Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Well-known, establishment columnist at The New York Times asks "Why is it OK to be mean to the ugly?" and blackpills abound!

4mags1

4mags1

Greycel
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Posts
97



View: https://imgur.com/E6fDTgz


David Brooks: Why is it OK to be mean to ugly people?​

Social media, the meritocracy and celebrity culture have fused to form a modern culture that is almost pagan in its values.​


A manager sits behind a table and decides he’s going to fire a woman because he doesn’t like her skin. If he fires her because her skin is brown, we call that racism and there is legal recourse. If he fires her because her skin is female, we call that sexism and there is legal recourse. If he fires her because her skin is pockmarked and he finds her unattractive, well, we don’t talk about that much and, in most places in America, there is no legal recourse.

This is puzzling. We live in a society that abhors discrimination on the basis of many traits. And yet one of the major forms of discrimination is lookism, prejudice against the unattractive. And this gets almost no attention and sparks little outrage. Why?

Lookism starts, like every form of bigotry, with prejudice and stereotypes.

Studies show that most people consider an “attractive” face to have clean, symmetrical features. We find it easier to recognize and categorize these prototypical faces than we do irregular and “unattractive” ones. So we find it easier — from a brain processing perspective — to look at attractive people.

Attractive people thus start off with a slight physical advantage. But then people project all sorts of widely unrelated stereotypes onto them. In survey after survey, beautiful people are described as trustworthy, competent, friendly, likable and intelligent, while ugly people get the opposite labels. This is a version of the halo effect.


Not all the time, but often, the attractive get the first-class treatment. Research suggests they are more likely to be offered job interviews, more likely to be hired when interviewed and more likely to be promoted than less attractive individuals. They are more likely to receive loans and more likely to receive lower interest rates on those loans.

The discriminatory effects of lookism are pervasive. Attractive economists are more likely to study at high-ranked graduate programs and their papers are cited more often than papers from their less attractive peers. One study found that when unattractive criminals committed a moderate misdemeanor, their fines were about four times as large as those of attractive criminals.

Daniel Hamermesh, a leading scholar in this field, observed that an American worker who is among the bottom one-seventh in looks earns about 10% to 15% less a year than one in the top third. An unattractive person misses out on nearly a quarter-million dollars in earnings over a lifetime.

The overall effect of these biases is vast. One 2004 study found that more people report being discriminated against because of their looks than because of their ethnicity.

In a study published in the current issue of the American Journal of Sociology, Ellis P. Monk Jr., Michael H. Esposito and Hedwig Lee report that the earnings gap between people perceived as attractive and unattractive rivals or exceeds the earnings gap between white and Black adults. They find the attractiveness curve is especially punishing for Black women. Those who meet the socially dominant criteria for beauty see an earnings boost; those who don’t earn on average just 63 cents to the dollar of those who do.




Why are we so blasé about this kind of discrimination? Maybe people think lookism is baked into human nature and there’s not much they can do about it. Maybe it’s because there’s no National Association of Ugly People lobbying for change. The economist Tyler Cowen notices that it’s often the educated coastal class that most strictly enforces norms about thinness and dress. Maybe we don’t like policing the bigotry we’re most guilty of?

My general answer is that it’s very hard to buck the core values of your culture, even when you know it’s the right thing to do.

Over the past few decades, social media, the meritocracy and celebrity culture have fused to form a modern culture that is almost pagan in its values. That is, it places tremendous emphasis on competitive display, personal achievement and the idea that physical beauty is an external sign of moral beauty and overall worth.

Pagan culture holds up a certain ideal hero — those who are genetically endowed in the realms of athleticism, intelligence and beauty. This culture looks at obesity as a moral weakness and a sign that you’re in a lower social class.

Our pagan culture places great emphasis on the sports arena, the university and the social media screen, where beauty, strength and IQ can be most impressively displayed.


This ethos underlies many athletic shoe and gym ads, which hold up heroes in whom physical endowments and moral goodness are one. It’s the paganism of the CEO who likes to be flanked by a team of hot staffers. (“I must be a winner because I’m surrounded by the beautiful.”) It’s the fashion magazine in which articles about social justice are interspersed with photo spreads of the impossibly beautiful. (“We believe in social equality, as long as you’re gorgeous.”) It’s the lookist one-upmanship of TikTok.

A society that celebrates beauty this obsessively is going to be a social context in which the less beautiful will be slighted. The only solution is to shift the norms and practices. One positive example comes, oddly, from Victoria’s Secret, which replaced its “Angels” with seven women of more diverse body types. When Victoria’s Secret is on the cutting edge of the fight against lookism, the rest of us have some catching up to do.
 
Why does he focus in his speech on women as if it is a problem that women face more or equal to men? :feelswhat:
This is incorrect and misleading.
 
lookism exists? water is wet? Wow, I bet whoever wrote that was a mysoginist domestic terrorist
 
Surprised nobody cares about this opinion piece. Isn't this the sort of breakthrough that we've been crying out for? It's the establishment and a major power center discussing what is ruining our lives. Apparently, none of you care. Pathetic.
 
Surprised nobody cares about this opinion piece. Isn't this the sort of breakthrough that we've been crying out for? It's the establishment and a major power center discussing what is ruining our lives. Apparently, none of you care. Pathetic.
Is The new york times really mainstream? Most normies don't really read business-oriented publications, they read tabloids.
 
Shit I hate these journous, they always find a way to shove progressism where there isn't
 
Surprised nobody cares about this opinion piece. Isn't this the sort of breakthrough that we've been crying out for? It's the establishment and a major power center discussing what is ruining our lives. Apparently, none of you care. Pathetic.
Cause they won't actually go :blackpill:, it's long as fuck and it's (((David Brooks))).
 
Surprised nobody cares about this opinion piece. Isn't this the sort of breakthrough that we've been crying out for? It's the establishment and a major power center discussing what is ruining our lives. Apparently, none of you care. Pathetic.
Thinking a single blackpilled article is going to change our lives is a strech. They could discuss this through the media 24/7 and normalfaggots won't change their opinion because it doesn't benefit them. Unless real changes are made, I don't care.
 
Why does he focus in his speech on women as if it is a problem that women face more or equal to men? :feelswhat:
This is incorrect and misleading.
Only a problem when Figrews suffer. When it stops being a problem for them it'll stop being a problem. Men can suffer but Foids can never be left to suffer in this society.
 
Why does he focus in his speech on women as if it is a problem that women face more or equal to men? :feelswhat:
This is incorrect and misleading.
Because it’s New York Times.
 
Surprised nobody cares about this opinion piece. Isn't this the sort of breakthrough that we've been crying out for? It's the establishment and a major power center discussing what is ruining our lives. Apparently, none of you care. Pathetic.
Yeah.. why would they want their slaves to think? Truth is that they don't care as long as they get money. They probably blacklisted the article to make it fall in global internet rankings so it gets a bad reputation.
Because it’s New York Times.
Jew York.
Thinking a single blackpilled article is going to change our lives is a strech. They could discuss this through the media 24/7 and normalfaggots won't change their opinion because it doesn't benefit them. Unless real changes are made, I don't care.
Words on a page are just that at the end of the day. Only through social upheaval can real successful and worthwhile change be made. The current deal we get right now, the slop we are forced to consume will continue to be there until people are forced to suffer.
 
Last edited:
Over the past few decades, social media, the meritocracy and celebrity culture have fused to form a modern culture that is almost pagan in its values. That is, it places tremendous emphasis on competitive display, personal achievement and the idea that physical beauty is an external sign of moral beauty and overall worth.

Pagan culture holds up a certain ideal hero — those who are genetically endowed in the realms of athleticism, intelligence and beauty. This culture looks at obesity as a moral weakness and a sign that you’re in a lower social class.

Our pagan culture places great emphasis on the sports arena, the university and the social media screen, where beauty, strength and IQ can be most impressively displayed.
He places the blame on modern technology like social media, but in reality it's just the nature of cumskins shining through. Whites have always been pagans before they got christianized. And now that Christian values become more and more eroded in Western societies they just revert to their ancestral nature. Chad worship is literally encoded into the DNA of whites @BummerDrummer
 
Only through social upheaval can real successful and worthwhile change be made. The current deal we get right now, the slop we are forced to consume will continue to be there until people are forced to suffer.
 
He places the blame on modern technology like social media, but in reality it's just the nature of cumskins shining through. Whites have always been pagans before they got christianized. And now that Christian values become more and more eroded in Western societies they just revert to their ancestral nature. Chad worship is literally encoded into the DNA of whites @BummerDrummer
>duhhh religion is chad worship
Every religion’s dieties are good looking because a good looking person represents and should represent a good religion or population. Do blacks worship tall people because baron samedi is tall? Although very few modern religions are not created by Europeans (Hinduism and Buddhism both have good looking dieties and are European) so do Japanese people also worship chads because hachiman was described as beautiful? One could also say portraying your people as looking good is “lookism” (it isn’t) so then by that logic every regime’s people have “chad worship encoded into their DNA”.

Also, Christian values is implied here notneuropean, when Christianity is European. Jesus was a Celtic indo European and Christianity is European. Even if outside of Europe. Just like Hinduism and to a lesser extent Buddhism. The founders of these religions are indo European who’s race is currently residing in Europe as they got pushed out everywhere else.
 
Jesus was born in Galilee. "jesus was born in bethleham!" you may ask, but actually there was a Bethlehem of the Galilee, which is probably what the bible meant. To back up this claim there is a story in the bible of Joseph and Mary (Mary being 9 months pregnant) going to Bethlehem of Judea from Nazareth to be counted in the roman census. They would have had to travel 175 Kilometers (46 miles) to get there. How would a 9 months pregnant woman with a donkey travel 46 miles? It's simply more plausible that instead they traveled 7 kilometers, or 4 miles instead, which is the distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem of the Galilee. The second evidence of Jesus being from Galilee is that Mary is from Tzippori and Joseph is from Bethlehem of Judea, which are incredibly far away from eachother. Especially for the ancient world. However bethlehem of the Galileee and Tzippori are very close. It's much more plausible for them to meet as Mary and joseph's birth places are closer together.

Now, why is Jesus being born in Galilee so important? Because Galilee was known for having an Indo european population. All over Europe and the middle east there were celtic tribes with the prefix "gal". GAL-edones in Scotland, GAEls in Ireland, GALicians in spain, GAULs in france, GAL-ations in turkey. This would mean that GALilee is celtic, GALileans in Northern Palestine. If Jesus was from Galilee (proven in the first paragraph), he would've been Celtic white.

View: https://youtu.be/eG24JG9UAso

Jesus was a GALilean.
 
Is The new york times really mainstream? Most normies don't really read business-oriented publications, they read tabloids.
Exactly this.

Zoomers in particular get their news off social media, they don't read the NYT or the WSJ.

Just look at the NYT website's comment section, the vast majority of those are probably 40+, age-wise.
 
He places the blame on modern technology like social media, but in reality it's just the nature of cumskins shining through. Whites have always been pagans before they got christianized. And now that Christian values become more and more eroded in Western societies they just revert to their ancestral nature. Chad worship is literally encoded into the DNA of whites @BummerDrummer
If White's didn't have the jew monkeys on our backs, we would have gotten rid of ugliness - at least for our race - long ago.
 
True, this is such a lie. Women don't have to compete even if they are unattractive. It's crazy how everyone ignores all male problems, we always have it worse. But women are always the fucking victims. 80% of males are the lowest in social hierarchy in everything but nobody wants to accept it
Why does he focus in his speech on women as if it is a problem that women face more or equal to men? :feelswhat:
This is incorrect and misleading.
 

Similar threads

GooberMcKee
Replies
2
Views
314
GooberMcKee
GooberMcKee
S
Replies
23
Views
766
SteelCentaur
SteelCentaur
Touch Em 2x Tommy
Replies
8
Views
240
incel god
I

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top