top 96 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 166 points 1 month ago (53 children)
  • [–] 188 points 1 month ago (38 children)

    It's a wild thing. So the term grew out of the manosphere actually, it was mainly a term for present fathers who steered their boys away from that garbage because they recognized it was only going to hurt them. It kind of grew from there to encapsulate everything they hate. Now, they associate beards with hipsters, dads, LGBT+, nerds who like games, music, books, theatre, and basically any man with a soul and two brain cells to rub together, which is precisely who they see as the enemy because they're so transparently evil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] 143 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    So basically a wholesome father with a big bushy beard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 95 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Exactly. They've been working real hard to make it about gas masks in the military, which is a thing, but that's not why they're going off about it. "Beardos and Weirdos" specifically is a dog-whistle for men who actually have honestly held values, don't consider sex, violence, and substance abuse the point of life, and try to be a mentor, a partner, a part of a community or who otherwise contradicts their narrow, machismo-laced, lecherous and reductive definition of "Man."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 1 month ago

    Look here now, a man can enjoy sex, violence, and substance abuse(not necessarily in that order) a whole lot without it becoming a part of their personality. Plenty of us are happy to be degenerates in private

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Oh ya I get it, just wanted to shorten your more complex definition for some folks. I can hardly comprehend the amount of fucking idiocy and blind hate occurring in the us gov right now. They shit all over the so-called values they very vaguely pretend to support.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Damn, and here I was thinking it was about no-shave chits (which has racial undertones, because black men are more prone to razorbumps (basically ingrown hairs which can be extremely painful)).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I mean, it's the US, you dig into anything deep enough and you can find racist undertones, because American society is built on racism. That said the particular phrase "Beardos and Weirdos" did in fact evolve out of the manosphere to describe any man of any race who didn't fall in line with them ideologically. Like so much of what they do, it just happens to also particularly disadvantage black men by virtue of their ideal being grounded in "whiteness."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    Well I'm saying that in the military context specifically, it's well-known that the vast majority of shave-chit holders (i.e., people who can have beards) are black men. There was a whole thing a few months ago when they banned shave-chits, and a large part of the discussion was how it would disproportionately affect black men, and how this is one part of a larger strategy to push black men out of the military.

    So within that context, yes, this statement by Hegseth absolutely does carry racial undertones, and you don't have to dig very deep to uncover that. It's not a conjecture, that statement was thinly-veiled racism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I'm not disagreeing. The policy itself is definitely an attack on black people. His choice of phrasing merely suggests he was trying to slur a lot of people, black people chief among them as usual.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Specifically in the military it refers to those in favor of loosening facial hair standards beyond just tiny mustaches, plus some service members that discovered and successfully exploited the "Heathen loophole."

    Really it's just Pete's preference toward big burly white hairless men that will follow his commands.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    A tiny mustache that fits under a gas mask 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Beards are apparently a part of Heathen and Norse Pagan religion, so claiming the religion allowed them to grow and maintain a full beard as a religious exemption. That's since gone away with Hegseth's purge of almost all non-Abrahamic religions.

    Everyone knew it was a loophole being exploited and not a bunch of people having spiritual awakenings all of a sudden. But a loophole is much more preferable to a Christian Nationalist leader determining what is and isn't a valid religion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Ok, yeah that makes a lot of sense. And yeah, when it comes to stuff like this you wind up in an awkward position where you have to allow loopholes to avoid prohibiting sincere religious convictions, especially among neopagans. Speaking as one, we're eclectic in what we consider religious (for example I consider my being trans to have religious significance and if I were to file a first amendment complaint against restrictions on my hormones it would be entirely sincere)

    I'm not even necessarily opposed to not giving facial hair/uniform passes to members of particularly disorganized religions. We aren't like the Sikhs where it's easy to see their conviction and there's a continuous practice that can be pointed to. That said, first amendment complaints are first amendment complaints. Just because I think a compromise might be reasonable, doesn't mean that's in line with the law. Us pagans get fucked six ways to sunday on religious freedom and we do need to stand up and demand it apply to us.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Jesus. Jesus was a beardo. A real socialist hippie kind of guy in sandals and robes and long hair and a beard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    To be fair, Jesus would only be useful in a military if he abandoned his principles and went Doctor Manhattan on everybody.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago

    Nah, the guy who whipped money changers outside the temple and said “sell all your possessions and buy a sword to defend the poor” would do just fine. He was canonically into peace, but not pacifism

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 42 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    A beard or long hair for men has always been a sign of rejection of conforming to social authority.

    Hair is the best symbol of rebellion as it is difficult to defect from, takes a long time to grow long, and is accessible to everyone. You can recognize a hippie with their tie-dye shirt and reflective sunglasses. They signal to themselves and others that they are opposed to the Vietnam war and the establishment in general. But when they go to the office, for a swim, to the gym, etc. they go back to conforming to the rest of society. The hippie with long hair is at all times signaling their rejection to the establishment and is also signaling that they have been rejecting this for many years. The hippie who only commits to the tie-dye shirt and sunglasses can take it off when under scrutiny and put it back on when convenient.

    Hair has no nerve cells. Cutting hair is completely painles. If someone won’t even listen to authority telling them to cut their hair, what makes you think they’ll listen to authority for anything else? Long hair subconsciously scares authority because the legitimacy of said authority is constantly challenged. This is my hypothesis for why being clean shaven and short hair has become a requirement in many militaries, but never a militia. It is the easiest way to get someone to subconsciously be comfortable with submitting to authority.

    Some examples of "beardos" who use their hair as a symbol of rebellion:

    • Koreans during Japanese Imperialism
    • The Khalsa
    • Indian saints, regardless of religion
    • Hippies in the US
    • Brazilian communists during the dictatorship
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Very true for many cultures. But it's also important to understand that for many Native American men it's rebellious in a very different way. Many tribes saw it as manly for a man to have long hair, and by growing it out it can be a rebellion against the demands of cultural surrender placed by white society

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    How is this rebellion in a different way? The Native American man keeping his hair long is the perfect example of him rejecting conformity to the standing social order, which is that of his colonizers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 86 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Is part of Hegseth's mental health problems that he can't grow a beard. It wouldn't be the first time in history (Alexander the Great famously count grow a beard and forced his troops to be clean-shaved).

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 42 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    From my understanding, it's to keep black people from serving. They have to be clean shaven and unfortunately black people tend to get really bad razor bumps which isn't accepted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    It's also about gas masks, can't from a seal with a beard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    That's the excuse, and the logic appears to make sense, but I think I recall it being tested and not really being much of a factor. That's what makes it a good dog whistle though. People will rush to say "it makes them unfit for duty because the equipment won't function" without looking further, so then the racist policies get protected and they don't have to actually justify the racism.

    https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because a study hasn't been conducted does not mean beards don't interfere with wearing a gas mask.

    Not having a jaw would probabry affect it too but there's no studies on that, yet nobody would claim it wouldn't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I've seen it tested, and it doesn't really. I have no idea if there's studies on that but, like you said, there isn't evidence, so why would we have this restriction? If they actually cared about this reasoning, they'd put money into testing it. However, disproving it would remove their ability to use it to justify exclusion, if this is the reason instead of functionality.

    Just think about it. If you put enough force on beard hairs they are pretty firmly against the skin. They don't push the gas mask away. There aren't really going to be any gaps. It just doesn't logically make sense if you consider it for more than a second.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago*

    I have a beard and it affected the seal and operation of a GP5 gas mask when I had to wear one, which is quite a feat if you've seen a GP5 mask

    I'm not familiar with what the US is doing but politicians make retarded changes all the time knowing anything about what they are doing or how things work in the real world

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    it's to keep black people from serving

    Sounds fake

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 30 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [+] -18 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    This impacts at most 16300 troops, and there are 162000 black men in service. They're going to need a much better strategy to get the blacks out if it's racially motivated... Not to mention the 60000 black women unaffected by this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    ~10%? That’s a pretty solid fraction, certainly not bad when you still need to maintain plausible deniability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 1 month ago*

    That figure includes whites and you're comparing it to black men only. Blacks in service represent 60% of the diagnosis so only 60% of that figure can be expected ot be black men.

    I.e. closer to 4%

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again: Satire is nigh-impossible when reality is already this ridiculous.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Isn't war in 2026 mostly about logistics and maintenance and signal tech?

    For every 1 masculine man man with epic guns surely there needs to be 10 or 20 other mild mannered technicians and cooks and geeks to pilot the drones and what not.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago* (11 children)

    "A soldier needs two things: a full belly and a pair of shoes." -some dude named Napoleon. I was going to put "an army marches on its stomach" but that was apparently Frederick the Great, even earlier than Napoleon. War has always been mostly about logistics.

    Fun Napoleon fact: the three main protagonist generals (Napoleon, Wellington and Blucher) at the Battle of Waterloo all designed shoes (or had shoes named after them). Only Wellingtons and Bluchers are still really around today - history is written by the winners, after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    In the 5th century BCE Sun Tzu was saying the same shit. Idiot nobles and political appointees think war is about glorious battles, great warriors, and just killing more of the other guys. But it's about making sure your side has supplies and theirs doesn't. It's about making sure your troops aren't thinking of running away and theirs are. It's about setting strategic goals and doing what it takes to achieve them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    Ironically, this is part of why the Confederacy failed so hard, but have most of the well known generals. The generals were absolutely trash at strategy. They were totally focused on winning glorious battles, and they sacrificed a significant number of troops getting them. Then, in the long term, they didn't have the ability to keep fighting like that. Their names are remembered for being these supposedly amazing generals (some of this is post-hoc to worship the Confederacy as a symbol for racism) while the union generals were out there winning the war with superior strategy. They were much more likely to retreat when it wasn't strategically advantageous, because they weren't stupid.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Sure but... no moreso than ever, surely. Soldiers don't march across countries any more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I would say it's significantly worse now. Sure, the soldiers need slightly less food per unit of time, since they aren't wasting as much just walking, but now they have ammo that's consumed at a much faster rate, and they also have vehicles and generators that consume fuel, and so much else.

    We've also gotten a lot better with logistics though. We pack things in cargo containers and things, which can be stacked and (off)loaded significantly faster. We also obviously have much faster transportation and production now too.

    Logistics is more important than ever, but it's also significantly better managed and easier to track and handle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Sure but the broader point is, how many manly man soldiers do we need compared to how many fatty woke LGBTIQ bearded drone pilots?

    I suspect the demand for meatheads is less now than it ever was

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Because when you are losing a war, the sort of facial hair you have really matters. Reality doesn't back them up, so they have to go for crass appearance. Not "weak" my ass.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    From memory the facial hair things isn't really about appearance but a way to kick poc out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›