Not everyone is beautiful

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

Thread summarized.   

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

People are great for a lot of things other than decoration, agree.

People in general and women especially get fucked over on the basis of appearance, agree.

What can we do about this? I have no fucking clue.

Sorry, that's all I have. 

[Placid Dingo]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

No, no.

I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it.  His testicles are at stake here, Nigel. 

Dingo isn't a stupid guy.  He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said.  But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.

I wish people would assume I'm a bit more stupid because everytime I'm accused of missing v the point I'm told I'm doing it intentionally.

I felt like the posters were being accused of arguing just because an assertion was available for them to beat their heads against our just because Nigel is a woman which seemed unfair, although Nigel's point about understanding what youre arguing against first is legit.

It's interesting how the idea that "you are beautiful no matter what" actually reinforces the standard of beauty. Kind of like how films like Zoolander challenging conventions of masculinity end up reinforcing them. Our how Shrek is just another standard fairy tale.

[Placid Dingo]

See, here's the thing:  Nigel made a strong statement in the OP.  Strong statements (especially from women, lol) are a challenge.  So everyone must argue for the sake of arguing, so their testicles don't shrivel up.  And since there really isn't any argument to be given in response to the OP¹, then an argument must be GENERATED by fucking with the definitions of words, nitpicking pronoun use, etc.

Why?  Because people are dumb fucking primates, following their dumb primate wiring, and thinking that THEY are actually the smart monkey in a cage full of lobotomized chimpanzees.





¹ Unless you're a page 6 junkie, or one of those people who has their butt surgically altered to look like J-Lo, or a moron who thinks that anything less than perfection = hag.

So what, next strong statement should be agreed with unconditionally?

I'd recommend getting a handle on what you're disagreeing or agreeing with first, personally.

No, no.

I made a strong statement about strong statements, so Dingo HAD to challenge it.  His testicles are at stake here, Nigel. 

Dingo isn't a stupid guy.  He knew precisely what I meant, which is kind of what you just said.  But he still has to challenge it, or risk his standing in the pack.

I'm not entirely convinced that he even read what you wrote, because his reply was a total non-sequitur.

If there isn't an argument, generate one.  Any amount of gymnastics is permitted.  I mean, required.

Maybe he was being ironic and I missed it.

I probably just misread the way  things were panning out. Early v morning posting. Excuse me.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

When I started this thread, I was all, "Yeah right on! Unevolved fucks should wise up and quit judging people by what their face looks like!"

Then three hours later I was talking to my wife about this hideous troll who works where I work and how useless she is. Mind you, she really is useless at work, and she fumbles things a lot, but I was talking like this behavior somehow defines who she is. And what would you know but from the way I was describing her, you'd get the impression that her face caused her to be unable to do her job. I was in the middle of a sentence that started with "She's so ugly that..." when it hit me that I am in fact a hypocritical douchebag. So from that point on I have been lurking and reading, hoping to learn something.

I'd like to go from Dingo to Mr Green by bedtime.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not exempt from that kind of thinking. I doubt any of us are, because we are products of our society, and that's a deeply ingrained social value. Fortunately, society IS interactive and constantly evolving, which means we can change it. Maybe. 

The great thing is that you recognized it in action, in yourself.

That's what I like about Discordia, and about this place... things that used to be reflex, I think about. I feel like I have more choices in my own behavior, because spags here opened my eyes to different options.

Spag on, my spags!

[Dildo Argentino]

I think finding a person beautiful is influenced by two levels.

There is a deeper set of biological, evolved factors, to do with attraction (sexual or otherwise).

There is relatively little variation at that level except for the ubiquitous auto-bias (by and large, we tend to find people who are similar to us attractive) and climatic variation (different features are advantageous for breeding in hot and cold, wet and dry climates).

Then, superimposed over it, there is a cultural construct that, ever since the dawn of cultural proliferation, has exhibited and still exhibits amazing variation.

These two levels can be triggered in concert, and there is LURVE - but they can also contradict each other: it is quite possible to find someone ugly and attractive, and it also quite possible to find someone beautiful and unattractive

What I wish to note is that while there are outliers at both extremes (the 'beautiful people' of the media circus at one end, people with various hereditary or accidentally or even wilfully acquired disfigurations at the other), the majority of people are born and reach adulthood with "givens" (skeletal structure, skin texture and tone, musculature, hair pattern) that are neither here or there: they can be quite beautiful or quite ugly, it's up to them.

The insanity of the prevailing dominant cultural constructs of beauty (and everything else) has been discussed, in fact it's been flogged to death, as dwelling on it seems a large part of some people's Discordia, so I don't wish to add anything there.

But us humans are capable of becoming aware of and then, in a tortuous process, actually improving our cultural constructs (i think in this neighbourhood this is called getting up on hind legs).

I believe that a sane cultural construct of beauty is one that picks out accomplished, cultivated human beings - bipeds, as they are often called here. Most of this kind of beauty is in the face, a large part of it in and around the eyes (think of all the chicks with hot bods and dead eyes - complete turn-off), and also in gait, motion and voice (again, the self-conscious, egotistic movements and retarded tones that come out of some bods with super chassis are quite depressing).

As (I think) Goethe once said, over the age of thirty, one is responsible for one's own face.

So, in that sense, yes, not all of us are beautiful, but we all have the potential to be beautiful. It's hard work. (But someone's gotta do it.  )

[Dildo Argentino]

And of course, in that sense,beauty is quite important. And should be distinguished from "conformity of one's physical configuration to some crazy dominant cultural norm".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?

Go.

[Dildo Argentino]

Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.

I just wished to respond to the OP, is that not allowed? Sorry.

[Dildo Argentino]

I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?

Go.

Not possible. I've seen a total of two photos of him, never met him, never saw him talk. I did ask for the videos, but my request was disregarded.

Demand away, though, it does become you, Nigel! 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.

I just wished to respond to the OP, is that not allowed? Sorry.

[/pledge]
You should probably respond to the point the OP was making then, instead of the one which has been pointed out, explicitly, numerous times, as NOT being the point of the OP.
[pledge]

[Freeky]

I will ask all of you a single question, and I demand that you defend your answer; Is Roger beautiful?

Go.

Yes.  I find him very beautiful, aesthetically speaking.

Waffle iron is beautiful.

All the ladies is hottie pance.

I could go on. On and on and on. I spags here exceedingly beautiful.

This thread.  I find myself becoming more hostile the more I read it, because I'm not sure if we're taking into account what the viewer thinks is beautiful, or what is going on. OP states that fat people are ugly.  They are maybe to you. I'm not about to say that there aren't ugly people, because there are.

I will fully admit to missing the point entirely if I have, but hey, FUCK YOU, because I qualify as ugly, and struggle daily to see myself otherwise, which is probably a point you were trying to bring up, but unless you have some sort of whatever I don't even know what the fuck, just fuck right the hell off.

[Dildo Argentino]

Way to not read the thread and epically miss the point, resident Holist.

I just wished to respond to the OP, is that not allowed? Sorry.

[/pledge]
You should probably respond to the point the OP was making then, instead of the one which has been pointed out, explicitly, numerous times, as NOT being the point of the OP.
[pledge]

Okay, read the whole thread.

So I take it this is the point: "It's OK to not be beautiful, and it does us all a disservice to use platitudes that indicate otherwise." (wherein the value of beautiful = the prevailing dominant social construct of what a beautiful person is).

I think that is entirely true and completely trivial.

What I was suggesting was that for another value of beautiful (which I actually think is the right one), the statement goes: (Over a certain age) it is still possible - in fact, totally widespread - but not OK not to be beautiful, but being beautiful has little to do with physical body config.

Nigel did say she was interested in where this would go...
but I should probably have posted in the other thread, the definition of beauty one. How can this be fixed?