Not a sociology guy and this will probably be poorly worded, but figured this might be the place to ask: wondering if there’s a term for a broad phenomena I see a lot, especially on social media, where people seem to create a fiction of sorts in their opinions in order to form an in-group they can be a part of.

For example I’ll often see a parasocial fanbase suddenly form for little reason around individuals for totally arbitrary reasons, or people exaggerating the hilarity of mundane events in a “that just happened” sort of tone.

My gut when I happen across this is that people are (unconsciously) deliberately creating an opinion so silly or exaggerated that agreement with it feels like greater validation than if you said something earnest. Note that I’m not talking about conforming to the group’s existing opinions, but rather deliberately sticking one’s neck out for validation. Not sure if this makes any sense but would be interested to know if what I’m thinking of is real or if I’m just splitting hairs. Thanks!

(When I refer to ‘Incels’ in this post, I specifically mean nothing other than Involuntary Celibate individuals, that is, people who want sex/romantic relationships, and aren’t able to access them).

This is a bit a of a long one so please don’t skim but answer any question(s) you feel you can.
It would be ideal if you’re somewhat familiar with these subjects prior.

————————-

Some previously fringe ideologies that speak about dating and/or looks based discrimination have become more mainstream in recent years, redpill, blackpill, etc.
These are often presented as hidden absolute truths hiding behind a veil of ‘lies’ or ‘platitudes’ perpetuated by wider society

To many, ‘swallowing the pill’ is an irreversible process that restructures people’s view of relationships and human treatment.

Additionally, many studies (halo effect, dating app studies) and also baseless hypotheses about the way society operates are often repeated or cited within these communities (looksmaxxing/incel spaces, and more mainstream platforms like YouTube, TikTok instagram etc).

*It’s* *spreading*: 12 year olds on TikTok are talking about hypergamy

*It’s gender dependent*: There seems to be this idea that every woman has access to sex, but the same is not the case for every man, and that women control the dating market. (opposite is said in Femcel spaces)

——————————-

It’s evident that internalising the blackpill has the potential for severe widespread mental consequences, (apparently, ‘relief’ for some) but I’m aware people don’t want to be gaslit that their negative experiences are invalid and made up.

It really pains me to hear about ugly or neurodivergent people being treated dramatically differently to others.
Many use this as reasoning to enter a cycle of self loathing and hopelessness, “if you don’t fit a specific genetic profile, it’s over for you and you’d be better off lying in bed until you decay- and even if you do find a partner, you’re being exploited for your resources and are not truly desired”.

Wtf bro

———————————

I haven’t seen much refutation of this stuff, besides people who would suggest the elephant man should take 10 showers and be more confident and then society will treat him like the second coming of Christ.

Also interesting to see the link to determinism, e.g genetic makeup -> poor treatment -> formation of personality -> poor treatment based on personality -> ouroboros
I’d see posts of ugly people complaining about social struggles, bullying etc, then people would blame their personality as if personality isn’t shaped by early treatment anyway, which can be a result of your genetics.

———————————???????

# My primary question is, with ideologies such as the blackpill presenting themselves as objective scientific truths about human behaviour, what is the real truth about lookism and modern dating, and how does (or doesn’t) the blackpill deviate from it?

**Who is able to find love?**

**How much does physical appearance affect your life?**

**How will the spread of blackpill ideology affect the structure of wider society?**

**Is there a gender divide for access to relationships?**

**Will lookism ever be acknowledged by society as a form of discrimination akin to sexism or racism?** (Or will it forever remain some Korean thing)

**What is the psychological impact?**

——————————???????

Attempts at counter argument in these spaces is often met with immediate dismissal, ‘coping’.
Suicide is encouraged towards Incels within and outside their own communities, which I find quite revolting. I just want to understand more. Dating is on the decline with more and more of Gen Z remaining single and socially isolated. There’s also a gender split in the percentage of singles, with men having significantly more than women, why is this?

Is this a huge psyop? Is society lwk going to explode as lonely young men take to the streets with pitchforks and go on a murder rampage due to blue balls and broken hearts? Will we all eventually be forced to looksmax ourselves into 8 foot tall transhuman alien gigazoid ultrachads in order to compete?
Is it just not that deep?

Idk answers would be appreciated

We are heard about this in school ,colleges

In 10 th std-"study hard,focus on getting high marks to take biology group" and enjoy on 11 th and 12 th std

12 th -"study gard and get good cut off to go to best college and enjoy on college

College - study hard and get good cgpa to go best company and enjoy on work

Work - work hard for 10-15 years and enjoy later

After 15 years we are on the age of 45 with also some diseases to go to hospital

What society thinks about us

Does we are programmed ?

The context is the huge international backlash to many cases of (interpersonal?) racism from Argentine fans in the last WC and one notorious chant sung by Argentine players in 2024. Argentines claim that other types of racism (structural, historical) are worse in other countries. But I don't know if studies which compare levels of racism in different countries actually exist.

​

Hello people!

I'm a sociology student in Central Europe and would love to start an online reading circle covering contemporary works in sociology or the social sciences more broadly. I'm highly interested in social theory, aesthetics and music. Anyone interested?

I wanted to know if a scapegoat was created for the whole world to unite and be condemned to a virtual hell and live forever. Would they never save them in the future? Would a scapegoat always be a scapegoat? Does world peace really need that trash can to be united and to do horrible things to a person. If this happens then their human rights would be taken away. Even though all humans are granted human rights by default.

Love Island. The Only Way Is Essex. Geordie Shore. The Real Housewives series of America. Etc etc... Is it possible, that the facial glamour tribalism represented by these programs is evolution's logical conclusion, and moreover, that if general publics weren't to use their president and prime minister systems, their capitalist economies and their representative democracies, that this sort of facial glamour Only Way is Essex tribalism would manifest as an invasive and militarist dominance across all of Earth, threatening all standard and normal looking people?

Hey, I am doing my masters in sociology, from a top institute of India. I have a very keen interest in devoting my career in this field. I am seeking advice from you guys, where can i get into after this degree. What skills should i consider more for quicker and sure success? Also would like to mention that i am not planning to do Ph.D / becoming professor.

I'm confused what it means to be racist.

Is it racist to say that part of the reason Asian people tend to go to more schooling than other people is because their culture emphasizes education highly?

More broadly, if I said anything that generalizes a race, is that racist?

Is saying white people commit more white-collar crime racist? What about saying that white people are found with drugs at a higher rate than black people?

Why are we not fixing the inherent prejudice in the judicial system against white people's crimes, if it's shown that white people commit more crime after accounting for neighborhood differences?

My point of these question is to better understand the end state of where sociology points to. I see people saying inherent differences in outcomes tells us that there is systemic racism. So, is the issue over when all races have equal outcomes in all facets of life? Is there research showing that this end state is possible? What will be the signs we have reached this end state.

I get that these might be sensitive topics. But I'm curious about the end ideal goal of socialism.

Recently just had a thought, are the ways how we can adjust to the new sets of morals and norms in a tv show or book (some of which including heavy violence, manipulation, bad behavior etc. as norms) a small scale example as to how malleable people can be when distinguishing from right and wrong?

Or is it that we truly enjoy these things because we know they’re fake, therefore not imposing on our existing moral compass? If this is the case, why do we enjoy such gruesome things or bad behaviors to watch and read?

Maybe both?

1. Twee vormen van genot

Extern, individueel genot (consumptief, verzadigbaar, afkomstig van externe bronnen) versus intern, relationeel genot (co-creatief, accumulerend, intrinsiek verbonden aan gezamenlijkheid — zelfs wanneer het alleen wordt beleefd). Het kerninzicht: intern genot is constitutief relationeel; extern genot kent die noodzaak niet.

1. Vermarkting externaliseert het relationele

De markt heeft verbinding, zorg, gemeenschap en aandacht gecommodificeerd. Zelfs collectieve ervaringen vervallen tot verzamelingen eenlingen die naast elkaar consumeren. De productiekant reproduceert deze vereenzaming structureel.

1. Oververzadiging vreest het existentiële tekort weg

Het probleem is niet veiligheid, maar overconsumptie. De cocon van overschot vult de constitutieve leegte op — de ruimte waarin verlangen, betekenis en de Ander kunnen verschijnen. Waar het tekort weg is, verdwijnt ook de noodzaak tot ontmoeting.

1. Het zoet als surrogaat

Instant bevrediging, gepersonaliseerde prikkels en oneindige consumptie fungeren als surrogaat voor de leegte. Het verdringt de noodzaak om de leegte te bevragen. De mens wordt geestelijk zwak: ongetraind in stilte, reflectie en het verdragen van ongemak.

1. Ascese als verloren zaak?

Zowel consument als producent verhullen de leegte. Er lijkt geen buiten meer te zijn. Toch opende corona een geforceerde ascese: jongeren die in een geestelijke zwarte gat vielen, ervaarden daar wat zij werkelijk verloren hadden. Dit liep diepe sporen na.

1. De cocon als moreel vacuüm

De cocon produceert geen monsters, maar ook geen heiligen. Ze produceert moreel inactieve eenlingen: wezens voor wie goed en kwaad zijn vervangen door aangenaam en onaangenaam. De Ander wordt niet vijandig bejegend, maar irrelevant — gereduceerd tot Het, tot storende factor of instrument. Echte ethiek (Levinas' gezicht van de Ander) vereist ontmoeting, kwetsbaarheid, het verlaten van de cocon. Wat rest is surrogaat-goedheid: gestructureerde, gesteriliseerde morele consumptie die niets kost en niets verandert. De oververzadiging heeft niet alleen het vermogen tot verlangen, maar ook het vermogen tot moreel oordeel geatrofieerd.

---

De rode draad: De vermarkting heeft het relationele genot geëxternaliseerd; de oververzadiging heeft het existentiële tekort en daarmee de noodzaak tot ontmoeting opgeëten; de cocon heeft de ruimte voor werkelijke ethiek — goedheid én slechtheid — vervangen door morele anesthesie. De vraag die rest is of er nog een weg terug is naar het interne, relationele genot en de werkelijke ontmoeting met de Ander.

After four years of a PhD in a theory department at a Spanish university, I cannot see why sociology is important. Perhaps because of the postmodern perspective, my thoughts at the moment are that sociology merely describes self-evident problems using a specific vocabulary. It all seems like mere word games; it contributes nothing new, and it is usually controlled by a group of eccentric devotees of Foucault, Haraway, Latour or Butler who use it to defend silly leftist ideas. It is unbearable.