Do you think Lookism is shallow?

AlexAP

AlexAP

Kraken
Joined
Nov 3, 2020
Posts
13,387
Reputation
27,823
People here often argue that treating someone better because he was born with a better facial bone structure is shallow.

I don't think so. The truth is: Every relationship between humans is transactional. If someone was born with high intelligence and is already a genius as a kid, we admire his intelligence. If someone was born with a good voice for a music career, we admire his music. Why should it be different with Looks?

Don't forget that having good Looks can be a genetical advantage for your kids. Lookism is absolutely rational and not shallow imo. I'm only against bullying people who are unattractive, but not against the fact that good-looking people have it easier in the realm of dating, relationships, friends and social life.
 
  • +1
  • So Sad
  • Ugh..
Reactions: Deleted member 14392, CursedOne, Deleted member 3270 and 8 others
Because looks contribute nothing to the world, the people around that person or how ethical/moral that person is. Therefor when someone is shallow it's because they don't appreciate these values and instead are just content with monkey brain being happy.
 
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: Deleted member 14392, Deleted member 7697, Warlow and 3 others
Because looks contribute nothing to the world, the people around that person or how ethical/moral that person is. Therefor when someone is shallow it's because they don't appreciate these values and instead are just content with monkey brain being happy.
They have a good chance of giving their kids good genetics.

And what ethical/moral values does music contributes to the world? Nothing. We still admire musicians.
 
  • +1
  • Hmm...
Reactions: thecel and SkinjobCatastrophe
against bullying people who are unattractive
cringe
uglies should be bullied into roping like the worthless genetic trash they are
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 3828, SkinjobCatastrophe, .👽. and 1 other person
cringe
uglies should be bullied into roping like the worthless genetic trash they are
Pic
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 14392, Deleted member 3828, ElySioNs and 9 others
Because looks contribute nothing to the world, the people around that person or how ethical/moral that person is. Therefor when someone is shallow it's because they don't appreciate these values and instead are just content with monkey brain being happy.
no one actually cares about morals though they just care about the status of another person within our society and there is no easier indicator than looks to be able to instantly tell the way someone has been treated throughout their life and are thus molded into the higher status more interesting valuable person they are today compared to some truecel neet wage slave no one would want to be friends with.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 3828, SkinjobCatastrophe, Danish_Retard and 1 other person
People here often argue that treating someone better because he was born with a better facial bone structure is shallow
Agreed man, shithead people don't know the pain ugly guys go through and all these normie faggots in the society worship gl people . SOCIETY IS SHITTY
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 3828, Lars, SkinjobCatastrophe and 1 other person
Agreed man, shithead people don't know the pain ugly guys go through and all these normie faggots in the society worship gl people . SOCIETY IS SHITTY
Bullying is bad, I agree.

But do you think it's unfair that Chad has it easier in dating and social life?
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel, Coffeex and SkinjobCatastrophe
Bullying is bad, I agree.

But do you think it's unfair that Chad has it easier in dating and social life?
It's actually sad man that a genetic lottery have it easier in every aspect of life....
I feel like bullying all Chads,,,
I want to see them in pain
 
  • +1
  • So Sad
Reactions: Deleted member 14392, thecel and SkinjobCatastrophe
People here often argue that treating someone better because he was born with a better facial bone structure is shallow.

I don't think so.

And why should that make you treat them better? I misunderstood your original question as being why being shallow isn't bad, but instead, you're just blatantly saying it isn't shallow.

Every relationship between humans is transactional. If someone was born with high intelligence and is already a genius as a kid, we admire his intelligence. If someone was born with a good voice for a music career, we admire his music. Why should it be different with Looks?
Read your own sentence, we admire his music, not him. People can admire someones looks without admiring him too. Even if you, as me, don't believe in dualism you must agree that some things are separate from outward characteristics, such as your values, morality and in general what would be considered "you". I don't want to go into a debate about determinism and environmental factors on this, you have a choice in these things to the degree that our "free" will allows.

So, it should not be different with looks, we can admire someones physical appearance without admiring him. If his body deformed and he became ugly we would no longer admire his looks, but we can still admire his character.

So by the very definition of shallow, it is shallow to only value someone for something that is not part of his character/spirit/mind.

Don't forget that having good Looks can be a genetical advantage for your kids. Lookism is absolutely rational and not shallow imo.
I agree in the sense of looking for someone you're going to have kids with, however, let's not kid ourselves, that is not the situation 99% of the time lookism is an issue. It would still be shallow here, even if it is rational. If you believe in utilitarianism you could also easily say that it is the ethically correct thing to do.

I'm only against bullying people who are unattractive, but not against the fact that good-looking people have it easier in the realm of dating, relationships, friends and social life.
And why should someone be treated better for something that he cannot control, valued higher for something that is not his character?By the same logic you applied why should we not bully unattractive people? They have less "good" genetics.

They have a good chance of giving their kids good genetics.

And what ethical/moral values does music contributes to the world? Nothing. We still admire musicians.
I misunderstood the original question, however I'd still like you to elaborate on what good genetics are.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 14392 and thecel
And why should that make you treat them better? I misunderstood your original question as being why being shallow isn't bad, but instead, you're just blatantly saying it isn't shallow.
Because we want to associate with them. Of course we also have to like their personality, but Looks is the thing that opens the doors.

Yes, I don't think it's shallow.
Read your own sentence, we admire his music, not him. People can admire someones looks without admiring him too. Even if you, as me, don't believe in dualism you must agree that some things are separate from outward characteristics, such as your values, morality and in general what would be considered "you". I don't want to go into a debate about determinism and environmental factors on this, you have a choice in these things to the degree that our "free" will allows.

So, it should not be different with looks, we can admire someones physical appearance without admiring him. If his body deformed and he became ugly we would no longer admire his looks, but we can still admire his character.

So by the very definition of shallow, it is shallow to only value someone for something that is not part of his character/spirit/mind.
In both cases, we admire things that are genetics.

And no, a good voice is not a personality. Plenty of musicians are shitty people and still have fans (I don't agree with that, we should call bad people out).
I agree in the sense of looking for someone you're going to have kids with, however, let's not kid ourselves, that is not the situation 99% of the time lookism is an issue. It would still be shallow here, even if it is rational. If you believe in utilitarianism you could also easily say that it is the ethically correct thing to do.

And why should someone be treated better for something that he cannot control, valued higher for something that is not his character?By the same logic you applied why should we not bully unattractive people? They have less "good" genetics.

I misunderstood the original question, however I'd still like you to elaborate on what good genetics are.
The possibility of dating a good-looking person is always on the back of someone's mind, even if the person is way out of the league of the other person.

Bullying is bad because we don't have to torture people, we can leave them alone if we don't want to associate with them (of course, you can have unattractive friends if you like something about them, I'm saying if you don't like a person at all).

Good genetics = Facial bone structure, height, frame, race.
 
  • So Sad
Reactions: thecel
They have a good chance of giving their kids good genetics.

What about 99.999% of interactions in life, which don’t revolve around trying to get into someone’s pants?

Attractive people have advantages in:
  • friendship
  • school
  • job interviews
  • promotions
  • being seen as trustworthy
  • getting help from strangers
  • having their ideas and arguments taken seriously
  • persuading people to team up with them (e.g. finding actors to star in films you want to make)
  • etc.
Keep coping.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 14392, ManzareK, Danish_Retard and 1 other person
The idea of shallowness as a concept is based on the belief that there exists free will. With no will to choose your personality, your face, your voice, what you say, what you think, etc, nothing is really shallow, everything just is.
 
yeah i hate that lookism exist would be a better world if everyone got respected equally but atleast i know how important it is so use the knowledge to get the best of yourself
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 14392 and Danish_Retard
Bullying is bad, I agree.

But do you think it's unfair that Chad has it easier in dating and social life?

Yes. It’s unfair that Chad is Chad.

Your question is like, “do you think it’s unfair that people born into rich families can buy more stuff?” Well, no, it isn’t unfair that they can buy more things with their money, but it’s unfair that they’re born in rich families in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Danish_Retard
Bullying is bad, I agree.

But do you think it's unfair that Chad has it easier in dating and social life?
Yeah I think it’s unfair that they get “better treatment” than average looking guys. But we should not blame them for having their looks/being gl, instead we should blame who worships them. But ironically, nature made us attracted to gl ppl.
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel
What about 99.999% of interactions in life, which don’t revolve around trying to get into someone’s pants?

Attractive people have advantages in:
  • friendship
  • school
  • job interviews
  • promotions
  • being seen as trustworthy
  • getting help from strangers
  • having their ideas and arguments taken seriously
  • persuading people to team up with them (e.g. finding actors to star in films you want to make)
  • etc.
Keep coping.
All these situations involve the possibility of meeting someone as a future partner. And another reason is: Most people think good-looking people give them access to connections they could need in the future. It makes sense. I'm not talking about bullying, which is obviously bad, I'm talking about the Halo effect.
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel
yeah i hate that lookism exist would be a better world if everyone got respected equally but atleast i know how important it is so use the knowledge to get the best of yourself
You can respect everyone equally and still be lookist. For example, if you have a good-looking partner, you are lookist, or if you are single and are more interested in hanging out with good-looking persons, because you are romantically interested in them.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lars
Yes. It’s unfair that Chad is Chad.

Your question is like, “do you think it’s unfair that people born into rich families can buy more stuff?” Well, no, it isn’t unfair that they can buy more things with their money, but it’s unfair that they’re born in rich families in the first place.
How is it unfair?

Like, in the sense that money shouldn't make you able to buy more things, or in the sense that if your parents are rich, they still shouldn't let you live too comfortably (big house, vacations, etc.)?
 
  • Hmm...
Reactions: thecel
Danish_Retard said:
And why should that make you treat them better? I misunderstood your original question as being why being shallow isn't bad, but instead, you're just blatantly saying it isn't shallow.
Because we want to associate with them. Of course we also have to like their personality, but Looks is the thing that opens the doors.

Yes, I don't think it's shallow.
That's literally what it means to be shallow though?? You want to associate with them because of their looks because that will open doors for them, and hence you. How is that not shallow?
Danish_Retard said:
Read your own sentence, we admire his music, not him. People can admire someones looks without admiring him too. Even if you, as me, don't believe in dualism you must agree that some things are separate from outward characteristics, such as your values, morality and in general what would be considered "you". I don't want to go into a debate about determinism and environmental factors on this, you have a choice in these things to the degree that our "free" will allows.

So, it should not be different with looks, we can admire someones physical appearance without admiring him. If his body deformed and he became ugly we would no longer admire his looks, but we can still admire his character.

So by the very definition of shallow, it is shallow to only value someone for something that is not part of his character/spirit/mind.
In both cases, we admire things that are genetics.

And no, a good voice is not a personality. Plenty of musicians are shitty people and still have fans (I don't agree with that, we should call bad people out).
I really don't understand your point here. How do some people liking a person despite him being a shitty person prove anything other than that? If anything it proves how lookism is unjust since it favours people with bad characters if they have good outward genetics.

Danish_Retard said:
I agree in the sense of looking for someone you're going to have kids with, however, let's not kid ourselves, that is not the situation 99% of the time lookism is an issue. It would still be shallow here, even if it is rational. If you believe in utilitarianism you could also easily say that it is the ethically correct thing to do.

And why should someone be treated better for something that he cannot control, valued higher for something that is not his character?By the same logic you applied why should we not bully unattractive people? They have less "good" genetics.

I misunderstood the original question, however I'd still like you to elaborate on what good genetics are.
The possibility of dating a good-looking person is always on the back of someone's mind, even if the person is way out of the league of the other person.

Bullying is bad because we don't have to torture people, we can leave them alone if we don't want to associate with them (of course, you can have unattractive friends if you like something about them, I'm saying if you don't like a person at all).

Good genetics = Facial bone structure, height, frame, race.
Let's not act like lookism doesn't play a role in situations where it's completely unfeasible for someone to get into a relationship. But even if what your saying is true how is it not shallow to downsize a person to their genetics for Facial bone structure, height, frame, race because of the egotistical reason that you want to have sex with them?
 
I dont feel the urge - at least not consciously - to treat a good looking person better, why would I? it makes no sense
 
  • +1
Reactions: AlexAP
Most people think good-looking people give them access to connections they could need in the future.

Cus of lookism. People are lookist because it’s advantageous to be lookist because everyone else is lookist. GL people have more connections because lookism favors them. If everyone stopped being lookist, no one would need to be, as gl people wouldn’t have more connections than not-gl people.

We gotta break the cycle like we did with racism. It used to be the case that non-racist White people made rational decisions to avoid interacting with Black people because doing so would ruin it for them socially. Even though they didn’t have racist beliefs, they had to act racistly because it was socially advantageous. By getting rid of racism, avoiding hanging out with members of other races was no longer in one’s best interest.
 
How is it unfair?

Like, in the sense that money shouldn't make you able to buy more things, or in the sense that if your parents are rich, they still shouldn't let you live too comfortably (big house, vacations, etc.)?
no, it isn’t unfair that they can buy more things with their money

People who’re born into affluence shouldn’t exist. People who’re born into poverty shouldn’t exist. We should make it required for everyone to start their life at the exact same position. No headstarts. You can make a shit ton of money if you wanna, but your kids begin their lives at the standardized amount of richness.

Genetic engineering should be used to make everyone be born as a 5/10 normie. People can hard mew and get surgery if they want to gain advantages in their own lives, but all newborn babies must be 5/10 normies.
 
I dont feel the urge - at least not consciously - to treat a good looking person better, why would I? it makes no sense
I guess when you are interested in getting a date or when you see the possibility in the future, you do treat them better.

And the halo effect is strong, it might be unconscious, but it is proven.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 14392
Cus of lookism. People are lookist because it’s advantageous to be lookist because everyone else is lookist. GL people have more connections because lookism favors them. If everyone stopped being lookist, no one would need to be, as gl people wouldn’t have more connections than not-gl people.

We gotta break the cycle like we did with racism. It used to be the case that non-racist White people made rational decisions to avoid interacting with Black people because doing so would ruin it for them socially. Even though they didn’t have racist beliefs, they had to act racistly because it was socially advantageous. By getting rid of racism, avoiding hanging out with members of other races was no longer in one’s best interest.
Racism is bad when it denies rights to people because of their race.

There is no right to be treated with the same kindness as other people. Good-looking people will always have an advantage.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 3270
People who’re born into affluence shouldn’t exist. People who’re born into poverty shouldn’t exist. We should make it required for everyone to start their life at the exact same position. No headstarts. You can make a shit ton of money if you wanna, but your kids begin their lives at the standardized amount of richness.

Genetic engineering should be used to make everyone be born as a 5/10 normie. People can hard mew and get surgery if they want to gain advantages in their own lives, but all newborn babies must be 5/10 normies.
I disagree with that. If I get rich, I want my kids to inherit my wealth. In fact, this would be one of my prior motivations to getting rich, to give them a life with all possibilities in the world.
 
  • +1
Reactions: thecel
It is, BUT WE DONT MAKE THE RULES. YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE SOCIETY AFTER PLEADING COMMON SENSE. IT'S BEEN PROVEN TIME AND TIME AGAIN HISTORICALLY, THAT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE. I'D RATHER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A INTENTIONALLY BROKEN SYSTEM, THAN WASTE OUR PRECIOUS TIME TRYING TO FIX IT OR LOOKING FOR SOME EXCEPTIONS AND FAILING. SMH.

CALLING LOOKISM SHALLOW, IS LIKE PLAYING A VIDEO GAME AND BEING BAD AT IT, AND THEN EMAILING THE DEVS THAT THE GAME SHOULD BE CODED TO BE EASIER. THAT'S NOT HOW REAL LIFE EVER WILL WORK.
 
Last edited:
I disagree with that. If I get rich, I want my kids to inherit my wealth. In fact, this would be one of my prior motivations to getting rich, to give them a life with all possibilities in the world.

Yeah I want my kids to have everything too, but it’s much more ethical to give a rich life to a poor kid in Africa than to the kids of a man in a developed nation. If I become the next Jeff Bezos; my kids won’t get my gazillions, that money will be sent to people who’re born into sub-sea-level circumstances when I’m dead.
 
I guess when you are interested in getting a date or when you see the possibility in the future, you do treat them better.

And the halo effect is strong, it might be unconscious, but it is proven.
In the case Im sexually interested in the person, Ok, but other than that I dont know why I would treat a GL person better than an ugly one
 

Similar threads

chadmanlet04
Blackpill MKUltra blackpill
Replies
36
Views
1K
yayatourer
yayatourer
PROMETHEUS
Replies
72
Views
2K
zerotohero
zerotohero
Thebbcmaxxer
Replies
28
Views
833
chadintraining
chadintraining
thiaminepill
Replies
3
Views
95
mogstars
mogstars

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top