Chads are less harmful to society than resentful nerd weaklings

File: shwj.jpg (21KB, 234x236px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 234x236px

Chads are less harmful to society than resentful nerd weaklings who read philosophy. Consider the following:

Having to yield to a brute seems natural, and the communication is clear: he is able to beat you up, and so you yield to him for your own self-interest. You yield to Chad in the same way you yield to drinking water when you're thirsty, or retracting your hand from a scaling surface, as there's a biological component being foisted upon you that's not far removed from your subjective experience.

Whereas if you're engaging a resentful nerd weakling who reads philosophy, oftentimes you're not even sure that you're being had due to the fact that it's magnitudes more difficult to make sense of the contest you're competing in. You're required to battle in the playing field of language, culture, references to abstract categorizations, etc. In practice both are violence insofar as you define violence as a force which one employs to reduce the status of someone else in order to gain social capital, but intellectual violence is obfuscated and defined in much less clear terms. In this way, resentful weaklings are capable of wrecking mass havoc by proxy through Chads power -- and the layman who, in his gut, knows the folly of the resentful weakling, but is unable to mount arguments against it -- is rendered powerless on both intellectual and physical dimensions.

Additionally, having to yield to a smarmy little nerd is inherently intolerable on an instinctual level. It evokes the same feelings as having to yield to a woman, doing so with the knowledge that you could just rape her. Though, the smarmy nerd is also competing with you for access to the woman as well as being weaker than you, so it's a profoundly jarring experience in the context of sexual selection.