Why am I so triggered by the privilege "good looking"

>>17771322
Because you're ugly?

>>17771322
i always feel great when someone is like "but why is HE so special?"

im like, cause you're a fucking uggo you fucking uggo

if this is true then i am a beautiful person. ive had chicks not call me hot, but gorgeous. damn son i must have some privilege. can i use it in ways never thought of?

>>17771322
Because you're an immature, possibly underage virgin and want to get laid. Most likely.

Most people think they're attractive or normal so it doesn't bother them, but in reality most people except for like 10% of youth (less if you include old people) are sexually ugly. I think this would bother anyone in this vain society.

>>17771322
>triggered
>privilege
Kys or go back to tumblr

>>17771523
I find most people itt are disrespectful towards me for disgusting reasons. THAT triggers me. I am not from tumblr, I heard that stuff here because everyone ALREADY knows they're wrong/ But nobody knows about "beauty privilege" which is the recent phenomena of WORSHIPPING people who are "good looking" (celebrities, peers, anyone). I did research and this thinking is definitely new, nonexistent 100 years ago.

I'm not saying this because i'm immature or wish I was young and attractive. I see people treating some extremely well and others extremely poorly because they're physically attractive or physically repulsive. It's materialism / Marxism and there's a social class of people who are treated far better for being young and having nice eyes or something superficial and petty e.g. literally ANYONE in the whole world who is "popular" w/o having "done" anything else to earn it.

>>17771537
>"beauty privilege" which is the recent phenomena
Where the fuck did you get this retarded idea? Pretty people always got treated better and ugly ones were always disliked.

>I did research
Clearly not well enough. Also when it comes to celebrities, it's not just look but also related to their on-screen persona. Besides, tons of weird looking people get positive attention too these days, THIS is unique. Look at Benedict Cumberbatch or even Donald.

>there's a social class of people who are treated far better
Nigga, you have no idea what "social class" means.

The whole bitching doesn't even make any sense, it's given that people who are nice to look at will get more positive attention just like it's given that smarter people will be much more successful.

>>17771559
you're out of touch with reality if you don't see the huge difference, probably learned to ignore it after seeing several daily examples of it.

I could give you an example but don't feel like arguing about it. I just think you are preprogrammed to disagree since your language is so harsh.

Like most people, you notice the pettiness of this bias w/o admitting it is prominent now more than ever in history. It's like you subconsciously accept this is true, which you have, and yet you avoid getting into just how prominent it is becoming.

>>17771570
>I think that A means B
>you're pre-programmed to disagree with my genius idea so I won't provide proof
Lovely.

>prominent now more than ever in history
Let's look at the most recent example ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law (t.bh, they should re-introduce it for fatties in some form)

How about something from ancient fucking Greece?
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phryne
They had an entire concept about beauty equaling goodness. (Kaloi k'agathoi)

Or like, read any fairy tale. More often than not, the villain is ugly while the hero is good looking.

>>17771537
I don't care whether you are young/old attractive/not, just kys because you are a whining fuck blaming your issues on others.

>>17771605
God bless you in return, anon. I'm not phased by this or whining, from the beginning I said I'm triggered by what seems like unfair treatment. You're just being obnoxious and i'm not even brooding over what you're doing, but you're extremely aggressive over my whining.

>>17771603
I didn't want to give examples to avoid a war but here is one cunter-argument: only 10 years ago in the 2000's girls wore leggings under dresses, this was normal for decades. Now it's very weird to wear anything over skintight leggings. Obviously within the RECENT time (only under 10 years) they see subconsciously how valuable their material appearance is so they desperately try to look better, before it didn't matter much.

Of course villains were ugly, but what's more amazing is NOW the villains are VERY good looking (E.G. Loki in the Avengers movie... all actors must be good looking, even the villains.) (E.G. all anime and cartoon characters are getting sexual upgrades, even the villains who were once "ugly"). Pretty much all media is getting an aesthetic upgrade, becoming as close to a "beauty standard" as possible because people NOTICE THE IMPORTANCE AND VALUE PUT ON MATERIALISM

>>17771559

>Where the fuck did you get this retarded idea? Pretty people always got treated better and ugly ones were always disliked.

The standard for what "pretty" is not a static benchmark. Beauty standards morph and change all the time. Think bigger than just the current U.S. standard.

Americans are far weirder about beauty standards than the rest of the world because the entire culture eats terrible, sugary shit, sits on their asses, but then degrades people for not being fit and tone. They raise children in school systems that contract their food programs out to shitty junk food companies, classify ketchup as a vegetable then someone expect these kids to grow up knowing how to take care of their bodies. It doesnt make sense.

>>17771322
You would think that that is a thing. But it is impossible to tell an individual and their experiences based on this.

Ive consistently been told I'm better looking than average that I dress nice and that I look 'too confident to approach'. Yet I have diagnosed depression no close friends (maybe one) haven't had a single successfull long term relationship (and only 2 short term ones) and I'm about to be unemployed and have never even made the average wage of my country.
Mind telling me where my privelage is? Beacuse I can't fucking see it. All I see is people like you complaining about something that to my experience doesn't exist.
Think about all of the exceptions rather than everything that fits with your bullshit perspective and you might see a whole world of people who Occupy your so called 'privelage' that are suffering the same way as every other human regardless of race, gender or looks.

>>17771624
>only 10 years ago in the 2000's girls wore leggings under dresses, this was normal for decades. Now it's very weird to wear anything over skintight leggings. Obviously within the RECENT time (only under 10 years) they see subconsciously how valuable their material appearance is so they desperately try to look better, before it didn't matter much.
Oh dear.
Fashion changed.
In early 2000 Britney Spears was dancing in a sexy schoolgirl outfit on MTV and Shakira was dancing half naked.
It was super normal to wear skin tight, low cut jeans and crop tops. In 2006 I was 13 and I cried to my mom because I wanted to get my belly button pierced and wear a crop top to show it off.
Since the 70s women were more and more sexy outfits because it was okay to dress sexy in public. I even think women now dress more chaste than 10 years ago.

>>17771624
>triggered by what seems like unfair treatment

Wah wah. That is whining. "Unfair treatment". If course better looking people get treated better, same as nice people get treated better than assholes, rich people treated better than poor etc.

>>17771624
>only 10 years ago in the 2000's girls wore leggings under dresses, this was normal for decades. Now it's very weird to wear anything over skintight leggings.
Fashion changed all the fucking time (which is like the entire point about it) Look at some basic outfits from the 70s and 80s that make girls in skintight leggings look like nuns.

>so they desperately try to look better, before it didn't matter much.
This is just facepalming and ignores entire human history. People always tried to look as good as possible. Only what was considered "good looking" varied.

>Of course villains were ugly,
The reason they were ugly because people equaled being ugly with bad personality, punishment from the gods or illness. It's very important. Ugly people never had it as easy as they have it this days with all the bullshit pushing that everybody is beautiful.

>NOW the villains are VERY good looking
Which means we moved from the "ugly = bad person and pretty = good person" mindstate. It's something to celebrate for the uggos.

>all actors must be good looking
Donald Trump, Benedict Cumberbatch, that Kalicius guy from Dr Strange, Johnny Depp in Black Mass, Samuel L. Jackson (and almost every character in Hateful Eight) also my favorite example, Steve Buscemi although let's skip him due the "last 10 years" shit. There are more ugly people on screen than ever these days. Your perception is so painfully out of touch from reality, a-are you trolling?

>>17771636
>The standard for what "pretty" is not a static benchmark.
Nor was it ever implied. Main point was that people who were considered pretty by contemporary standard were always treated better. Which makes perfect sense too.

>>17771665

>Main point was that people who were considered pretty by contemporary standard were always treated better.

Ok. It just kind of seems like a moot point.

>>17771671
> It just kind of seems like a moot point.
Are you sure about that? Check the rest of the thread...

>>17771653
You're wrong. you ignore the minor example I gave, you would ignore any other example even if it is right in front of you. You're unable to say "maybe" or "I don't know" but quickly give a "YES" or "NO" like 99% of people, it's ignorant.

>>17771657
You insult me, tell me "KYS" and other things over the slightly agitating things that I do ("whining" and "bitching"). I'm not an SJW, I'm against them and you have a right to say what you want, but even if I am wrong and you're right you're pretty much killing someone who thinks differently - Another factor of materialism: people are valuing
>muh science / acamdemia / intelligence / debate skills
more than kindness which is exceedingly rare. You don't agree b/c you don't get it, yet you say "NUH UH, it doesn't exist you're just making it all up" like you have the facts

>>17771674

Yeah I'm sure.

People are treated better than others for all kinds of reasons. It has always been people's responsibility to find what it is that sets them apart from the rest and embrace it.

Good looking people use their looks to gain favor. Creative types use music or art. Athletic types use sports or physical activity. Intellectuals use math and science.

Acknowledging that people with a particular asset get treated better than people without that asset, in context, is a self explaining concept. Things like this even happen in the animal kingdom; birds with the biggest wing span and color arrangement getting favor in mating.

Find your strong suit and run with it. It is what it is.

>>17771683
>Good looking people use their looks to gain favor. Creative types use music or art. Athletic types use sports or physical activity. Intellectuals use math and science.
you mix them like they're equal, being good looking is FAR more valuable than any of those other things - so much so that is itself is an advantage in each of those niches.

>Find your strong suit and run with it. It is what it is.
Your philosophy is your opinion, like everything you say.

>>17771322
>Why am I so triggered by the privilege "good looking" people have?

probably because you're jealous. honestly though, being average looking but having charm is fine. i know good looking people who are 22 year old virgins because they are socially awkward. being good looking definitely gives people an advantage but it isnt everything.

>>17771679
I am not wrong, your example about fashion was silly. Leggings were common in the 80s - for example in the last scene of Grease, Olivia Newton John walks down in skin-tight leather pants, heels and a crop top. I wouldn't dress like that to stay at home.

I think since the beginning of history some people were treated better than others for superficial reasons - their beauty, their power, their money. Right now it isn't worse or better than ever, it is just perhaps more visible because we have social media.
And since the beginning of history people have tried to look better in order to get better possibilities.

Your idea that it is recent, or unfair is silly.

>>17771537
>I did research and this thinking is definitely new, nonexistent 100 years ago.

that is because of the media, people have a bigger platform now to get famous. go back to the ancient greek times and they definitely worshiped their perspective of beauty. its predominately teens that do it now anyway.

>>17771537
>I did research and this thinking is definitely new, nonexistent 100 years ago.
Doesn't seem to be fucking true. You literally had stories about people so beautiful they could do whatever the fuck they wanted from fucking BC.

>>17771692
Agree with this. Look at literally every statue from ancient Rome that still exists and tell me they don't idealise male beauty.

>>17771679
>you ignore the minor example I gave
The fashion one is simply incorrect, the Loki one goes against your own point.

>You're unable to say "maybe" or "I don't know"
Because 2+2 isn't "maybe" 4. You've come to an incorrect conclusion, nothing more, nothing less.

>like you have the facts
You got provided with facts, if you disregard them because they confirm that your worldview is deluded, it's your thing.

>>17771689
>Right now it isn't worse or better than ever
It actually is better. It's not considered okay to insult somebody because of their looks these days and ugly people usually don't get banished either anymore. Besides, people mostly stopped believing that just because somebody ugly, they're a bad person.

>>17771708
You're wrong.

The error is so much that I see it is pointless to argue with people. It's like someone on the street telling me "I just gave you facts *Wikipedia article* and you're deluded if you disagree"

Put simply, your posts contain assumptions.

>>17771679
>You insult me, tell me "KYS" and other things over the slightly agitating things that I do ("whining" and "bitching"). I'm not an SJW, I'm against them and you have a right to say what you want, but even if I am wrong and you're right you're pretty much killing someone who thinks differently

Nothing to do with thinking differently, everything to do with how you whine about it rather than improve yourself in other ways. Do you think complaining on fucking 4chan is going to change the entire worlds treatment of ugly people? Also here is a protip: saying "triggered" and complaining about better looking people getting treated favourably makes you look like an sjw, or if a guy, an /r9k/ eacapee.

Because you are ugly AND autistic

>>17771714
>I see it is pointless to argue with people.
Given your position, that's a good start. It'd be even better to educate yourself but ah well, gotta start somewhere.

>your posts contain assumptions
You mean facts backed by thousands of years of human civilisation starting with the Greeks? Or referring to a rather recent law, that encouraged and legalized discrimination against ugly people?

If wiki triggers you too, try: https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/368298

>>17771737
That's fair
>>17771739
That's also fair

I guess I'm just an idiot who had a thought no one else can relate with. /thread

>>17771744
>I guess I'm just an idiot
No, you just need to realise that complaining like that never makes something better, and there is.no.such thing as "fair", you have to do what you can with the hand you were dealt.

Maybe ugly people should just try harder. Work out and eat right and you'll never be below a 5/10.