Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmcer | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it's time to shine some light on inequality in the realm of attractiveness???

As kids increasingly interact via social media, being funny, intelligent, or creative is less important than looking good in pictures. I can't imagine how shitty this is for teenagers. We used to lament the "unattainable beauty standards" of magazines and on TV, but this seems even more harmful.

I dunno how you do this though, as even just admitting something like: "I am handicapped in the looks department" is pretty depressing. At the same time it seems messed up that someone who is attractive doesn't just get preferential treatment in their daily interactions, but can now monetize their looks easily via social media (or onlyfans lol).

View on HN

At least in the Western developed world, discrimination against less attractive people is probably the most potent, most prevalent and least acknowledged discrimination in the society.

It is most potent because this happens at almost every human interaction from trivial (getting help at a store from the staff) to important (selecting a husband or a wife).

It is most prevalent because this happens across all races, religions and sexes without any inhibition. Other than the old adage, "don't judge book by its cover." people judge others based on looks all the time and feel justified in doing so. There's not even a word like racism, sexism, anti-X or X-phobia for discrimination against less attractive people.

It is least acknowledged because as you mentioned, there's no one who would like to join the "ugly" identity group. There's no commonly shared root like race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. And identifying oneself as "ugly" probably hurts the person more than it can help.

It is unfortunate that there's no foreseeable solution to this wide spread problem at all, other than voluntary empathy from the society in general. But at the same time, that may be the most important antidote to any discrimination we face rather than top-down rule of law change.

what about discrimination against stupid people? It seems like that would top discrimination for appearance.

Not gonna lie. That hasn't occurred to me, but that is a pretty grave discrimination as well.

It might be even more insidious because there's a strong justification that stupid people are stupid because of their own volition. However, in reality, there's element of intelligence that's purely genetic and there's nothing a person can do.

As with all things in life, a determinist can spin it so it's no fault of the individual. Someone might have little control over their beauty or their intelligence, or even if they are a jerk, or even if they are violent and abusive.

The reason I bring it up is because I think there is an important distinction between a illogical bias and a simple preference.

People are very preoccupied with weeding out bad biases, and often mistake preferences for them. Things are only complicated more when egalitarian ideas get mixed in.

There's nothing inherently wrong about wanting a beautiful life partner or to watch an attractive Entertainer. Those are legitimate preferences. The only problem is when individuals place that as a higher priority than something else that they actually want more.

> what about discrimination against stupid people?

It is also very common, but also very frequently is discrimination that goes to the core of the overt purpose of the decision being made. As discrimination is simply having any factor play into a decision, the usual problem is with (1) decisions whose motivation is to cause harm to a group, or (2) decisions in which factors like membership in a group are weighed that are not germane to the overt non-malicious purpose, which cause an (unwarranted by the purpose) adverse impact on the group.

> At least in the Western developed world, discrimination against less attractive people is probably the most potent, most prevalent and least acknowledged discrimination in the society.

It’s prevalent and potent, but it is extremely widely acknowledged. The degree to which it is seen as problematic is more variable ("discrimination", in and of itself, is simply having a factor influence a decision, and is not universally viewed as problematic.)

> There’s not even a word like racism, sexism, anti-X or X-phobia for discrimination against less attractive people.

Yes, there is, and the word is “lookism”. [0]

> It is least acknowledged because as you mentioned, there’s no one who would like to join the “ugly” identity group.

“Ugly” isn’t an identity group. Discrimination can happen on literally any basis (every basis on which a decision is made is “discrimination”), not only by identity groups.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lookism#:~:text=o....

> "I am handicapped in the looks department" is pretty depressing.

Conversely (and as you hinted at), "I'm only liked for my looks," illustrates the double-bind at play. Yes, it's difficult to shift societal norms but I encourage folks to ask themselves, "Which other norms shifted in the last hundred years?" and how that was accomplished.

Treat the patient not the symptom. Looks>everything else is indicative of a much larger problem that needs addressing.

Thanks goodness for filters, and for the coming metaverse. We'll all be attractive soon!

wouldn't social media be a boon for the funny and creative as well?

No. The average social media consumer isn’t that deep.

Surely, though, the average HN user is the pinnacle of thoughtfulness.

Perhaps the issue is that whatever you're good at, you'll be shown along side the best of the best. Your friend's joke is funny when you hear it at a party. But is it as funny on Twitter, where it's shown alongside jokes from professional comedians?

Not to mention that the audience is very different between friends at a party and on Twitter. Twitter, and social media, is far more reaching and lots of context and intent may be lost as we cross many different cultural lines and play the game of telephone. Your friends are far more likely to be good faith actors, but even there we can see how a singular bad actor can quickly ruin a situation. I'd argue that there's parallels to not just jokes but any types of communication (science, tech, political, etc) and attraction. (Though people are also able to successfully carve out bubbles and find a very specific audience but at the same time very large. Both can be true. Sometimes the hate can amplify these bubbles. Not so simple)

Absolutely has been. Loads of YouTube channels where the creator has a thick accent, looks unremarkable but builds an audience through persistence and/or passion.

There are comedic social media creators that look plain but build a style and crowd as a result.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com