site banner
PaperclipPerfector  3mo ago (text post)   1102 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for February 2, 2024

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 New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

sure.jpg

It's interesting; despite the "Sophia Loren" reputation attached to Italian women, imo most have the much more nuanced attractiveness of the girl in the video. While Eastern European and Scandinavian women have major surface appeal with relatively uninteresting/utilitarian minds, Italians are truly wild... manipulative, creative, unpredictable, and worldly-wise. The tradeoff occurs in their design - rarely gifted with golden-ratio faces and generally ambivalent to cosmetic surgery, with extreme ranges based on their ancestry (north vs. south vs. Sicily/Sardinia). In total, they're extraordinarily interesting but difficult to ever pin down (leading to the Italian society we see today - committed, married couples routinely engaging in "side quests").

Central and Southern Italian men aren’t particularly impressive, usually shorter than average, hairy and with average faces. By Northern and Eastern Mediterranean standards they’re probably the least attractive men, although Greece is a mixed bag I guess. Not as ugly as the Portuguese, but not far off.

To be totally honest with you IMO Scandinavian women are vastly overrated as well. That Finnish prime minister who was doing the rounds for being super hot was, in fact, a garden-variety mid. I'd say Colombian women are generally the most attractive of the places I've visited.

In terms of raw facial structure you see the best examples in the Balkans and occasionally in NW Europeans and East Africans.

I'm deeply unimpressed with the, uh, raw facial structure of British and Irish women. I don't know enough about the rest of the region.

The Irish are quite an ugly people although occasionally their features coalesce into something very beautiful, often in a pretty eerie way. The English vary tremendously ethnically, like the French, so I think blanket pronouncements are tough.

English people are often naturally beautiful - Mormons in Utah (overwhelmingly Anglo) and Australians are often described as at least moderately attractive peoples, the latter before sun damage turns their skin leathery by 35. But the British upper and middle classes don’t look after themselves like their continental or even other Angloid peers (cf terrible teeth, bad aging, dislike for any cosmetic intervention, the British PMC drink and smoke more than their American peers etc), and the working class are deep into an abhorrent and clownish obsession with heavy makeup, fake tan, dyed hair, the ‘jersey shore’ kind of ‘chav’ look, dress terribly and are quite fat for non-Americans, so you can’t usually tell.

There are a few major British phenotypes, but both the squat Celtic and the taller, more nordic Norman and Saxon types all look better skinny. By contrast, other populations like the Balkan and Mediterranean looks cope better with slightly higher body fat percentages, and so look better in modernity. The main thing that Brits can’t change is thin lips, largely out of fashion but once considered quite beautiful.

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