationship or who can only attract those men for short-term casual dating are not "too good" for the single men they do not desire.

Failing to secure a long-term relationship with one's preferred partners does not, by itself, mean someone is above the alternatives they choose to reject.