site banner
PaperclipPerfector  15hr ago (text post)   527 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 6, 2025

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This tweet was popular on my feed, but frankly I can't distinguish between the physiognomy he's criticizing and how he himself looks. If I didn't know who Dave Greene was already, I might guess he was one of the internet atheists he's mocking. I'll grant that the Antifa people look very odd, but a lot of the terminally online right-wing personalities don't look very different that the terminally online left-wing to me.

Are there differences in physical appearance between the online left and online right?

Here's a normal X link for people who want one.

but a lot of the terminally online right-wing personalities don't look very different that the terminally online left-wing to me.

Like who? Lomez and Raw Egg Nationalist got doxxed and they look like normal dudes.

What, specifically, is wrong with these people? Is that really the best way to argue against them? Or is it just being kind of a dick when you make fun of people's appearances?

IMHO neither of people looks repulsive (taking into account that maximally uncharitable stills were taken)

I can assure you that less flattering Trump/Putin/Macron/erc images can be found it and it also proves nothing.

It’s not necessarily looking ugly or strange but the fact that someone can’t figure out that they look off-putting even though they could fix this with some work, is profoundly disturbing. It suggests something unhinged about you as you are the sort of person without anyone in your life to tell you such a thing. What did you do to drive everyone away? What other social norms are you oblivious about?

What's with beards these days? I feel like beards came back hard over the last 10-15 years.

Here’s my theory. Confluence of at least three things:

  • It seems to be the case (a few studies + anecdata) that women prefer if not a full beard than at least some stubble to being clean shaven. It helps that the new wave of beards are generally speaking a little more cared for than previously. So “looksmaxxing” does slightly trend this direction (the historical norm?) and I think some evolutionary people would say that’s because it’s a loose indication of maturity and high T (?)

  • It has lost its strongest political coded connotation. I don’t know if I’m actually capable of fully accounting for their trajectory, but you had liberals with their fancy oiled mustaches and beards at a similar time as the “manosphere” right wing comeback, at the same time as millennials started flexing their social media dominance (and millennials are older and at the age where beards are nice and full and age appropriate), plus some lower or working class people who never stopped wearing them so much, and so now you have a situation where a beard isn’t necessarily a strong signal in any direction. This helps mass adoption.

  • Most importantly, prominent people have done it. Beards are one of the few ways men have to significantly “rebrand” their looks. Hair can do a bit, but only so much. Dress can do a bit, but is a little more subtle. But no matter if you are a celebrity, Twitter famous, a politician, or a regular dude, growing a beard is a very obvious change that gives you a different “vibe”. It’s very handy for a politician to be able to do a rebrand, and many have jumped on it. But this trend started IMO with other generalized influential people outside the political area - how many traditionally cowardly politicians have done it is a sign the movement is coming to a head

It’s the new fedora.

They can't be the new Fedoras - some women actually like them

I don't know enough about what the names I see look like to tell in a general case. For the specific examples at play, my gut reaction is that the four example leftists all look less healthy and vigorous than my mental model of an average man, getting worse as you go left to right. Drug use, or malnourishment. Maybe a low-T correlation?

For comparison, I think "random Connecticut blue tribe middle class dad" looks healthier and more vigorous than any of them, so it's not just a politics thing.

The conservative examples look marginally better. I'd choose them as teammates in Survivor over the leftists, possible exempting Leftist 1, who looks like he might seriously outperform until the withdrawal kicks in. I'd probably pick a median dude in my community over any of them. Sort of relatedly, but I've heard women complain that dating in DC is a nightmare because so many of the men (all the Dems, but even most of the MAGA policy dorks) are so gay-coded.

But the online right also has it's bodybuilding contingent, and the online left has people like Hasan Piker, who whatever his other flaws, is in shape and good looking.

I do think there are certain types, especially among men, who heavily lean one way or another, and there's likely a biological basis for that, hormone loads affecting (dis)aggreability, independence, confidence, etc.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats