1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
bambamramfan
fluffshy

It seems that people assume that if only we got rid of conventional beauty standards that everyone’s internal beauty standards would default to some standard that placed themselves at the top. I haven’t seen anyone ever argue for that position explicitly though. I could just be misunderstanding the logic behind other peoples hatred of conventional beauty standards. (I also might be biased because my internal beauty standards don’t seem to be influenced by external culture in a straight forward fashion.)

argumate

even if we got rid of conventional beauty standards I suspect that many people would still inexorably end up fixating on a particular aesthetic that isn’t physically possible for them, so transhuman body mods all the way baby

discoursedrome

sometimes I fantasize about how nice it’d be to just automatically look really great all the time, like perfect skin, effortlessly excellent posture, everything in place all the time, don’t have to mess with your clothes, and so on, because I covet that look but just do not have the discipline to put the effort into that. BUT

inevitably this leads me to reflecting on how, if everyone was like that, we wouldn’t have a world where everyone is effortlessly beautiful, we’d have a world where people put the same amount of time and expense into their appearance that they do now, and expectations are just as uneven, only the bar is higher, so it’s like you’re totally sloppy if you leave the house without painting a unique abstract art composition over your entire body and crossbraiding your hair with live flowers

like most superpower fantasies, it only works if everyone else is denied it.

wirehead-wannabe

I think the actual position that people unconsciously hold is that we’ll stop having beauty standards, in the same way that naive anarchists think that we’ll stop having power dynamics if we get rid of the current government.

balioc

So…I think that there are (at least) two mostly-separate psychological phenomena that manifest as The Dream of Being Beautiful.

There’s the desire to be recognized as a Beautiful Person, someone who is noteworthily more-attractive-than-the-masses by conventional standards.  This is a semi-specialized social role that comes with its own perks, in the form of certain kinds of status and attention and identity-validation etc.  (It also comes with its own burdens, of course.)  Some people covet those perks, and so find it painful that they don’t have the looks necessary to get them.  Such people, when they’re wise and thoughtful and self-aware, don’t usually rail against beauty standards in the abstract, because – as @discoursedrome implies – the thing they want actually requires that some kind of beauty standards exist.  They want to win the status competition, which means there has to be a status competition.

(I should be clear, here, and say that many people in this category do rail against beauty standards.  That is because they are being hypocritical, or otherwise failing to achieve integrity and self-awareness.  They are sleight-of-handing their way to the fantasy of a world in which they are the beautiful ones, not those hateful Chads / popular bitches, but otherwise nothing much has changed.)

Then there’s the desire to be Beautiful Enough For Practical Purposes, which is in fact pretty different.  There are lots of people who don’t particularly wish to be remarkably attractive, to be the best-looking person in the room, and who would actually find it kind of weird and unpleasant if that got folded into their identities. Many of them nonetheless want to be free of physical flaws that they or others might find actively off-putting – want to be sufficiently attractive that they can feature in fond romantic/sexual imaginings without dissonance – want their preferred partners, who probably aren’t super invested in the have-the-hottest-mate status game but who do probably have normal levels of preference for an attractive-looking mate, to be totally satisfied – etc.

This is the desire to live in an anime world, fundamentally.  In an anime, some people are marked as being noteworthily more attractive than others, just like in real life, and everyone treats them as such…but even a universally-acknowledged “plain” character is in truth physically flawless, and his level of physical beauty isn’t ever going to cause a problem for him in a relationship that’s largely based on other things. 

Assuming that “make reality look like an anime” sadly isn’t an option, “widely-available body mods” is a pretty good solution for such people.  You can’t guarantee that you’ll win the status contest no matter what you do, but you can probably guarantee that you’ll be perfectly acceptable by your own lights and the lights of your ingroup.  “Eliminate beauty standards by enlightening humanity” is a terrible solution, in that I think it would be easier to eat the moon than to make it happen, but it does at least attempt to address this kind of suffering face-on. 

bambamramfan

All very true, though there is also the third type, which is the purely relativist desire to be “more beautiful than I am now,” or “beautiful enough” where “enough” is a bar that is always out of reach.

It’s typical status-anxiety that most people face some sort of, but is probably most starkly illustrated in the memoirs of people with anorexia.

Source: fluffshy
ranma-official
ranma-official

one example of Americans’ cultural obsession with people getting things they don’t deserve (I think it’s partially @bambamramfan’s favorite Lacan stuff but not fully) I want to bring up is indeed healthcare related

when you bring up the topic of universal healthcare, people insist that universal healthcare is bad actually because it covers people who are fat and people who smoke. not necessarily that they’re a drain on the system to such an extent that they’ll break it, but that these people negatively impacted their health and will benefit nonetheless

there’s a lot of counterpoints you can make here. what’s a decision that ruins your health that means you need to go bankrupt because of hospital bills? Moving to a city and breathing poisonous air? Buying a car? Serving in the military?

Isn’t that just an intentional slippery slope towards “pre-existing conditions” nonsense?

Doesn’t free healthcare also cover free dietology advice so people don’t become fat in the first place?

Isn’t it absurd to think the only reason people don’t become fat or take up smoking is the expensive hospital bills, or that it even factors into the equation?

but honestly I want to focus on this ridiculous assumption that the real problem with healthcare is making sure people who access it “unfairly” stop doing so, and breaking the system completely to spite them

ranma-official

and honestly I’m no HAES blogger, but if you think that people reading wikihow guides to stiching their own wounds in order to avoid going to the doctor, number one bankruptcy cause being hospital bills, and hundreds of thousands dying from preventable causes is optimal because some of them are fat, your view has some glaring issues

mitigatedchaos

This is partly an intuitive normie understanding of the free rider problem and incentives.

The issue is that while normies are picking up on a real issue, normie understandings are all running at level N=1. There are ways to manage the incentive issues, but only at higher levels of contrarianism/synthesis.

Also, I really ought to dig up that article showing that the effects of the US being some weird mix of developed and underdeveloped impacts the costs of healthcare. It may be a tougher nut to crack than it looks. (But man, would I love to save 5% of GDP.)

politics
ranma-official
ranma-official:
“ klubbhead:
“ feels-by-the-foot:
“ Probably because when Trump said it, he was explaining how America could be made better.
You seem like one of those people who thinks that America is terrible no matter what.
”
Also, the slogan was...
feels-by-the-foot

Probably because when Trump said it, he was explaining how America could be made better. 

You seem like one of those people who thinks that America is terrible no matter what. 

klubbhead

Also, the slogan was LET’S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN and not AMERICA SUCKS, huge difference.

ranma-official

just to qualify: america does suck

mitigatedchaos

Nah.

But it isn’t living up to its (enormous) potential.

Source: mysharona1987
argumate
argumate

so can anyone give a good reason why the Google search engine shouldn’t be nationalised, now that the pagerank innovation is no longer novel?

its-okae-carly-rae

Do you mean nationalized or made public domain?

argumate

I was a little sloppy in my speech, my real question is given that corporations only exist at the sufferance of the public, what purpose does Google serve in its current form that couldn’t better be achieved by destroying it?

mitigatedchaos

For actual nationalization, the US Government would be absolutely terrible at administering Google.

For having other companies copy pagerank, it wouldn’t be used to subsidize all the other various Google ventures that have benefits for internet users.

collapsedsquid
mitigatedchaos

@collapsedsquid

As far as I can tell, even though uneven exchange of trade between nations means that someone, somewhere must be taking on debt or selling off assets, only Nationalists actually care about the trade deficit.

The Left in general would prefer to see the end of nations, and want “reparations” to go to “brown people” from the developed countries for the sins of colonialism.  (Never mind the colonialism of their own movements.)  

The Liberals also want an end to nations, and everyone singing along happily together, but under Capitalism.  Also they really are individualists, so they don’t think countries have a ‘right’ to hang onto their wealth.

The Capitalists like it because, aside from making the money themselves, weakening nations and loading them up with debt messes with the state’s abilities to regulate their behavior and make them do things like quit using child labor.  Further, weakening nations weakens the states themselves, but most people cannot see this.

“Global trade, but we don’t keep a net trade deficit or surplus across the total of our trade with all nations” would likely be beneficial to American workers, but who cares about that?

collapsedsquid

Are you so sure nationalist elements are opposed to this?  It’s the other side of the account you want to pay attention to, the capital account. It’s about America’s role as the global hegemon.  Having the US dollar as the global reserve currency means that the US can use to enforce it’s will.  Nations stockpile US dollars to fend off the IMF.  It’s about increasing the desire of others to hold US assets. The trade deficit is the result of decisions the US has made to increase it’s national power since the Second World War.

mitigatedchaos

It depends a lot on what US assets they’re holding.  In general, to maintain sovereignty, you don’t want foreigners owning all of your real estate and other assets unless you’re planning to purge their ownership without compensation later.  If they own your physical dollars, that may not be as big of a deal, since you can unilaterally change your currency if necessary, leaving them with piles of worthless paper. (That and, of course, significantly strengthening China is not a good long-term plan for American hegemony.)

Although, this does make me curious based on the level of implied competence in the ruling elites’ actions based on your evaluation, what do you think the purpose of the Iraq War was?  The purpose of the Euro?

Though, to refine the previous statement, it isn’t that all Nationalists want to balance the trade deficit, but rather I think most people who want to balance the trade deficit are going to lean Nationalist (prioritizing the nation’s workers over capital or foreign workers).

Source: mitigatedchaos politics
ranma-official
official-mugi

Tumblr funnymen: omg gamer dudes are the absolute worst and garbage pedophile and they sexuallize characters

Meanwhile in the shipping side of tumblr:

mitigatedchaos

“Let’s turn all friendship and emotional intimacy between men into a sign of androsexuality (even though anecdotal reports indicate that straight women are not interested in bisexual men).”

Like, I get that the fujoshis love to ship men, that’s okay, but a healthy media marketplace will contain examples of men deeply relating to each other that are entirely straight, even though it will also include gay men.

Source: official-mugi gender politics

@collapsedsquid

As far as I can tell, even though uneven exchange of trade between nations means that someone, somewhere must be taking on debt or selling off assets, only Nationalists actually care about the trade deficit.

The Left in general would prefer to see the end of nations, and want “reparations” to go to “brown people” from the developed countries for the sins of colonialism.  (Never mind the colonialism of their own movements.)  

The Liberals also want an end to nations, and everyone singing along happily together, but under Capitalism.  Also they really are individualists, so they don’t think countries have a ‘right’ to hang onto their wealth.

The Capitalists like it because, aside from making the money themselves, weakening nations and loading them up with debt messes with the state’s abilities to regulate their behavior and make them do things like quit using child labor.  Further, weakening nations weakens the states themselves, but most people cannot see this.

“Global trade, but we don’t keep a net trade deficit or surplus across the total of our trade with all nations” would likely be beneficial to American workers, but who cares about that?

politics the invisible fist
collapsedsquid
collapsedsquid

The president’s distaste for trade deficits with any country is not news, but that last sentence is striking — Trump is claiming that trade deficits are at the root of the national debt.

That is a creative explanation — and an incorrect one.

Vox just made a humiliating economic error in front of its readers. 

mitigatedchaos

> seriously this is what you hit him on?

Might I suggest this is ideological in nature.  Global types don’t want America balancing its net imports/exports.  They want a net flow of wealth out of the country.

the invisible fist quick post
ranma-official
afloweroutofstone

A white dude saying “you can’t call me white because whiteness is an ideology” is the perfect example of taking academic language and concepts out of their actual contextual meaning to defend something really shitty

discoursedrome

unpopular opinion: people who accuse others of being white are the real whites

ranma-official

I’m a level 5 white, I can’t breathe near anyone who has a culture

Source: afloweroutofstone