site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2962 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 21, 2026

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.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is a dumb "question" I'm just flabbergasted in a low key situation. Going to Mexico for my wife's friend's wedding. Taking my small kids, gonna be something...

Happens to be down in Mexico for Mexico's first World Cup knock out match. I don't like soccer it's for the poor's but this is falls under "few in a life time opportunities" in my mind. The one guy I kind of know on the trip turned me down going out to watch the game (at a bar, or sport garden) because he hates crowds and sports. I've always struggled not to judge this guy as a loser (sulks around and whines a lot), this really doesn't help. Literally I don't think any other person I know would turn down an invite like this. Am I being too harsh?

he hates crowds and sports

sulks around and whines a lot

Are you sure he isn't dealing with subclinical depression? It's a bit of a bad look when your reaction is to go on an internet forum to call him a loser and a weirdo and talk about how you earned your coolness. I would say just use it as an opportunity to be grateful for your own blessings instead of knocking down on someone else.

To be clear this is "going to a sports bar or whatever" not "dropping $$$ on tickets" correct?

I'd agree with you broadly and I think the guy hating sports ball or crowd anxiety is a weirdo showing his ass here. High stakes soccer is maybe the easiest sport to watch and enjoy.

That said, the one thing I'd point out is Pence Rule related stuff around foreign travel and going out to bars could come into play.

Yeah, sports bar or one of the bars on the beach. This specific beach town is known for being safe. We will be visiting bars outside of this frequently.

Then I agree with you completely. It is 100% normal and social for a couple guys to say "Hey let's get away from our families and watch the game and grab a beer." I frequently do that with brother in law at holidays at my in laws, hey let's go to a bar and hang out and watch the finals. With the subtext being, let's get away from the family for a bit and be guys. A guy who doesn't want to do that is kinda subnormal in masculinity in my mind.

Though I offer the Pence Rule exception because I can think of a couple of guys off the top of my head who are on the kind of marital probation where they would say no to going to a bar without their wife.

And Lord, I hope the people in this thread saying "you have kids why are you watching a soccer game in your free time" don't come for me next year.

A few years ago my Swiftie cousin's boyfriend sent out a group text asking if anyone wanted to go to Taylor Swift trivia at a local brewery. I was the only guy who showed up and when he asked me why I said"you had me at brewery". I could understand not wanting to go out to watch a game you had no interest in under normal circumstances, but I can't see doing that if I'm out of town for a wedding, especially if the alternative is hanging out in the hotel or worse, going shopping with the ladies.

Got all kinds of thoughts around that stuff, if wife is breastfeeding a new born, and the kid's being a hard ass, it may be constant grind to keep everyone's head above water. I'm blessed and my kids are great sleepers and usually chill. My wife admits I do more than my fair share of work around the house so I've got no qualms taking a few hours for myself every now and then. Most of the time I take the toddler with me because he's a cool guy. When he's old enough to comprehend making sure he fully understands the trade-offs concerning the choices he makes is a reason I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff.

Is there a cost factor to it?

I'm near one of the stadium locations. I'm not really that into soccer, but I might be inclined to check out a game just for the novelty factor of it. But then, the cheapest tickets are currently ~$1400, plus probably a few hundred more in incidentals, like transportation, food, drinks, etc. That's a bit above what I'm willing to spend to check out something I'm not super into. Maybe like $50-100ish for that.

If you're not all pretty wealthy, that could generate some conflict over who's paying for who, who can really afford that, does anybody owe anyone else anything, etc.

Were talking about going to a bar. I was in Vegas for one of the Stanley Cup matches and I'm thankful the event I was there for overlapped the game because would have been a debate whether or not to drop the money.

I mean, how close-knit a group is it? If I were going with my SO, who I know is significantly more into spectator sports than I am, and she pushed me to, I would grit my teeth and go. If it were a big group of people who vaguely know each other, and some guy in the group who I "kind of know" asked me, even if he had nobody else to go with - yeah, I would wiggle out with an excuse. It's not like he can't go to the game by himself! Maybe he will even make some like-minded friends there.

To pass something like normative judgement, you really have to disentangle the question:

  • How unreasonable do you think is it to generally dislike spectator sports (at least in person)?

  • If you dislike them as above, how unreasonable do you think is it to not go to one anyway when such a "few in a life time opportunity" presents itself?

  • If you are unswayed by the opportunity as above, how unreasonable is it to refuse to "take one for the team" and go to make it easier for another person who really wants to go to do so? How does this depend on the degree of familiarity with the other person, and how much worse off they would be if you refuse?

  • How unreasonable do the three things above have to get before it becomes reasonable for you (the other person) to exercise some form of social pressure to punish them for defecting?

He’s the husband of my wife’s best friend. I went to his wedding, helped his soon-to-be sister-in-law move with him, and I’m obviously going to his sister-in-law’s wedding. My own wedding was held at his in-laws’ house. His father-in-law just texted me late last night inviting me to a mezcal tasting tonight in preparation for the trip. There's a social question, do I stand up my trivia team tonight to grab drinks with the very wealthy guy and partake of his crazy expensive alcohol collection?

I’d be completely fine going solo, but I doubt he knows that. If the roles were reversed, I would consider it an obligation to at least make an appearance under similar circumstances.

The actual event itself is a fairly minor thing in my mind. Like being close to totality for an eclipse and not making a relatively low effort to go watch it. Being in Wisconsin and not having a cheese curd. Being in Hawaii and not going to a beach. These aren't moral failing but I'm going to squint at you.

As chance would have it, I find myself in Southern California this week (considering writing some reflections on the trip as a flyover peasant), and happened to stop by a sports bar for dinner without realizing Mexico was playing. The Mexicanity is immense. Sounded like a bomb went off when Mexico scored. Pretty fun, honestly, even if I had no idea what’s going on.

Maybe it's what primed me for thinking it's obvious to go out, I was in Rio when they won gold and even though I was in my room (probably still should have found a way but Barra was locked down and it was a massive pain in the ass to get in and out) that was still pretty nutty.

I'd go and I feel like it's weird not to go. Clearly I'm in the minority here.

Same for me. I wouldn't mind if someone doesn't want to go (it's his loss), but if I was going to be in town during a world cup game I would absolutely go.

Seconded.

You are not in the minority of people I know in real life. As I asked here, I asked many people in real life and it was unanimous that it's - at best - odd not to go. Something to keep in mind with certain takes on this board.

Are any of your friends named Barney Stinson, by any chance?

(I kid, of course.)

I literally was thinking about the hot crazy scale and thinking about some kind of skill coolness factor. Like if you're really high skill in specific areas you're still cool even if you're lame in a bunch of others. Doesn't quite fit.

Just a question:

Why?

For me not getting into it is a little like this meme: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-wish-i-was-at-home-they-dont-know

You're in the party even if you stay in your room. Every goal, every attempt, every penalty or lack their of you're going to hear. Don't just stand in the corner.

Because to me it's a festive, rare event, important enough that it's televised worldwide. Plus it sounds fun, and even if the time is shitty it will be a memory to share, or recount, years from now.

A moment of social weirdness pales in comparison to literal hours of figurative torture.

There's nothing torturous about going to a sports event, even if you don't enjoy the sport. I've been to games which I couldn't care less about; still had an enjoyable time.

I'd consider a World Cup game easily worth it to go if I had the opportunity to do so without paying, but I'd say that basically any public entertainment event as intrinsically torturous, due to proximity to crowds. Doesn't mean it's never worth it, but the positives better be high enough to outweigh the significant figurative torture.

I like soccer as far as it goes and I like seeing people enjoy sports. Plus I bet there will be beer.

Under the circumstances you describe, no chance I'm going. Soccer sucks and going with a mild acquaintance isn't going to make it better. I will have plenty more opportunities in my lifetime to attend events I don't care about, so this one being "a few in a lifetime" one carries zero weight.

Why should he go? Sounds like negative utility to me. Straits-dwellers have a pejorative word for this behaviour: kiasu, which roughly translates to FOMO on steroids.

Seriously who cares if you’re cool or not only losers care about that.

A big part of why I'm taken aback is that, for me, it doesn’t take any thought. It’s a given: if you don’t have some other obligation, it’s what pretty much every other person I know in real life would do.

Yes, many truly cool people don’t put much thought into it. Though I have a strong suspicion that even at the highest levels - naturals like elite athletes included - they’re putting more thought into it than people realize.

But alas, I am not effortlessly cool, I'm a naturally a loser. How does one go form loser to not loser. I don’t see a clear path from loser to not-loser without thinking through some of these things, even if truly “cool” remains out of reach. Maintaining social circles takes effort if you’re not naturally cool - and even for most people who are. Cool extroverts may enjoy the effort, which makes it easier, but it’s still effort. I believe this is even more important in the face of modernity and with younger generations.

Of course, being a try-hard is the death of cool. I won’t list my escapades (that would be try-hard), but I rarely seek them out purely for their own sake. I’m already doing something and being somewhere, so I’ll put in the effort to seek out something “cool” to do. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t put thought and make deliberate choices in those circumstances.

So if I’m in Mexico, what’s the “coolest” experience I can have on a given day with very little extra effort? It’s giving myself the opportunity to be jumping up and down with a bunch of beautiful people, beer held high, chanting “Olé, Olé, Olé.” I can have a quiet cocktail (what was offered as an alternative) or read a book in bed any evening.

So if I’m in Mexico, what’s the “coolest” experience I can have on a given day with very little extra effort?

I knew a guy like this. He basically viewed doing "quirky" and "interesting" stuff like this as a way to present an interesting facade so that he'd have stuff to talk about with other people. Kind of like the guys who buy a Rolex as a "conversation starter". He was (and, I assume, still is) a total schmuck.

Anyway, point is that not everyone shares your view of what a good time is, and it's narcissistic to view this as some kind of personal sleight.

point is that not everyone shares your view of what a good time is

Obviously and I would even venture it's the vast majority of people.

it's narcissistic to view this as some kind of personal sleight.

I'm not so post-modern to think everyone's idea of a good time has equal value. Do I think this person is a degenerate for skipping out on an experience? Of course not. I will happily take them up on their offer of a quiet cocktail another night. If he asked me to game with him some night, or do a quick DnD campaign I would even though it's not my highest preference for an evening.

I'm not so post-modern to think everyone's idea of a good time has equal value.

TIL de gustibus non disputandum est is a postmodern sentiment.

Nevertheless it remains narcissistic to view his refusal to hang out with you through the lens of how it affects you.

Of course not. I will happily take them up on their offer of a quiet cocktail another night. If he asked me to game with him some night, or do a quick DnD campaign I would even though it's not my highest preference for an evening.

In all likelihood, he will never ask you to do this, though.

Let's be clear on one thing:

You've no idea what the real reason(s) are for this loose acquaintance of yours not wanting to go. You've no insight into his mind and life. There could be any number of things going on, beyond the stated claim of not liking crowds. Maybe he's got social anxiety or any other disorder. Maybe a family member is sick and needs him. Maybe you give him the ick. Maybe he's got bad experiences with sports crowds. You've no idea. Yet you jump to conclusions and judge.

You're showing a major lack of reflection.

Damn, man. You're a dad with children now, its okay to be uncool. Your free time is probably limited if you have kids. You should not spend your limited free time doing things that you think may result in an interesting story to tell others. You should do what seems appealing. If you have curiosity about pro soccer, so be it, it is competiton at the highest level, but it can also be appealing to do nothing and follow the wedding schedule. Maybe there are some activities you can do with your kids locally in Mexico that are not available at home?

Attempting to be cool is always uncool. But I believe that not caring about being uncool demonstrates self-confidence, which is it's own form of coolness.

As a dad and husband, it does not set a good example for your family for you to be concerned with matters of trivial importance. Maybe you have some time to plan a interesting mini-vacation for your family, like scuba diving, cave exploration, or visiting interesting areas?

I am not cool - extra not cool now that I have kids - but it's two hours. I'll be spending way more time with my family than normal. Most likely my son is going to be jumping right there with me, my wife jumping with my daughter strapped to her. I would not judge a father in my circumstances for not being in the mix, this dude, not a dad.

For me the world cup match is an automatic go-to if the cost is within budget and the family would likely enjoy it.

I also think coolness or uncoolness should have no bearing on your decision making, for like almost everything. Aspiring to coolness is an adolescent male's concern that he is respected by his peers and that he is appealing to single women of his preferred dating demographic. As a husband + dad, I hope that you soon come to realize that you no longer need the approval of your male peers, nor the attention of single women anymore. At least that's my perspective as a husband + dad.

You may have a different definition of coolness than me, because I don't consider having kids to be uncool. To me having kids is tangible proof of a man's virility and relative wealth, elevating him to a higher level of status beyond the coolness anxieties of single or childless men.

I can have a quiet cocktail (what was offered as an alternative) or read a book in bed any evening.

I agree, but being in Mexico opens up a constellation of other options you could capitalise on, all of which may offer you more utility than going to a soccer game it doesn’t seem that even you’re particularly interested in. It’s not a choice between “soccer match” and “reading a book in bed” (that I concur is an awful value proposition when you’re in a foreign country), it’s a choice between “soccer match” and “seeing Teotihuacan” (which is all lit up at night) or “wandering the historic centre trying out the local food” or “watching the mariachis in Plaza Garibaldi” or any number of other very local things you could be doing.

Coolness per se doesn’t matter as much to me as enjoyability does. If you’d enjoy the match, then yeah, go for it. But there are other options you can avail yourself of which might be better for you, depending on your bent.

Sure if you got something better to do. Maybe this is context that lacking but it's Sayulita for 11 days. The match is 19:00. We will be availing ourselves of the local fair extensively. I wouldn't be surprised if they projected it on to Teotihuacan (not really) Plaza Garibaldi you could do both and it's gonna be crazy during the match, probably more intense than what I could find. For the vast majority of Mexico this is gonna be the only game in town (see what I did there, so subtle).

Maybe you've been identified as a bigger loser.

If he goes out with other people or even solo...

I certainly I'm a massive loser. I hang out here, asking loser questions.

What is a loser, anyways? I define a loser as a male of low status who engages in low status activities. You have a wife and children, clearly you did something right at some point in time, assuming you sired the children. Many men aspire for a family and are not so fortunate as you.

I believe asking questions and seeking advice shows self-awareness, a willingness to be criticized by others, and a desire for self-improvement. These are not qualities of a loser.

I'm taking the piss a bit. I was definitely a loser up until Sr. year of highschooler. The guys that were bullying me got kicked out - so that was helpful - and I decided I was going to start with working on eye contact which I couldn't even maintain with guys. That's where I push back on the effort aspect, it took constant concerted effort, deep introspection, on my part not to be a loser.

I think about it through a lens that Scott presents with fashion and cellular automata, and I often consider myself to be second tier in many areas. It put's me in the place of being able to conceptualize greatness and realizing just how far away it is.

I have some pretty top tier friends and acquaintances in athletics and intelligence.

Much more limitedly I have rolled with some effortlessly cool guys. Groups form around them from the ether, seeing that look in a women's eye when it clicks that she wants him. They're the people I feel the most distance from.

Even more being a dad, if an easy interesting opportunity presents itself, I think one should take it. Set an example for the kids.

Translated to English:

This is a dumb "question", but I'm just flabbergasted in a low-key situation. I'm going to Mexico for my wife's friend's wedding. (I'm taking my small kids. It's gonna be something...) It happens to be over Mexico's first World Cup knock-out match. I don't like soccer (it's for the poors), but this falls under the "few-in-a-lifetime opportunities" category in my mind. The one guy I kind of know on the trip turned me down on going out to watch the game, because he hates crowds and sports. I've always struggled not to judge this guy as a loser (he sulks around and whines a lot), and this really doesn't help. Literally, I don't think any other person I know would turn down an invite like this. Am I being too harsh?

Am I being too harsh?

I fail to see what having no interest in crowds and sports has to do with being a loser. To such a person, a "few-in-a-lifetime" high-profile event would be more annoying, not less annoying.

(Disclaimer: There are several reasons for which I can be considered a loser, but I don't think that my lack of interest in crowds and sports is one of them.)

(Anecdote: In my freshman year of college, the university (or maybe just the engineering college—I don't recall the details) gave to every freshman a free ticket to a local baseball game and made a joking threat that everybody was required to attend it. I found it profoundly uninteresting, and left after the first inning (or maybe after the first half-inning—I don't recall the details).)

I fail to see what having no interest in crowds and sports has to do with being a loser.

It doesn't in and of itself. Correlation, but certainly not a given. I know lot's of guys that hate crowds and have no interest in soccer, every one of them in my circle would recognize this as a rare opportunity to do something interesting - something that "cool" people think is "cool". It's being unwilling to be uncomfortable for a limited period of time to partake in a rare enough opportunity that tends towards "loser" behavior.

I think baseball sucks as much as soccer, I don't live near a MLB team so when I am on a work trip in a city with one and get invited to an MLB game, I go. Because it's a semi-rare opportunity.

Anecdote from my freshman year of college. I found myself turning down invites because I liked watching pirated shows, and films. A few weeks in I decided to never turn down an invite unless I had a very good excuse. Not disappointed in that choice at all.

There are people that I would consider "cool" who would turn down such and invite, but got to amp up the "coolness" in some other areas to compensate.

Anecdote from my freshman year of college. I found myself turning down invites because I liked watching pirated shows, and films. A few weeks in I decided to never turn down an invite unless I had a very good excuse. Not disappointed in that choice at all.

I made this kind of decision sometime after college. It's one of my bigger regrets in life, as it raised the amount of suffering I went through in everyday life without providing any meaningful positives. No particular big negative event came out of it, just a constant long-term significant reduction in quality of life compared to the alternative. I ended up regretting it enough to basically reverse it about 5 years ago, never saying Yes to an invite unless there was some specific reason I really wanted to go or to hang out with those specific people. My life has been a lot better in those ~5 years.

And if that choice makes people happier/more content/whatever else, that's great one should 100% live that life.

Socializing is a lot like eating well or exercising. Some people naturally stay thin and fit, while others are just really lucky and actually love working out.

If someone is content with their life, doesn’t get lonely, or in another example has no problem with the reduced mobility that comes with obesity, no skin off my back. On The Motte, I tend to believe people are willing to accept the trade-offs of their actions (or lack thereof). For society at large, I highly suspect that’s generally not true. I see the "male loneliness epidemic" as very similar to obesity. Society used to heavily incentivize not becoming obese, just as it heavily incentivized building and maintaining social circles. Now modernity has removed the guardrails, so people pursue short-term desires and later lament the long-term outcomes.

Socializing is a lot like eating well or exercising. Some people naturally stay thin and fit, while others are just really lucky and actually love working out.

I think this is an apt analogy (along with the stuff about how society has failed a lot of people both in terms of loneliness and obesity) but also not quite right. Eating well or exercising, by nature of physics, definitionally causes someone to stay thin (tautologically by what "eating well" means, to some extent) and arguably fit. But socializing doesn't have similar effect for loneliness. I'd say that building meaningful connections with others is what leads to preventing the deleterious effects akin to preventing obesity. One of my great insights that I had as an adult is that socializing by, e.g. spending lots of periodic time with like-minded people who enjoy your company and like you for who you are and vice versa, doing activities that everyone enjoys and/or is passionate about doesn't actually lead to building meaningful connections or relationships.

I think the main thing is familiarity, as mentioned below by @Bartender_Venator, unstructured interaction of the kind that happens constantly when you’re in other people’s presence.

For example, I have always had the suspicion that many people who work in a team or a small organization with, like, the same 5-10 people every day for many years or even decades are often far closer and more earnest friends than they care to admit, but because it’s considered loser behavior to say your coworkers are some of your best friends, people don’t discuss it.

I work in a team of fewer than 10 people, more than half for 6+ years, more than half of those for 15+ years. I also spent roughly 10-15 years in my 20s-30s with a friend group that I'd known since middle school, living with some of them for a decent chunk of that time, and certainly spending many hours with them most weekends for a lot of that time. That has not been my experience.

One of my great insights that I had as an adult is that socializing by, e.g. spending lots of periodic time with like-minded people who enjoy your company and like you for who you are and vice versa, doing activities that everyone enjoys and/or is passionate about doesn't actually lead to building meaningful connections or relationships.

I suppose this prompts the question: what does?

My mantra is always "repeated unstructured interaction". Activities are good at building shallow relationships, but it's when you're just hanging out and talking about stuff (alcohol helps) that you build the friendship.

The best part of my week is D&D with my friends. It's not the actual playing, though. It's the first hour, where we're eating Chinese takeout and shooting the shit.

Blueprint for building a friendship:

  • Sit in your dining room with the prospective friend.

  • Pull out a long printed list of conversation topics.

  • Pick a topic. After discussing it in whatever detail seems necessary, cross it off the list and take a shot (1 2) of distilled liquor.

  • Continue until one of you vomits or passes out.

  • Repeat as necessary (on different days) until you judge that friendship either has been achieved or will not be achieved.

(This is a joke.)

More comments

The one thing I've found that works is combination of being family + regular interaction. If you ever figure out how it could be done to non-family, I hope you'll tell me!

Letting other people drag you to events that you hate sounds like textbook loser behavior to me.

[citation needed] ;)

I would actually pushed back on that pretty heavily. You could certainly find yourself in a social circle that is not suitable. If you're trad and all your friends are swingers. And I hold opposite gender coded stuff in a differently if you're heavily unbalanced getting drug to your wife's stuff that's a problem.

I have no qualms with someone that wants to live a loner life, have their online friends, a few people they play board games with etc. But I suspect that a lot of people saying that's all they want start complaining about - and they do deserve a lot of it - the foids.

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