site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1213 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for February 27, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

there was some initial level of spark or interest or “this guy is attractive/high status” even before the flirting started.

Yes!

In some cases they were initially ignored or rejected. Usually they were able to do something that marked them as highly skilled or high status within the social context they knew each other.

That's actually helpful. Rather than competing against every other theoretical male out there, you just have to be near the top of the local hierarchy in whichever subculture you identify with.

But what you definitely can’t do is be unimpressive, boring, standard, and ‘merely nice’, and expect any attraction to develop.

Unless you're so passively charismatic that people gravitate to you on personality alone.

I've known some guys who were simply 'unimpressive' on paper but have such good 'rizz' off the cuff that for anyone present in that room with them, they manage to read as high status and talented.

So with a few repeated exposures they can be successful with women. Saul Goodman uses this tactic in his spinoff series.

But I notice they also tend to maintain short, superficial relationships with others.

I dunno. You have to account for how certain types of dude (drug dealers, hippie spiritualists, amateur DJs) manage to snag decently attractive women despite overall being social outcasts.

Nevertheless some people find a great partner there, I just honestly never tried because I believed they were just hookup apps,

The problem is they try to be both. The people who are interested in hookups are mixed in with the ones who are more serious and there's some incentive to lie and obsfuscate.

Part of the issue is that the apps take no responsibility for (lack of) filtering your matches for people who are truly interested in relationship vs. those who are idly swiping or just want a hookup. They don't even try.

And they don't give YOU the tools to effectively filter. Its a laughable abdication of responsibility.

They want their algo to control who you meet/encounter but accept no blame if those choices are not actually good matches.

In some cases they were initially ignored or rejected. Usually they were able to do something that marked them as highly skilled or high status within the social context they knew each other.

That's actually helpful. Rather than competing against every other theoretical male out there, you just have to be near the top of the local hierarchy in whichever subculture you identify with.

Yeah! That's a big advantage. It's also, like you said, a better matching mechanism: if you're both in the same subculture, committed to the same thing, have shared interests/passions/ideals... well, it's likely that your personalities are going to be more similar and compatible than a random person you'd grab out of a bag.

When my girlfriend talks about meeting me, she says what impressed her wasn't just that I said something controversial, but that I thought independently, resisted going along to get along, and did things my own way even if people disagreed. Those are all personality traits that she admires and wants to live up to. We also both like historical debates. That's something different than intimidation or game, that's social alignment: being high-status in a particular way a particular woman wants to be like. The spark of love is that someone can look at you and say, "being close to this person will bring me toward something I want to move toward." That's fire.

I don't think spouses have to have all the same interests in common (though I don't think it's a bad thing), but you do have to have that certain je ne sais quoi that makes you personally compatible in values and orientation towards life. I think about the strongest relationships I've had, and in those we forged new interests that became "things we do together," and it meant that we enriched each others' lives with new things and grew together.

The problem is they try to be both. The people who are interested in hookups are mixed in with the ones who are more serious and there's some incentive to lie and obsfuscate.

Part of the issue is that the apps take no responsibility for (lack of) filtering your matches for people who are truly interested in relationship vs. those who are idly swiping or just want a hookup. They don't even try.

And they don't give YOU the tools to effectively filter. Its a laughable abdication of responsibility.

Yeah - both men and women hate this outcome. I believe the growth in places like Bumble and... wasn't there a new one? Hinge? was driven by the reputation of Tinder as "the hookup app," which it never really could shake, and now of course those apps will be busy building their own reputations for seediness.

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