ColdLightOfDay
Serge’s alt.
★★★★★
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2018
- Posts
- 5,702
IT and other fellow minded denialists often use the excuse that the case of Jeremy Meeks should be discounted because he is an ‘extreme example’ of how looks can positively affect your life, and thus is not reflective of the general human experience when it comes to the importance of looks and their baring on life opportunities and general quality of life.
Because Meeks is extremely good looking, it makes sense that his advantages should also come in the extreme, someone who is moderately good looking will likely experience moderate advantages and
someone who is moderately ugly should thus likely experience moderate disadvantages.
But what about someone who is extremely ugly? (This is what an incel is) Why can they not accept that those who are ugly to the extent that Meeks is good looking will have at least as much to lose by being that ugly than he has to gain by being that good looking?
It makes absolutely no sense that the dynamic should only work one way and it is irrefutable testament to the wilful ignorance of IT that they continue to see it as so.
Because Meeks is extremely good looking, it makes sense that his advantages should also come in the extreme, someone who is moderately good looking will likely experience moderate advantages and
someone who is moderately ugly should thus likely experience moderate disadvantages.
But what about someone who is extremely ugly? (This is what an incel is) Why can they not accept that those who are ugly to the extent that Meeks is good looking will have at least as much to lose by being that ugly than he has to gain by being that good looking?
It makes absolutely no sense that the dynamic should only work one way and it is irrefutable testament to the wilful ignorance of IT that they continue to see it as so.





