Monday, December 09, 2013

Could You Take Them in a Fight?

This is a serious question because I believe that people's politics do invariably have an effect on their masculinity and femininity.  But how many of these people could you take in a fight?

This is not a joke, this is not hyperbole, but how many of them could you duke it out with and know you'd come out the winner?

I'm not saying this because of bravado or arrogance, but I am complete confident for me it would be 100%.  And the reason I even bring it up is not to slander them, but to advance and record an embryonic theory I have about masculinity, attraction, and strength in leftists and liberal that I'm trying to flesh out.

What's truly sad is I didn't even research the site enough to confirm whether they were liberals or not.  I just somehow KNEW.  And that's why I want to get to the bottom of.

How did I KNOW they are leftists??

I don't HAVE TO research them any further.  I just KNOW they're leftists.  And what gets me is I can tell by their faces and demeanor.  So why is that?  Why can I tell?  And more importantly, why am I so supremely confident they are leftists?

Ideas, thoughts, theories?

45 comments:

the dude said...

At least 2/3 of these people look like they'd break out in hysterics at the mere sight of an actual fight.

As for who I could take, I could do all of them with the possible exception of Nick Martin. He looks like he'd shiv me.

Anonymous said...

Because with just a few exceptions, they appear uniformly weak (soft) and unattractive (ugly).

Anonymous said...

Check out the male jaw line, Cappy. ...or, more precisely, the distinct lack of male jaws lines on the men and in some cases the male jaw lines on the women (cough Amanda Marcott). The men also have poor posture, a sign of submissiveness and frankly laziness. It takes work to attain correct posture.

Glanton said...

You can definitely identify the doctrinaire liberal by sight, and I agree with the thrust of your post.

I do think, however, that you're overlooking Derick Dirmaier. I don't think you could sleepwalk through a fight with him by any means.

Just my assessment.

Keep following that rabbit trail, though. You're onto something.

Glen Filthie said...

Well contrary to the liberal turd brains, yes you CAN judge people by their looks.

One thing common to lefties is that they tend to try to put on airs of intellectual and moral superiority in everything they do.

This lot does that with the big, thick framed glasses, for example, that project an image of studious intellect. While few smile openly, most smirk and cock eyebrows and come across as smug and smarmy. I can tell just by looking at these fart suckers that I wouldn't want to sit down and chat with them. Further, I would be willing to bet that any conversation with them would consist of them trying to impress me with their phony intellectualism.

Also lacking is the image of physical fitness. These people are either fat pigs or anorexic beanpoles.

Of course there are the odd conservatives that employ the same affectations...but more often than not these superficial attempts at intellectualism is the hallmark of your typical brain dead liberal.

TroperA said...

It's the smugness. Sure they're all equally feminine-looking and probably have, like, three muscles between the lot of them, but it's definitely the "I know better than you" smugness that sells them as liberal.

Anonymous said...

None of them look like the kind of people who could actually produce meaningful economic output. Although how you can tell that is the same question I guess.

Amy said...

Cap, it's the smug look of self-satisfaction in their faces.

The woman with the upturned eyes is especially grating. Looking upward, outward, towards some shiny happy future of Oneness with the Rainbow Peoples of the World is purely a liberal thing. I've never seen pics of conservative chicks with this expression.

The other women just exude sass and smug, especially square-glasses chick, with her head cocked to one side and a smile that says she pities you for not being as smart and insightful as she is.

Actually, I'd say the square-framed glasses are #1 giveaway. I'm not sure why, but libs seem to love them. It's a hipster thing, and hipster = Rainbow Utopian Liberal. Perhaps they're advertising their cred by channeling Malcolm X.

favill said...

One or two I might actually break a sweat...I'm assuming we get to "keep" the prettier women as part of our harem once all the "men" are defeated.

Stingray said...

Slack eyes.

Timely post, I was just thinking about this last night.

Amy said...

I should also say, the biggest tell is that they work for TPM.

Carl said...

Hubris.

Anonymous said...

NICE!

For the record, I'd be a little afraid of Andrew Sullivan. He looks like he wants to butt-rape someone....

BTW, you should check out the Anonymous Conservatives blog (http://anonymousconservativ.ipage.com/blog/). He's got this r/K selection theory going. Interesting.

Also, there was a study that came out a while ago that correlated physical stature and political affiliation (can't remember the source or whether the results were statistically significant). It basically said that guys that are not totally limp wristed are more likely to advocate for their own interests (i.e. if poor they advocate for redistribution and if rich non-redistribution) and guys who are "testosterone challenged" often advocate for policies against their self interest (i.e. if rich for re-distribution and if poor for non-redistribution). I guess this kinda makes sense from an anecdotal observational perspective in the archetypes of the burly union guy aligning politically with the effete overly educated intellectual. I can't think of an analogous archetype on the conservative/libertarian side for the effete liberal intellectual, but its early and I'm sure I have observational bias.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Be careful, Cap'n. It looks like Roger Stone has a real "back off, sonny, I'll kick your ass" vibe going on there.

But to your main point. My first thought was that you knew enough to know the political bent of the site itself, even subconsciously. I think the recognition that these people are connected is important. Second thought was Limbaugh's theorem on feminism and attractiveness. There're only a couple women I'd rate as attractive, so that would indicate left-leaning feminists. Most appear to be thin, nobody really appears overweight--a potential sign that they are Hipster women, therefore politically leftist. Half the men are typical smug-looking Urban Hipsters, and there's a notable lack of non-Hipster big-jawed, really manly types. The rest of the men... well, for a holiday party, they sure look dour. So with the prior of "it's a website, probably political" with that group of pictures, I'd figure Hipsters, therefore liberals/leftists.

Anonymous said...

Well, you're not the first to have this epiphany. Just Google "strong men are more likely to be conservative" and there's a like a bazillion articles out there on the subject.

Cheers!

The Bechtloff said...

I don't know Cap, some of the females in that group look pretty tough. Elizabeth Wurtzel has a sort of strung out about to snap look in her eyes.

Peabody said...

They're all leftists - they work with Amanda Marcotte!

Anonymous said...

NICE!

For the record, I'd be a little afraid of Andrew Sullivan. He looks like he wants to butt-rape someone....

BTW, you should check out the Anonymous Conservatives blog (http://anonymousconservativ.ipage.com/blog/). He's got this r/K selection theory going. Interesting.

Also, there was a study that came out a while ago that correlated physical stature and political affiliation (can't remember the source or whether the results were statistically significant). It basically said that guys that are not totally limp wristed are more likely to advocate for their own interests (i.e. if poor they advocate for redistribution and if rich non-redistribution) and guys who are "testosterone challenged" often advocate for policies against their self interest (i.e. if rich for re-distribution and if poor for non-redistribution). I guess this kinda makes sense from an anecdotal observational perspective in the archetypes of the burly union guy aligning politically with the effete overly educated intellectual. I can't think of an analogous archetype on the conservative/libertarian side for the effete liberal intellectual, but its early and I'm sure I have observational bias.

Cheers.

Amateur Strategist said...

The whole "war on Christmas, 'natch" in the first paragraph pretty much gave it away for me.

Not that Righters and Libertarians don't have wars on things, but we don't childishly brandish that any of our actions are an addition to such efforts.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm? Don't know how many I would actually want to fight, physically. Since most of the "writers" are libtards, and libtards generally are the ones who want to do violence to people like me (gun clinger, bible thumper, married, neanderthal-according to libtards), some of the fights (granted they would have to throw the first punch) would be over rather quickly. Some of the libtards may be able to take a punch or two, so that could be messy. But, generally they, the libtards would have to want to start the "physicality" of the confrontation. I don't start fights...I end them. And yes, I have lost a few, and no such thing exists as a "fair fight". If you fight a "fair fight", your tactics suck.

Aquinas Dad said...

This isn't even hard - you are obviously asking a leading question.The men have trouble looking at *the camera*; Heads at angles, face deflected, shoulders not square, weight unbalanced. They are obviously hesitant to look anyone in the eye, even the metaphorical eye of the camera.

Anonymous said...

How about I fight you Aaron ?

faithless cycnic said...

Appearances can be deceiving. I grew up with guys who could not bench press 50 pounds. No one bothered them, since they were known to carry things like ice picks and sharpened screwdrivers :-) In my own case, the over muscled jock who was bullying me dropped like a rock when belted with a locker padlock inside a gym sock. Point of impact was the back of the idiots neck. He literally never saw it coming. Beware small people who think tactically and hold grudges.

Peregrine John said...

There might be 1 or 2 that give me trouble, but then I'm a sucky fighter. On the other hand, there are several in that crew I could probably handle simultaneously.

Anonymous said...

At once? All of them.

A fun exercise, to be sure, but gawd are those folks ugly - and tiny! (I realize the pic perspective and all, but have you ever seen so many guys who's heads are wider than their shoulders?
Scary.

Karl said...

I see phony smiles, depression in the eyes, and can actually hear each one tell me why I should drive a hybrid.

I have no interest in fighting any of them, but I would like to see if that smug smile disappears after a backhanded bitch slap, assuming I can find a place to put down my cigar.

Wiseman said...

If I remove my arms and legs to give them a fair advantage... I'd still beat them.

Paul, Dammit! said...

Anyone who has multiple younger brothers knows that the secret to winning a fight is your ability to manage how you take a beating in between landing the hits you want.

Something I learned as a bouncer- look for scarring on the orbital ridge and temples- fighters and hockey players, especially, know how to push through a traumatic hit.
I saw little scarring on those geldings.

I completely concur with the sex-reversed jaw line juxtaposition. Holy recessive x, batman, them's some rugged ladies.
The 'head wider than shoulders' comment made me laugh out loud.

Not that the opposite is much fun, either. I have to sit in the aisle seat on a plane, and in the 3rd world puddlejumpers I end up in at at times, my entire shoulder and arm sticks in the aisle. Employers just won't spring for 2 seats.

'Reality' Doug said...

Those head shots are creepy, Capt, to wit they are cult followers who have abdicated their 'souls' for the 'ease' and 'freedom' of irresponsibility to self. Maybe it has to do with the amygdala or whatever brain differences there are in the superstitious who need dogma as soul transplant. They have the body language of superficial peace and confidence. They are a curious amalgam of surety and ignorance, but what that is physiologically I don't know.

Anonymous said...

as others have said, its probably the smug faces of guys who can't wait to dismiss everything with a snarky comment.

they generally try to appear as inoffensive (from a feminist perspective) as possible.

notable mentions:
Chris O'Driscoll wins the award for face id most like to smash a pint of guinness into.

Hilary Herscher- assuming that isn't a typo, this guy just looks like a wilted flower in that weird turtleneck fluff sweater.

Nick Martin- probably a heavy drinker. but like the books and video games he consumes, any power or skill is fantasy

toure- single name. accented e. too cool to win fights.

jonathan massey - im guessing a bottom. probably into bears.

derek dirmaier - looks like he has an axe to grind, but the only physically respectable specimen. staring straight ahead. he could probably toss hands, but only in the defense of a woman.

Ralph said...

There is one glaring hole in everybodies analysis. I don't believe I've ever seen a group of liberals this large with no hyphenated last names.

Bob Wallace said...

Andrew Sullivan is the only one I would wonder about.

I could all the rest of them together.

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't risk breaking my hand but sure as hell wouldn't hesitate poking'em in the eye

aa said...

It's the head-tilt, man. Dead giveaway. Also, the vapid eyes and smarmy quirk of the mouth really clinch it if I start to wonder

JS Mill said...

I'll repeat the sentiments: the women are nigh universally ugly and the men range from average-ish to unbelievably soft and hapless, with only a couple of the older men who look like they might be a challenge discounting their age.

As for your theory: I believe Ace of Spades pointed out over a year ago that Gary Sinise, a known conservative leaning actor (given his support of the military, among other things) works out, while his counterpart on NCIS, Mark Harmon, is a runner and is deeply liberal, relating it to a study linking physical strength to conservative thought.

My own thought is that fundamentally a small government libertarian perspective is fundamentally masculine in nature, focusing as it does independence and confidence in one's own abilities, while the more socialized, big government theories are feminine, focusing as they do on collective action, group harmony and safety nets. The follow on, however, is that, as with most spectrums, the absolute poles are to be avoided, but that doesn't mean the exact center is ideal.

I may be biased however, being inclined to near anarchic frontier style living.

Unknown said...

"I'm not saying this because of bravado or arrogance, but I am complete confident for me it would be 100%."

Well,the women for sure.

Anonymous said...

How is it that Andrew Sullivan can make the full-bearded, bald-headed look appear totally ghey?

Oh, that's right, he IS gay.

Anonymous said...

I'd say I could take all of them with the possible exception of Roger Stone. That dude looks so high that you know he'd feel no pain...

Rumbear said...

Take them? Of course. Some things are not worth working up a sweat over. Think Indiana Jones and the sword fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anEuw8F8cpE

Leaves more time for scotch & cigars. Cheers.

Dr. Kenneth Noisewater said...

I definitely could take them, many of them in 2s or 3s. But only if they threw the first punch, since that's how I roll: Never start a fight, but always finish it.

JoeAmerica said...

I use the words of George S. Patton to address some of the common PC approach to things.

"An army without profanity couldn't fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag"

http://www.generalpatton.com/quotes/

Anonymous said...

Not a one of them is armed.

Ted Bopp said...

Whoever hired this crew not only stuck with obviously beta males but there isn't a women here that ranks better than a 2.5. The whole crew reminds me of the "Lowered Expectations" spots that used to run on SNL.

Shenpen said...

Dear Captain,

because these are narcissist faces!

Conservative people have the kind of facial expression that focuses _outwards_, eyes set on goals outside of them, ahead of them. They see destinations they want to get to. These goals may be selfish or altruistic - does not matter.

Narcissist liberals are neither selfish nor altruistic, they are self-adsorbed, self-centric. They are focusing on others opinion about them and their own opinion about themselves. Their face says "I desperately need evidence that I am intelligent and caring! Am I? Am I? Please reassure me!!!"

For example they are the kind of people who would boycott a company for doing something unethical, like boycotting Nike for using sweatshop labor. OF COURSE they MUST know that they are not enough people to make a noticable dent in the sales and thus force them to change, but they don't really care - what they want is not really changing the world, but feeling good about themselves, they want to validate and reassure themselves that they are caring and clever. They care more about not becoming "tainted", "dirtied" with what they consider bad.

Same way as vegetarians MUST know they cannot put a stop to killing animals, nor can they even make a big difference in the number of animals killed worldwide - but they can avoid being part of it, avoid being "tainted", "dirtied" by it.

This is also what is called "smugness". Narcissisim.

Anonymous said...

Not one of them is dressed as if he/she intends to do any real work.