It's Over What is the reason progressives almost never talk about lookism and heightism?

[Lazyandtalentless]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/elje3s/what_is_the_reason_progressives_almost_never_talk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button


I think OP makes a valid and often overlooked point. Lookism and heightism are powerful yet largely ignored forms of bias that have real consequences in people’s lives. These forms of discrimination are so deeply normalized that they’re rarely questioned, even in “”progressive”” spaces. While race receives a lot of attention, the consistent preference for conventionally attractive and tall men remains untouched.
People are often hesitant to talk about these issues, maybe because they don’t fit easily into the usual stories we tell about discrimination.

Reminds me of this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2022.2076629

Also brutal:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/elje3s/comment/fdi9lqg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

Reminds me of this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2022.2076629

Thomas J. Spiegel’s, “Lookism as Epistemic Injustice”

1. Neglect of Lookism in Philosophy and Epistemology​

Spiegel begins by noting that while lookism-discrimination based on physical attractiveness-has been widely studied in fields like sociology, psychology, and economics, it has been “widely neglected” in philosophy, especially in discussions of epistemic injustice. He points out that major philosophical works and handbooks on epistemic injustice rarely, if ever, mention lookism, ugliness, or attractiveness as relevant factors, unlike race or gender.

2. Lookism as Epistemic Injustice​

Spiegel applies Miranda Fricker’s influential framework of epistemic injustice to lookism. He argues that lookism produces both:

• Hermeneutic injustice:This is when people lack the conceptual resources to make sense of their own experiences. In the case of lookism, this takes the form of a social taboo around acknowledging unattractiveness. People are discouraged from recognizing or discussing how their looks affect their social standing, leading to a lack of understanding and articulation of their own disadvantage.
  • Example: An unattractive person may not fully recognize or be able to express that their lack of opportunities in romance or work is due to their looks, because society avoids talking about “ugliness.”
• Testimonial injustice:This occurs when someone’s word is given less credibility due to prejudice. Spiegel argues that unattractive people’s claims about facing discrimination are often dismissed or gaslit, because society is uncomfortable with ascribing “ugliness” and thus resists acknowledging look-based disadvantage.
  • Example: If an unattractive person says they were overlooked for a job due to their looks, listeners may reject or downplay this explanation, reinforcing the injustice.

3. Empirical Evidence for Lookism​

Spiegel marshals a range of empirical studies to show that lookism is real, pervasive, and systematic:

• Workplace: Ugly people have worse chances in the job market (Paik & Shahani-Denning, 2014), and earn less for the same work (Doorley & Sierminska, 2015).
• Romance: Unattractive people have fewer romantic options (Fugère et al., 2017).
• Childhood: Ugly children are treated worse than attractive children from an early age (Kringelbach et al., 2008).
• Legal System: Ugly people receive harsher penalties in court (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010).
• General Social Judgment: The “ugly-is-bad” stereotype leads to unattractive people being rated as less competent or likable (Griffin & Langlois, 2006), while the “beauty-is-good” stereotype benefits attractive people (Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010).

4. Objectivity and Systemic Nature of Lookism​

Spiegel challenges the common idea that beauty is entirely subjective. He cites research showing high agreement on who is considered attractive, and draws on Bourdieu’s work to argue that standards of beauty are socially and culturally constructed, but not merely matters of individual taste. This subject-transcendent aspect allows lookism to be studied as a real, systemic phenomenon.

• Systemic Discrimination: Lookism operates across many domains-work, romance, law, childhood, and more-similar to racism or sexism. People “carry” their looks throughout all areas of life, and the effects are cumulative and persistent.

5. Intersectionality and Distinctiveness​

While lookism often overlaps with other forms of discrimination (such as racism), Spiegel insists it is not reducible to them. He gives examples such as:

• Short men: Discriminated against in work and dating, even if they are otherwise privileged.
• Race and gender: In some cultures, Asian men face lookism that is entangled with, but not identical to, racism.

Thus, lookism is a sui generis form of prejudice, analogous to but distinct from other “isms.”

6. Positive Lookism and Its Epistemic Effects​

Spiegel also considers the epistemic effects of positive lookism (favoring the attractive). He suggests that attractive people may develop a distorted worldview, overestimating their own competence and the fairness of the world, because their unearned advantages are rarely acknowledged or discussed. This is a subtler, but still significant, epistemic harm.

7. Taboo and Language​

Spiegel deliberately uses the word “ugly” rather than “unattractive” to confront the social taboo head-on. He argues that the discomfort and impoliteness associated with the term “ugly” itself contributes to the hermeneutic injustice-if we can’t even name the phenomenon, we can’t analyze or address it.

8. Conclusion​

Spiegel’s article is a call to recognize lookism as a serious, systemic, and epistemically damaging form of discrimination. It harms the unattractive by denying them opportunities and by undermining their ability to understand and communicate their own experiences. At the same time, it distorts the self-understanding of the attractive. Philosophers and social theorists, he argues, must bring lookism into the center of discussions about epistemic injustice.

Summary Table​

Aspect	Description/Example
Hermeneutic Injustice	Taboo against acknowledging unattractiveness; inhibits self-understanding
Testimonial Injustice	Claims of look-based discrimination dismissed or gaslit
Empirical Evidence	Wage gaps, fewer romantic options, harsher legal penalties, negative stereotypes
Objectivity	High agreement on attractiveness; socially constructed but not merely subjective
Intersectionality	Overlaps with but is not reducible to racism; e.g., short men, Asian men
Positive Lookism	Attractive people may develop distorted, overconfident worldviews
Taboo/Language	Use of “ugly” as an analytic tool to break the silence and discomfort

 

[Grodd]

They wanna virtue signal

 

[fedded]

They wanna virtue signal

 

[Shay Patrick Cormac]

Ugliness is a disability that prevents normal social functioning

 

[blackpillednigga]

to protect foids

 

[Lonelyus]

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/elje3s/what_is_the_reason_progressives_almost_never_talk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button


I think OP makes a valid and often overlooked point. Lookism and heightism are powerful yet largely ignored forms of bias that have real consequences in people’s lives. These forms of discrimination are so deeply normalized that they’re rarely questioned, even in “”progressive”” spaces. While race receives a lot of attention, the consistent preference for conventionally attractive and tall men remains untouched.
People are often hesitant to talk about these issues, maybe because they don’t fit easily into the usual stories we tell about discrimination.

Reminds me of this:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2022.2076629

Also brutal:


View: https://www.reddit.com/r/VaushV/comments/elje3s/comment/fdi9lqg/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

• Attractive children and adults are judged, treated more positively, and exhibit more positive behaviors and traits than unattractive children and adults, even by those who know them. link

• Differences in facial shape alone between candidates can predict who wins or loses in an election. link

• Both self-rated attractiveness and attractiveness rated by other persons predict endorsement of belief in a just world. Both attractiveness measures have a relationship with participant's level of life satisfaction. link

• The physical attractiveness of the producer influences the attractiveness of humour. link

• Facially unattractive males receive a more negative response in terms of perceived characteristics from violating social norms than facially attractive males. link

• Facial attractiveness is assessed rapidly (13 ms) and from small silvers of visual information. link

• University instructors who are viewed as better looking receive higher instructional ratings. link

• Facial physical attractiveness significantly predicted a measure of individuals' development stability (the ability of an organism to buffer its development against random perturbations).

• Attractiveness appears to be ingrained in our biology. Face preferences affect a diverse range of critical social outcomes, from mate choices and decisions about platonic relationships to hiring decisions and decisions about social exchange. link

• Perceivers attributed more desirable interpersonal traits to physically attractive targets. People desire to form and maintain close social bonds with attractive targets and then project these motivations onto those targets. link

• People were able to identify left-wing or right-wing political attitudes form looks alone. The closer the ratings of our participants came to the politician's actual political score, the higher the likelihood of being reelected to the new parliament. link

• We rapidly and spontaneously draw inferences about other people's personality characteristics from their appearances and that these inferences can impact our decisions in a variety of important domains. link

• For males, rated face and body attractiveness, respectively, accounted for 52% and 24% of the variance in overall attractiveness. link

• The preference for attractive faces by infants that has previously been observed for human faces can also be observed for domestic cat faces. link

• Like adults, close relationships between facial trustworthiness and attractiveness judgments existed during childhood, especially for girls. link

• People seem to believe that physical attractiveness implies positive personality traits ('beauty is good effect'), but the effects of attractiveness seem to be greater for male targets. The stereotypes about gender personality seem to be largely shared among men and women. link

• Cuteness not only compels us to care for cute things but also prepares us to do so via its effects on behavioral carefulness. link

• People do judge a book by its cover, but a beautiful cover prompts a closer reading, leading more physically attractive people to be seen both more positively and more accurately. link

• For both males and females, physical attractiveness was related to positive self-concepts and high resistance to peer influences. In addition, for males, this association was related to a sense of responsibility (internal control) for one's own behavior. link

• Teachers judge attractive children as more sociable, more popular, academically brighter, more confident, and more likely to be leaders than unattractive children. link

• Physical attractiveness influences self-concept (core self-evaluations), income, and financial well-being (financial strain). link

• Bonus: Lower attractiveness and higher weight in white women linked to greater interest in black males. link

SAY IT WITH ME, SAY IT LOUD!, ITS OVER!

 

[WorthlessSlavicShit]

I've been thinking lately that it's due to races being much more separated than people of different looks levels. It's easy to be against racism when you live in a highly homogenuous area where you don't need to confront your own prejudices daily, it's something entirely different to be against lookism when you yourself interact with people all across the looks spectrum every day.