A reminder to everyone: if you are here, you are probably worthless. You are a subhuman. You might as well not exist.
If you could quantify genetic privilege -- which, you can't, really -- here's what the box-and-whiskers plot would roughly like.
Say you were hit and killed by a drunk driver or slain by a serial killer, how much press coverage do you think you'd get? Certainly far less than if you were a femoid.
Looking at criminal cases where femoid victims later became political footballs used by right-wing politicians seeking to propound tough-on-crime legislation, you'll notice that those femoid victims fit a certain mould. They tend to be attractive, upper-middle-class young white women -- like Kate Steinle and Trisha Meili. That's because this complex hierarchy of privilege cuts across gendered lines as well. Race (and social class to a smaller extent) are inextricably tied to conventional standards of attractiveness.
Discrimination against subhumans is, given how pervasive and self-evident it is, is frequently denied by normies. Perhaps that's because lookism is often rooted in subconscious bias as opposed to active prejudice. As far as our monkey brains are concerned, "beautiful = good". The corollary is also true: "ugly = bad". If you are beautiful, you are deemed virtuous and competent. You are "confident" and "assertive" if you are a Chad or Stacy, but those same behavioural characteristics are interpreted as being "insecure", "pushy", or "bitchy" if you are less genetically privileged. There's a reason why, in the United States (where the archaic custom of tipping is still widely practised), attractive (esp blonde) femoids earn more tips.
But far, far more importantly, we extend "beautiful = good" to "beautiful = innocent"; and "ugly = bad" to "ugly = evil". This has numerous consequences for law and politics. Given that soyciety also makes the association "light-skinned = beautiful", it's easy to see how racism seeps into various aspects of criminal justice, particularly in the sentencing phase. If we subconsciously associate unattractiveness with evil, we're less inclined to give an unattractive defendant a more lenient sentence and more likely to take a dim view of his rehabilitative prospects.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine how easy life must be if you were born into that demographic I mentioned earlier -- being an upper-middle-class white femoid. Not only are you constantly validated by your peers, but you're also constantly given the benefit of the doubt by authority figures, whether it's a teacher who is more attentive towards you, or a border control officer who pretty much waves you through customs. Anyone who denies lookism and racism clearly hasn't experienced post-9/11 air travel as an ugly ethnic male.
At this point, I'm convinced that it would be unethical for me to ever reproduce...not that I have the ability to. I simply can't subject another human to a life like mine.
If you could quantify genetic privilege -- which, you can't, really -- here's what the box-and-whiskers plot would roughly like.
Say you were hit and killed by a drunk driver or slain by a serial killer, how much press coverage do you think you'd get? Certainly far less than if you were a femoid.
Looking at criminal cases where femoid victims later became political footballs used by right-wing politicians seeking to propound tough-on-crime legislation, you'll notice that those femoid victims fit a certain mould. They tend to be attractive, upper-middle-class young white women -- like Kate Steinle and Trisha Meili. That's because this complex hierarchy of privilege cuts across gendered lines as well. Race (and social class to a smaller extent) are inextricably tied to conventional standards of attractiveness.
Discrimination against subhumans is, given how pervasive and self-evident it is, is frequently denied by normies. Perhaps that's because lookism is often rooted in subconscious bias as opposed to active prejudice. As far as our monkey brains are concerned, "beautiful = good". The corollary is also true: "ugly = bad". If you are beautiful, you are deemed virtuous and competent. You are "confident" and "assertive" if you are a Chad or Stacy, but those same behavioural characteristics are interpreted as being "insecure", "pushy", or "bitchy" if you are less genetically privileged. There's a reason why, in the United States (where the archaic custom of tipping is still widely practised), attractive (esp blonde) femoids earn more tips.
But far, far more importantly, we extend "beautiful = good" to "beautiful = innocent"; and "ugly = bad" to "ugly = evil". This has numerous consequences for law and politics. Given that soyciety also makes the association "light-skinned = beautiful", it's easy to see how racism seeps into various aspects of criminal justice, particularly in the sentencing phase. If we subconsciously associate unattractiveness with evil, we're less inclined to give an unattractive defendant a more lenient sentence and more likely to take a dim view of his rehabilitative prospects.
Quite frankly, I can't imagine how easy life must be if you were born into that demographic I mentioned earlier -- being an upper-middle-class white femoid. Not only are you constantly validated by your peers, but you're also constantly given the benefit of the doubt by authority figures, whether it's a teacher who is more attentive towards you, or a border control officer who pretty much waves you through customs. Anyone who denies lookism and racism clearly hasn't experienced post-9/11 air travel as an ugly ethnic male.
At this point, I'm convinced that it would be unethical for me to ever reproduce...not that I have the ability to. I simply can't subject another human to a life like mine.
Last edited:
thread categorisation instead.
