TLDR: When I tried pestering federal legislative offices about lookism, they all treated me like a joke. So, I tried state legislators instead. I actually made some headway last session; I'm not going to dox myself as to where or how exactly, but I did get an office to draft the proposal. I also managed to speak to a different state legislator directly, whereas with the federal offices I couldn't even get a chief of staff on the line.
To incels who say that lookism legislation is impossible because the government hates men and wants to enrich women because of female consumerism etc.: even if you're structurally correct, lookism legislation already exists in some US municipalities as well as several foreign countries. Just because the US is more superficial than most countries due to Hollywood/elites/etc, it doesn't mean lookism legislation is impossible and it doesn't mean it would be ineffective either. They want you to have the Uncle Tom crabs-in-a-bucket mentality towards your fellow incels. Also even if it disproportionately benefited women, it would still take away advantages from Chads and Stacys who are still the primary beneficiaries of society rather than ugly women. I fully admit that ugly women have it easier than ugly men, but it's a strawman to say this invalidates lookism legislation.
Depending on the state, some state legislators won't even have staff unless they're in session whereas some will have a small number of full-time staff with seasonal employees for session. Generally the structure is to have a chief of staff at the top, possibly a general counsel and/or a legislative director in between, and at the bottom of the hierarchy you have the policy analysts. The chief of staff will usually meet with you but they will not let you waste their time beyond a half hour meeting. I would still recommend meeting with the chief of staff if they offer it, but your real leverage lies with the policy analysts. There are several reasons for this but I would say the main one is that policy analysts have to answer the phone. They don't have nearly as much leverage to mistreat someone who is politely pressing an ideology that is not in line with the status quo. The policy analysts are the people who have to talk down the true tinfoil crazies, so as long as you are reasonably coherent, you have a lot of leverage to expend time.
Usually this is what you want to do to maximize time expended for state legislative offices:
1. You draft a lookism legislation proposal with GPT. Overall, tackling employment law seems to be the easiest, because workplace lookism is often explicit and can be recorded in one-party consent states. I've gotten a good looking popular bully fired for lookism before under existing laws, so don't gaslight me about how this isn't feasible. You should make sure this proposal isn't complete gpt fluff, but it doesn't have to be a work of art, plus most of the policy analysts have very limited legal knowledge. You don't want this initial proposal to be too legally detailed anyway, because you’d be giving them leverage to pick apart where their monkey brains want to shit on your proposal. Your goal is not to change human nature but rather to expend the legislative offices’ time, and sending a hyper-detailed proposal in writing gives them leverage to say they've given the proposal overall a good faith review and to refuse a meeting.
2. You call a state legislator's office and speak to a policy analyst and ask where the best place to send your proposal is. On this call in particular, you keep things brief. If the policy analyst wants to be lazy and wants you to give the proposal over the phone, only do it if you are very confident you can do it in a neurotypical way, and even still I would caution against it. My most effective deflection tactic was just to say that I couldn't do the proposal justice in a short summary. Realistically you want to save conversation for once they've already read through the initial proposal, especially since you can take advantage of the sunk cost fallacy. Don't underestimate the sunk cost fallacy here given how frequently true tinfoil crazies are calling legislative offices; if you are polite and not overtly incel-coded, most policy analysts would rather fill up their mandatory meetings stuff like this rather than meeting with some crazy homeless person speaking gibberish for the allotted time slot.
3. Once you've got the right email address, send the proposal and then give the office a couple of days to review it. If you don't hear anything back, give them a call to make sure that they got it. A lot of state legislative emails will automatically send emails to spam unless it's an internal email. There were a lot of instances during last session where I thought I was just getting ignored but it turned out the email went to spam. The office that drafted my proposal had this happen twice before I penetrated the bureaucracy
.
4. Once the basic proposal has been reviewed, call the legislative office again and request a meeting with the most powerful staff member, which is generally going to be the chief of staff (but in earnest a general counsel is probably more likely to be respected by the legislators because of the law degree). Inb4 water but do not just request to meet with “the chief of staff” or “the general counsel.” Find out this employee's name and when you get a policy analyst on the line after calling the office immediately ask “is X available?” That way it sounds like you already have business with them and makes you sound less like a tinfoil crazy. Usually the policy analysts will try to shake you anyway, but after some practice it's pretty easy to see when they are ordered to stonewall vs. simply encouraged to do so. Sometimes the policy analyst will not allow you to meet with the chief of staff but they will give you a 15 to 30 minute meeting themselves; if that's the case then you should take the meeting, because policy analysts do have the authority to refuse to meet with you. It doesn't necessarily mean they like your proposal, but if they read it and they offer to meet with you, that's a sign that they don't consider you to be a tinfoil crazy. If you meet with a policy analyst, realistically your proposal is going to get to the chief of staff but probably not to the legislator. If you meet with a chief of staff, it's no guarantee that your proposal will be reviewed by the legislator but insofar as the prime directive of this experiment is concerned it is still a win (expending the most valuable time you can in the state legislators’ offices).
5. Assuming the person you met with says they'll take it to the legislator, call in about a week to check up on it. There are several reasons. The first is that the drafting process often can stagnate, so following up ensures the policy analysts are giving at least a small amount of time to your proposal (assuming they have already shown at least mild interest). The second reason is just pure virality. Following up with people about the topic of lookism obviously isn't going to change that they are monkeys who want to play with pretty monkeys’ fluids. But, it will show them that lookism can be a nuisance as opposed to a harmless McLovin-tier joke.
To incels who say that lookism legislation is impossible because the government hates men and wants to enrich women because of female consumerism etc.: even if you're structurally correct, lookism legislation already exists in some US municipalities as well as several foreign countries. Just because the US is more superficial than most countries due to Hollywood/elites/etc, it doesn't mean lookism legislation is impossible and it doesn't mean it would be ineffective either. They want you to have the Uncle Tom crabs-in-a-bucket mentality towards your fellow incels. Also even if it disproportionately benefited women, it would still take away advantages from Chads and Stacys who are still the primary beneficiaries of society rather than ugly women. I fully admit that ugly women have it easier than ugly men, but it's a strawman to say this invalidates lookism legislation.
Depending on the state, some state legislators won't even have staff unless they're in session whereas some will have a small number of full-time staff with seasonal employees for session. Generally the structure is to have a chief of staff at the top, possibly a general counsel and/or a legislative director in between, and at the bottom of the hierarchy you have the policy analysts. The chief of staff will usually meet with you but they will not let you waste their time beyond a half hour meeting. I would still recommend meeting with the chief of staff if they offer it, but your real leverage lies with the policy analysts. There are several reasons for this but I would say the main one is that policy analysts have to answer the phone. They don't have nearly as much leverage to mistreat someone who is politely pressing an ideology that is not in line with the status quo. The policy analysts are the people who have to talk down the true tinfoil crazies, so as long as you are reasonably coherent, you have a lot of leverage to expend time.
Usually this is what you want to do to maximize time expended for state legislative offices:
1. You draft a lookism legislation proposal with GPT. Overall, tackling employment law seems to be the easiest, because workplace lookism is often explicit and can be recorded in one-party consent states. I've gotten a good looking popular bully fired for lookism before under existing laws, so don't gaslight me about how this isn't feasible. You should make sure this proposal isn't complete gpt fluff, but it doesn't have to be a work of art, plus most of the policy analysts have very limited legal knowledge. You don't want this initial proposal to be too legally detailed anyway, because you’d be giving them leverage to pick apart where their monkey brains want to shit on your proposal. Your goal is not to change human nature but rather to expend the legislative offices’ time, and sending a hyper-detailed proposal in writing gives them leverage to say they've given the proposal overall a good faith review and to refuse a meeting.
2. You call a state legislator's office and speak to a policy analyst and ask where the best place to send your proposal is. On this call in particular, you keep things brief. If the policy analyst wants to be lazy and wants you to give the proposal over the phone, only do it if you are very confident you can do it in a neurotypical way, and even still I would caution against it. My most effective deflection tactic was just to say that I couldn't do the proposal justice in a short summary. Realistically you want to save conversation for once they've already read through the initial proposal, especially since you can take advantage of the sunk cost fallacy. Don't underestimate the sunk cost fallacy here given how frequently true tinfoil crazies are calling legislative offices; if you are polite and not overtly incel-coded, most policy analysts would rather fill up their mandatory meetings stuff like this rather than meeting with some crazy homeless person speaking gibberish for the allotted time slot.
3. Once you've got the right email address, send the proposal and then give the office a couple of days to review it. If you don't hear anything back, give them a call to make sure that they got it. A lot of state legislative emails will automatically send emails to spam unless it's an internal email. There were a lot of instances during last session where I thought I was just getting ignored but it turned out the email went to spam. The office that drafted my proposal had this happen twice before I penetrated the bureaucracy
.4. Once the basic proposal has been reviewed, call the legislative office again and request a meeting with the most powerful staff member, which is generally going to be the chief of staff (but in earnest a general counsel is probably more likely to be respected by the legislators because of the law degree). Inb4 water but do not just request to meet with “the chief of staff” or “the general counsel.” Find out this employee's name and when you get a policy analyst on the line after calling the office immediately ask “is X available?” That way it sounds like you already have business with them and makes you sound less like a tinfoil crazy. Usually the policy analysts will try to shake you anyway, but after some practice it's pretty easy to see when they are ordered to stonewall vs. simply encouraged to do so. Sometimes the policy analyst will not allow you to meet with the chief of staff but they will give you a 15 to 30 minute meeting themselves; if that's the case then you should take the meeting, because policy analysts do have the authority to refuse to meet with you. It doesn't necessarily mean they like your proposal, but if they read it and they offer to meet with you, that's a sign that they don't consider you to be a tinfoil crazy. If you meet with a policy analyst, realistically your proposal is going to get to the chief of staff but probably not to the legislator. If you meet with a chief of staff, it's no guarantee that your proposal will be reviewed by the legislator but insofar as the prime directive of this experiment is concerned it is still a win (expending the most valuable time you can in the state legislators’ offices).
5. Assuming the person you met with says they'll take it to the legislator, call in about a week to check up on it. There are several reasons. The first is that the drafting process often can stagnate, so following up ensures the policy analysts are giving at least a small amount of time to your proposal (assuming they have already shown at least mild interest). The second reason is just pure virality. Following up with people about the topic of lookism obviously isn't going to change that they are monkeys who want to play with pretty monkeys’ fluids. But, it will show them that lookism can be a nuisance as opposed to a harmless McLovin-tier joke.
