Do you agree with Iliza Schlesinger's take on hateful undesirable saying that it's "natural selection"?

Capital_Capsicum · 2025-09-04T02:34:22+00:00

She's not the first person who has advocated for Social Darwinism. Usually it's to justify one's own privileges, to justify not having empathy, and to justify not making sacrifices to help others.

Everyone who advocates for Social Darwinism does so in areas that they believe they are winning. But they always demand assistance and fairness when it comes to areas where they don't have an advantage.

Not to mention, if the tides were to turn, their beliefs would become a lot more egalitarian. I doubt any tyrant at the losing end of a revolution ever thought "Dang, I guess I'm being naturally selected against!"

Even in this thread there are so many examples of cases where hardships against women and others could be construed as natural selection. Yet, others are saying they don't count, for some reason.

ClevelandSpigot · 2025-09-03T21:00:46+00:00

And this is a comedy special?

CommissionAny5421 · 2025-09-03T21:15:22+00:00

Women not chosing to reproduce with someone, would probably fit the definition of natural selection in that he won't be able to pass on his genes.

Most darwinists do not agree with natural selection as a moral stand point, but they acknowledge its force and effects on humanity.

For example, if scientists and people who believed in darwinism thought it was moral, they would be against medical intervention.

DelDivision · 2025-09-03T22:17:27+00:00

I wish people would stop using natural selection for this cause they wont keep the same energy if it affects women. Cause nature doesnt care about consent at all(evidenced by other animals in the animal kingdom) nor does it care about the values that keeps a civilized society together.

Gravel_Roads · 2025-09-03T20:39:57+00:00

I guess technically, any traits that make you more likely to survive/pass on your genes are products of natural selection.

But in terms of actual biology, this is too small of a moment in history to suggest this is going to cause any sort of divergent physiology - hell, we're on computers and driving cars, but we're still mostly into the same shit we were into a hundred thousand years ago.

She also finished it by saying that other men shouldn't bother with helping them and they should leave them behind.

This is just an opinion. There is no way to debate it.

Muscletov · 2025-09-04T08:42:25+00:00

It's a load of horseshit. Tons of horrible men are reproducing while tons of decent guys aren't. It has nothing to do with "natural" selection. Morals actually have fuck all to do with natural selection.

This is just another vile attempt to vilify unattractive men and link male sexuality to their moral virtue. Basic ass blue pilled "women are wonderful" bullshit.

Clutterboxx · 2025-09-03T23:58:30+00:00

Random woman tells unfunny joke that basically amounts to a defense of hypergamy. Women do this thing where they moralise sex and someone's ability to reproduce as some divine justice rather than the result of a breakdown in human social interaction and economic policy.

I might as well say the drug dealing, alcoholic and violent men with multiple criminal records are actually great people because they had multiple kids with multiple women and don't complain about their situation online.

I'm sick of women's humour which basically amounts to calling men virgins over and over and over, it's the same fucking joke you've been telling for 14 years now and it was never funny.

KamuiObito · 2025-09-04T13:30:53+00:00

Women literally are getting beat up by their boyfriends rn 😂. I genuinely believe women are just dumb in this regard and behaviors just repeat. Mfs will date abusive assholes then consider other men abusive assholes because picking a decent partner is muu harder for women than men. Really WOMWN have no excuses to have over 5 relationships. This shit isnt hard they just don’t care until they are forced to like any privileged person. Dont have to actively worry about your next meal when you have abundance. Theyll just do shit until it works amd blame men when it doesnt because only they can afford to do that.

Alone_Ambition_3729 · 2025-09-03T23:45:56+00:00

~~Natural~~ Selection is always going on, but human selection isnt all natural anymore. Also even natural selection can be wrong; every species that went extinct selected for the wrong things.

Groups of people can collectively evangelize mate selection for certain traits, and other people can caution against it or promote their own list of traits worth selecting for.

The reality right now is that the way some women are choosing to do mate selection is going lead to fewer kids and fewer still who have dads. It's also going to lead to a more dangerous more expensive society because a portion of men will be "discarded" and instead of contributing to society they will be undermining it. I feel like thats not a good way to select if the goal is evolving in a way that has humans thriving far into the future.

Spicycloth · 2025-09-03T22:42:21+00:00

What we are observing is not natural selection, its an aggressive form of onset sexual selection. Which sounds similar but is actually pretty different from natural selection.

To preface before i get into the main point: Almost everything we see, observe and do today in this current day and age is unnatural. Air conditioning is unnatural, electronics are unnatural, stationary work is unnatural, the C-section is unnatural (most modern medicine in general), urban sprawl is unnatural, etc ,etc. Natural selection would imply that women are purposefully choosing for the best genes that would propel human society forward, but that's not what's happening, women are simply choosing traits that turn them on, aka sexual selection.

What we are seeing most likely is Ronald Fisher's "runaway selection" which is were male ornamentation and traits are chosen by persistent female choice. The best example of this would be colorful birds like peacocks. While this type of sexual selection can cause neutral-positive benefits for species, like various species of bird, it can also drive species to extinction as well. The best example of a neutral-negative affect of sexual selection would be the Irish Elk, which went extinct because female elk's kept preferring bigger and bigger antlers, despite being evolutionarily disadvantageous. Eventually the antlers were so big, the Elk had trouble even standing and balancing, causing them to all die out.

So if its sexual selection, what traits do women (in general trends) choose for? Well its certainly not the saint over the archfiend. * Female fertility does not influence the attraction to financial success, intelligence, and kindness. Gangestad, 2008. {FITTEST < PRETTIEST ✅} * Young women were found to be attracted heavily to Dark Triad traits (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism). Various, mostly Qureshi., 2016 and Carter et al., 2014 {FITTEST < PRETTIEST ✅} * Women prefer larger sexually dimorphic features compared to men. Gert Stulp , Abraham P. Buunk, Thomas V. Pollet, 2013. {FITTEST < PRETTIEST ✅} * Psychopathic men were preferred over kind men. Kristopher J. Brazil & Adelle E. Forth, 2019. {FITTEST < PRETTIEST ✅} * female hypergamy, Hybristophilia, 80/20, etc, etc, blah blah. Its obvious its never the fittest but rather the prettiest. I cant imagine all of this would lead to a better future for humans if it was dialed into overdrive + 200 years later.

Wide-Illustrator2906 · 2025-09-03T22:41:50+00:00

It is natural selection for some men to not be romantically selected but it has nothing to do with them being hateful. There hateful men that are adored by women because they are attractive. The men who are unattractive become hateful mostly due to being passed over because they are unattractive. It's really a which can first, the chicken or the egg kind of scenario

DumbWordsmith · 2025-09-03T22:42:24+00:00

Kinda. But so what?

The most manipulative and least responsible hot men are the most sexually successful, as they spread their seed with the most women. And there's nothing natural about it either, as we're all forced to pay for their irresponsible behavior.

If you shack up with some woman and pop out 1-2 kids, you're not even close to being as sexually successful as that type of dude. So why worry about "natural selection"? Humans won't be around forever anyway.

N_Count_Council · 2025-09-03T22:50:57+00:00

It's textbook clapter. I watched the clip, there were no jokes, just preaching to gain femcel approval.

I think she intended to mean like "men who are toxic" but how it comes off is as she says "undesireables" it just means ugly men, because toxic good looking men never have any issues. All of it feels very eugenics and icky.

StopTheIncels · 2025-09-03T22:25:33+00:00

No.

I will concede that "it's kinda of a selection" but it's not 'natural selection'. Healthy Gamer did review on her general sentiment, and I agree with him.

It's fine to leave behind and hate on suffering sexless man en masse. But who holds a monopoly on physical violence? What happens when this male suffering zeitgeist reaches a breaking point? Don't be surprised when young men are dropping out of society because society says go fuck yourself to young men.

I've said this before, young men are voting/moving more and more far right-auth, and women will ultimately pay the harshest costs regardless of the collateral it does. Remember, most mammals in the actual animal kingdom have a winner-take-all where males kill each other for females (and the females don't have a say regardless of the victor).

SexCrispies · 2025-09-04T00:07:10+00:00

Natural selection is when people do not procreate because they are not adapted to the environment. What you talk about is sexual selection.

Independent-Mail-227 · 2025-09-04T01:53:31+00:00

There's nothing natural about modern society, it's literally a human zoo in every single shape and form.

WebNew9978 · 2025-09-04T02:57:56+00:00

I’ve seen the video. I don’t know why she would mention those things in her comedy act but regardless she did. I forget, did her words get met with thunderous applause? What city was she in when she said those things?

There’s some truth to the idea that not every man will have a romantic life with a woman. Not every man will have their genes passed on to the next generation. But I will say, the reason for the creation of the pills regardless of color were mostly found on people who were outcasted from society. Women hate the pill I’m associated with and aren’t really big fans of the red pill either. Her saying that everybody needs to get outcast these guys will only add fuel to what is already large fires of the red pill and the pill I associate with.

AggressiveRabbit1530 · 2025-09-03T20:39:31+00:00

I'm kinda interested if she would say the same to women being murdered by their own partner ''you failed to adapt. you choose a violent and aggressive man. you deserve it. you failed to adapt to modern society and learn how to choose a partner, you deserve to die''? would this be considered natural selection too? What about women who choose to be childless ? Are their genes ending because of natural selection ?

Superannuated_punk · 2025-09-03T20:43:54+00:00

The first part yes.

The second part no.

We men should lift each other up. We are the agents of our liberation. It’s not up to the girls to mom us out of our ennui.

Kreeps_United · 2025-09-03T22:54:59+00:00

She is basically calling out men who blame their lack of dating lives on woman and saying that them not getting laid is actually natural selection and not evolving to their environment.

That's asinine. Those men are bitter after being rejects and I agree that letting rejection get to you is wrong. Meanwhile, misogynists get laid or even married all the time. So is the problem with incels being less sneaky, less manipulative?

She also finished it by saying that other men shouldn't bother with helping them and they should leave them behind.

Again, asinine. Leaving them behind just means leaving them to their bitterness and misogyny. Isn't that what women keep saying makes them dangerous.

I think some people like the sickness so they block any cure.

caption291 · 2025-09-03T22:16:37+00:00

If she understood the implications of her own words she would have kept this tantrum to herself.

It is natural selection. The problem is that so is a LOT of bad things that would be to her detriment.

Humanity decided that her perspective was wrong and natural selection wasn't inherently a good thing and because of that we have things like morality and laws that aim to prevent natural selection from taking place.(at least in the way she means it) If we throw those things out the window...then according to natural selection she would be just as much of a loser as the incels she's throwing a tantrum about.

Logos1789 · 2025-09-04T01:32:09+00:00

I think her take is going to result in tons of harm to women.

Plenty of other things are natural…

Natural isn’t telling jokes for a living because you’re a useless person, either.

She gets so much sex because she was born hot. I can’t imagine how hard her ego would crumble if she were no longer hot.

closedshop · 2025-09-04T02:07:34+00:00

What is "natural" about anything that's happening in the dating market? Dating apps are not "natural." The collapse of men is not "natural."

ClevelandSpigot · 2025-09-04T12:40:00+00:00

Naw. I don't agree at all. I think it's the other way around. These men who aren't getting laid are part of the bottom 80 percent. So, with that majority, it shows that the men are right, and women are wrong. As far as the evolution part, no, it is not evolutionarily beneficial for a woman to procreate with a toxic, dangerous, self-centered man who uses people.

Iron-DBZ · 2025-09-03T20:49:08+00:00

"hating women is evergreen".

This is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy than many women are ever going to know.

Do you agree with Iliza Schlesinger's take on hateful undesirable saying that it's "natural selection"?

No.

There is nothing natural about anything that is happening now. And the vulgar social darwinism that's so attractive nowadays is itself a symptom of the unnatural nature of what has become of us.

It's not fucking normal or natural for us to be calling for the culling of undesirables.

It's one thing to say that murderers or rapists should be punished, it's another thing to call for the mass shunning of men whose worst crime is having a bad attitude.

---

I'm not trying to sound fake deep, but Gramsci's quote about the time of monsters is very relevant to all the messy ways that modern life pushes people to figuratively eat each other. That includes all the "dating" problems.

But more generally, the constant tallying and dismissing of each other's worth, exacerbating all the problems that we collectively face, turning our neighbors and peers into enemies. It's all morbid symptoms.

That's all the Gender War discourse is. It's a moral panic that's born out of all-the-acceptable-prejudices-toward-men meeting a social context in which vast numbers of young men are now on some level "failures" with no practical solution for them as a category of people.

Modern capitalism produces NEETS, sexually unattractive, socially alienated, NEETs. It is a fact of the system. You see it in Japan, you see it in China, you see it here. And those are people that are not treated well.

The only thing natural happening is that beat dogs will growl. Some of them might bite.

And while in the comedy bit, she does make an exception for all the men who are just having romantic issues. It's not like anyone actually gives a damn to make the distinction in real life. If you look like the kind of person she's talking about, you may as well be.

And that's a majority of young men, at one point or another.

Her appeal hinges on an idea of normalcy that no longer exists. What's normal now is for young men to meet obstacles in their lives.

They're going to have an issue with that and sometimes women are part of those obstacles. That's life.

Put two and two together, you're going to get some testy dudes. The answer to that isn't to exile them from society.

What she's saying is that the "failures" should be abandoned and cast out.

It's a very fascistic idea of how to address a social problem.

Edit: Some nutcase replied to me saying that they should be driven to suicide. So, that's where some people are at.

Icyfemboy · 2025-09-03T21:31:52+00:00

Natural selection = Survival

Sexual selection = Having the privilege of being able to pass on your genes

The first one has to do with how well your body and mind has adapted to the environment you’re in and how productive it is in making you survive and thrive so it has to do with practicality and not much to do with looks so no it’s not natural selection it’s rather sexual selection which is way more arbitrary and follows societal influenced preferences in that you could have completely normal good traits and still be at a huge disadvantage in the dating market because of how arbitrary people’s demands are. On some vague level she’s right but also she doesn’t know what the fuck she’s talking about and she sounds like a privileged brat.

OMWSpuds · 2025-09-03T22:00:20+00:00

Natural selection in its purest form as is the daily norm in the animal kingdom means bigger stronger organisms brutally murdering, maiming and r@ping whomever to achieve their wants and ends, but aint nobody advocating for that. You can't separate the mating game from the survival game if you're going to use the "but muh natural selection" argument.

MysterySolverDog · 2025-09-03T22:42:54+00:00

Put bluntly we're in a post natural selection world. Natural selection tests for survival skills and genetic fitness, to be talking about this in an air conditioned theatre on a netflix special where you're aiming for claps rather than laughs is out of touch to say the least. Should we leave behind comedians who don't get enough laughs out of their audience too? I wonder.

champion_azure · 2025-09-03T22:11:57+00:00

Schlesinger’s routine falls short of what I’d call good comedy. Without men and sex as targets, she’d be short on material.

More importantly, she’s not correct. It isn’t natural selection — it’s sexual selection. The traits passed on are tied to reproduction, not necessarily to survival.

If she dug deeper, she might notice who’s really reproducing the most. It’s not the middle-class parents with two carefully protected kids in SUVs, but those having multiple kids with multiple partners.

DGenerationMC · 2025-09-03T20:50:15+00:00

I understand why I would take what a comedian says (especially during a routine) seriously but why should I?

Even if it's a comedian that I am a fan of, just why?

Solondthewookiee · 2025-09-03T21:15:13+00:00

I mean, I get it. I originally started out on dating advice subs because I had struggled with dating for a long time until I got the hang of it and had success, and I thought it would be good to give encouragement and advice (where possible) to men. Instead, I found endless streams of abuse, defeatism, and bizarre conspiracy theories and bad faith arguments about how women are conspiring to keep average men single. You can see it all over this sub, every single day, and all over many subs where men tend to congregate. You can only take so much of that before you say, "fuck it, be alone then."

While I don't necessarily agree that leaving men behind is the best move, I absolutely believe that the onus is on those men to make a change. This idea that "well, if women were just nicer and sympathetic to these men" is absurd. Women didn't do anything wrong by not dating these men, and for doing literally nothing, they've been subject to torrents of abuse, misogynistic rhetoric, and batshit accusations about how they're all trying to paternity fraud average men with Chad's babies, etc. Turning around telling these women, "well you need to be the one to be nice" is absolutely ridiculous.

wtknight · 2025-09-03T20:49:02+00:00

I think that it’s pretty sound. I say the same thing about misandrists who disassociate themselves from men because of bad relationships.

Popeoath · 2025-09-03T21:10:40+00:00

There is no natural selection in an environment coddled by law and financial assistance. The whole environment is artificial. Natural selection occurs in the jungle, not civil society.

TotalTravesty · 2025-09-03T22:35:03+00:00

I don’t agree with most pop culture interpretations of “natural selection.” Evopsych is one of the worst examples of an otherwise useful concept that the internet has perverted all meaning out of.

That being said, and considering the broader context of the bit, she ain’t wrong. Not that evolution gives a damn whether a girl dates you or not, but that if you are chronically unable to get a date and are maladaptive about it (instead of focusing on self improvement, stewing in deeper resentment) then the public is making the right decision in keeping you dateless. Who wants to reward incel behavior? The more that type of mentality ends with the original host, the better for everyone.

weenieandthebutt · 2025-09-03T23:22:21+00:00

My main issue isn't that I expect her to give a shit and have sympathy, it's that she attributes a man's lack of success to his own supposed moral failing.

Men don't blame women per se, they just state that it's down to looks and genetic determinism. Whenever topic around beauty standards come up, feminists have vehemently blamed and demonised men for decades for their own shortcomings or insecurities. Only in recent times that conventional beauty standards are bought up amongst men, they just frame it as human nature and promote looksmaxxing/grind culture instead of demanding females to accept their flaws.

For whatever fucked up reason, one is framed as a proponent to positive change, the other is framed as hate speech and radicalisation.

PrecisionHat · 2025-09-03T23:29:12+00:00

Second rate comic whose niche is jokes only women appreciate because that's the gimmick that works for her. I honestly wouldn't put her down if she didn't lean so hard on misandrist comedy. Like, when she said what you are talking about in her special, did people laugh at that part or did they clap at it? That's telling, when a comedian gets claps instead of laughs. Hannah Gatsby isn't even really funny; it's like listening to a visiting motivational speaker at a highschool. I think Iliza is more funny than Gatsby, but they're similar in that they sometimes preach more than joke.

NockerJoe · 2025-09-04T02:44:22+00:00

I mean, natural selection only covers what itt takes to reproduce, regardless of circumstance or opinion or consent. I would very much prefer we not open that can of worms because I guarantee that a lot of these people will escalate it a lot further than any of us want.

IgorXY · 2025-09-03T21:20:52+00:00

Again, people who use natural selection as excuse for something would not enjoy living by the nature's laws.

AlmostKindaGreat · 2025-09-03T21:16:36+00:00

I don't agree that it's natural selection because I think very, very few men have literally zero chance of reproducing based on genetic factors alone.

I believe that many men are not optimizing their attractiveness and are just jumping to blaming women for everything. If she's saying that then I agree.

But she says other men should leave unattractive men behind. This sounds like she truly thinks unattractive men are hopeless due to genetics. I don't like this Black Pill fatalism no matter who it comes from. If she's saying this she's just fighting hate for women with hate for men. How stupid.

I'd have to hear more quotes to really make up my mind on this because I'm not sure exactly what she's saying.

growframe · 2025-09-03T20:54:10+00:00

Adding the hateful modifier is an unnecessary way to virtue signal.

Yeah, natural selection is occuring through undesirables being bred out. Some guy called Charlie wrote a book about it way before this lady was even born, so she's not really breaking any new ground.

flexible-photon · 2025-09-03T22:19:21+00:00

I wonder if she will view rape and forced carrying of unwanted babies as natural selection? Men collectively can also affect natural selection in ways that I imagine most women would find repugnant. Let's not forget that conservative religious people tend to procreate at a much faster rate than your standard modern woman. Think about how that can affect laws and social norms.

Lift_and_Lurk · 2025-09-03T20:42:24+00:00

I think while exaggerated for humor she is giving the same “no punches pulled” take that I give which is “either get better or get out of the way. Stop complaining”

Virtual-Pilot3736 · 2025-09-03T22:36:08+00:00

If we're going to go natural selection, let's go all the way. No welfare and so on. Cherrypicking science is what women accuse men of doing lmao

RelevantEscape4535 · 2025-09-03T21:30:02+00:00

Schlesinger is an emotional moron with a big platform. To her, ‘incel’ means a terrorist group of Elliot Rodgers or Andrew Tate types that are looking to rape and kill. She’s not even aware there’s another side; guys who are just down on their luck, dealing with social barriers, or struggling with life in general, and a modern/social system that shapes them a certain way. She tosses in a token mention to mask her vitriol towards men, but it’s obvious she never gave the discourse more than five seconds of real introspection. She doesn't have enough wit or talent to actually try to make it funny, which would have been more effective in the long run.

Her whole shtick on this boils down to: ‘AHHH, men want to kill me because I’m hot!’ If you go back and watch her interviews, there’s no real substance just emotional noise with zero depth on the actual topic.

After the whole Elliot Rodgers thing, you can almost watch her brain deteriorate and her mindset unravel in real time

having said that; I'm glad she did that. Someone had to do it, and it's good opens up mainstream discourse that piques my interest.

Ego73 · 2025-09-03T21:50:48+00:00

Based. I don't believe in rewarding subpar people. In fact, my main gripe with how dating works is women not being subject to the same standards. The existance of simps is the main obstacle for the establishment of patriarchy, which is the lesson of the Barbie movie.

AutoModerator · 2025-09-03T20:32:02+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "Debate" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

abaxeron · 2025-09-03T21:37:40+00:00

Iliza Schlesinger

Judging by the name and the topic, I expected to see a professor in Google results. I think I remember watching clips of her on Youtube, and I had a brief moment of joy that it's not a painfully mid chubby neurotic talking and laughing hysterically about her endometriosis or whatever.

To the point, wether or not sexual selection is part/type of natural selection is the problem of classification, and classification is not science. She is free to see women as part of natural environment, I am free to see them as (somewhat) rational agents.

Artistic_Speech_1965 · 2025-09-03T22:16:47+00:00

A bit brutal but I think anyone has the right to seek help

Logical_Breadfruit49 · 2025-09-04T02:01:55+00:00

The thing is that this pressure actually affects men and women mostly equally. For each man not having children, there is either a woman out there also not having children, or she is a baby mama raising children as a single mom. (the argument is based on 1:1 gender ratios, i.e. Fisher's principle)

If she is not having children, then her bloodline shares the exact same fate as the men not having children. But if she is a baby mama, then even though she has managed to spread her genes, her children are at a huge disadvantage due to not having a father figure, and thus her children may not be able to spread their genes as effectively, which is an effective reduction in her own biological fitness.

Narrow-Ad-7856 · 2025-09-04T12:12:08+00:00

I think it's accurate and I think we should also apply the same critical lens to the so-called 4b movement.

Substantial_Video560 · 2025-09-04T17:10:03+00:00

More like sexual selection. Saying that how much importance you place on these issues is up to the individual. On a wider prospective none of it really matters.

MistaCreepz · 2025-09-04T20:20:05+00:00

Woman "comedian"

I'd rather watch a tape of my cat being put to sleep on repeat

Sqweed69 · 2025-09-06T12:23:19+00:00

No. Incels are a group that needs help, compassion and people to listen to them. They are not demons.

Social darwinism is extremely dangerous and has historically been used by nazis. This hatred and neglect is exactly what creates incels.

These are men who have not been loved as boys and have been neglected and socially isolated since childhood. They are then told that their anger is morally wrong and that they have to man up and repress it.

If there is a large group of people with the same problem, it usually means it's a systemic problem that requires systemic solutions.

We need to offer these men free healthcare and therapy. We need to provide them with fulfilling and emotionally open male friendships. We need to teach boys how to accept their emotional side. We need to ask men about their emotions and accept and validate their emotions, while also questioning their sexist assumptions. We need to teach these men how to be confident from a young age, boys get bullied and don't talk about it, because they're shamed for it. And parents especially need to stop thinking boys are easier to raise. Boys need just as much if not more emotional support than girls, because they don't get it out there.

It is correct that incels failed to adapt. But it is not their fault. It is everyone's responsibity to help men adapt to a society where equality is the ideal.

And we need to provide men with new alternatives to traditional masculinity. There has been lots of discussion online about healthy masculinity and I think these discussion need to be brought into the spotlight more often.

Incels aren't evil. They're just traumatized.

They should be helped like any other traumatized person.

Background-Pain-7159 · 2025-09-03T21:30:45+00:00

You know comedy is supposed to be funny. I get her take that the incel misogyny should be challenged, but wheres the joke here?

All I hear is fake white women feminist pseudo science masquerading as some sort of benevolent fight against misogyny.

The reality is that most people don't struggle getting relationships. The problem is incels want the most attractive girls and are entitled

happyfunball5 · 2025-09-03T21:55:24+00:00

I think it's understandable in a comedy context. Virulent incels don't deserve much sympathy directed at their feelings, so I guess they're fair game in that sense.

I don't think it's a matter of sexual selection, which I think is what she meant. Being an incel isn't a single genetic trait that can be selected against, so it's not good science, but that wasn't her point.

I think her point was to get a reaction from the audience, and just maybe to point out to incels that they may be unselecting themselves individually from the gene pool. It seems to be central to their identity to believe that fate has forced this on them so they won't likely see that possible point, but it's there.

Odd_Quit_8905 · 2025-09-04T04:13:59+00:00

If someone is a)on Netflix, b) talking about natural selection and c) preaching blackpill adjacent shite I tend to discount their idiocracy out of hand.

Dudes who blame women and not themselves are framing their problems wrong, they can be helped, they need to find their purpose/passion/bag. Frankly, until you’ve built a respectable base, forget all the hoes

Big-Sir7034 · 2025-09-04T07:52:58+00:00

It is an example of natural selection. Descriptively that’s correct. But it doesn’t follow that this should be encouraged.

Should men only choose those women who will be able to pump out as many kids as possible? Should men be hyper selective about the weight of women? Not necessarily. It depends on dating goals.

What about people who don’t want kids? Why should it matter to them what traits are genetically selected?

Should disabled people be left behind despite having traits that would make their children less suited for survival or independence?

torytho · 2025-09-05T09:26:19+00:00

Sounds funny. Obviously that’s not how natural selection works. It’s more like, cultural. I wasn’t interested in helping them bc they aren’t good people, but now they’re actively ruining the world, so I’m on here trying to offer life advice just so they stop ruining mine.

FrulioBandaris · 2025-09-04T12:12:15+00:00

She's probably correct but that leaves us with the distinctly human problem of awareness of that reality. There isn't anything other men can do to help. The traditional paths for a man in this situation are artist, soldier, or criminal. The first is the hardest but probably the healthiest option.

Title	Do you agree with Iliza Schlesinger's take on hateful undesirable saying that it's "natural selection"?
Author	That-Nerve8213
Upvotes	16
Comments	303
Date	September 3, 2025 8:32 PM UTC (10 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1n7q3ij/do_you_agree_with_iliza_schlesingers_take_on/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/do-you-agree-with-iliza-schlesingers-take-on.1561217 https://theredarchive.com/post/1561217

Comments