181–190 of 817 posts
> “Then I insert a rod — we call it a nail or a rod — that goes inside the bone. The rod is magnetic and it has gears. Then there’s an external device that communicates with the nail. And over time, little by little, it lengthens out the nail.” The lengthening happens gradually. “We usually say about a millimeter a day, until they get to their desired height.” The "external device that communicates with the nail" par…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
no one is comparing the historical treatment of short people to slaves; they are comparing how preference for some unchangeable attributes are somehow acceptable but preference for others are not. you are forcing additional context where there is none.
That's just untrue. The claim is that there is "really no difference" between discriminating against Blacks and short people. There are several important differences, and they relate directly to the historical treatment of Black people. You are arguing in bad faith, just like the OP.
Can we keep discussion civil? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html - "Assume good faith."
> There are several important differences,
Historically. But if the historical context of slavery did not exist, it would still be just as unacceptable to treat Black individuals differently.
In essence, historical context is largely irrelevant to whether an action is right or wrong. An action is right or wrong in itself (with respect to the contemporary common moral framework, (which may itself be influenced by history) etc.)
As such, treating Black individuals differently is not more or less wrong than treating short individuals differently.
As a 5'5" guy, no one ever calls me short, and when I joke about being short my friends tell me that they don't perceive me as short unless I'm joking about it, so I stopped haha.
In school people did call me short but in time I learned to ignore it and to just not hear it. Because there's really nothing that I can or even should do about it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is that preferences are malleable and there is no objective reality or grounding in modern society for short stature being an undesirable trait (at least going forward). My hypothesis is that short stature historically has been attributed to malnutrition, and therefore destitution as well, which has shaped modern day preferences, but perception lags reality. EDIT: Also I should add that people are reading my…
Via Rob Henderson's newsletter: Muscularity is the strongest predictor of mating success for men. A study on males aged 18 to 59 found that muscularity is significantly positively associated with the number of total sexual partners and partners in the last year. Handgrip strength is correlated with self-assessed happiness, health, social confidence, overall physical attractiveness, and overall number of sexual partne…
> “Don’t be so sure of yourself, short man!” The problem is that it's still socially acceptable to see short stature as some objective faux-pas. There's really no difference between a person proudly declaring they only like "white" people and a person declaring they only like "tall" people. If the guy said "Don't be so sure of yourself, black man" maybe it would have been acceptable in the 1920s, but it surely isn't…
>there aren't really downsides to short stature in modern life It even have several health benefits. Except that in dating, women overwhelmingly prefer men over 6', and very small differences like 5'7 vs 5'9 double or triple the matches in online dating sites. If we are talking about 5'6 vs 6'0 the difference is ridiculous, like over 200X more matches. Women even divorce short men at double the rate of tall men. Thos…
It's as if we all go into it like ordering at a Burger King, except Have it your way (tm) comes out tasting like crap because we realize we aren't chefs. Online dating is how a bureaucrat decides to choose their life partner. The boxes you tick in online dating aren't important and are there just to pander to users.
For folks in this thread making statements such as, "I don't see how one can dictate to others what they should find attractive," the negative social stigmas towards men of short stature go far beyond physical attraction. (There's absolutely nothing wrong with women finding taller men attractive.) https://twitter.com/heightismxposed Swap "short guy" for "Jew" in the quotations from those twits that have nothing to do…
For example against Putin.
(Doesn't matter what you think of Putin - slurs based on personal appearance are always wrong against anyone full stop.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
I think the stats you are referencing about humans getting taller are from improvements in childhood nutrition. I don't think genetically we've been selecting for taller people, as that is harder to conclude (plus, even if woman select for taller men, men do not necessarily select for taller woman, and woman are part of this too let's not forget). > Women usually marry the millionaire, but have sex with the pool boy.…
Men's preferences only matter in a monogamous society, where less attractive women are expected to settle down with less attractive men who will financially support their kids.
But in modern welfare states, less attractive women can still sleep with very attractive men (whom they could never marry), have their children, and rely on the state to financially support their kids.
Which means the rich but unattractive men are, through taxes, paying for the children of the attractive men.