4 ms·

This made me wonder: What does it take to become a protected/victim group? Ugly and socially-unskilled people are not protected/victim groups even though their

This made me wonder: What does it take to become a protected/victim group? Ugly and socially-unskilled people are not protected/victim groups even though their lives are harder. My current hypothesis is that the main reason that a group gets that status is that they have an emotionally compelling victim-story (although I think there's some randomness due to political movements). Under this hypothesis, the struggles of the ugly and socially-unskilled may be less emotionally compelling because they are less likable and so we have less empathy for them. Disclaimer: All of this is just descriptive speculation. I don't very well understand the relative struggles of different groups and don't endorse poor treatment of anyone. And I'd love for anyone to show flaws in my hypothesis or present a better one.

notahacker 9y ago
Conventionally ugly and socially-unskilled people might get rough treatment from their peers, but generally haven't been subject to special laws against them, pogroms or even the relatively mild insinuation they should be avoided as a group because of their "immorality" or "agenda". Also, appearance and social skills are gradients which don't fit neatly into groups, and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such.
- Karunamon 9y ago
  >...or even the relatively mild insinuation they should be avoided as a group because of their "immorality" or "agenda". No, instead you get barbs about "creepiness" or "weirdness". Our society generally treats introverts poorly outside of very specific niches.
- BearGoesChirp 9y ago
  Is it that society hasn't discriminated against them, or that we haven't been made aware of such discrimination. Many extremely racist laws that directly discriminated against minorities have fallen out of common knowledge and we are only aware of it because the common understanding of past injustice (and a few specific stories) are in the collective knowledge. So perhaps such discrimination has existed, but too few have worked to add it to the common knowledge of our society. For example, maybe ugly people get significantly lower pay and longer prison sentences (all else being equal), but no one has spent the time researching such data? Should laws against sexual harassment end up being considered, to some extent, laws against the unattractive and socially awkward since the same interaction may or may not be considered harassment? Maybe treatment of socially awkward children (which can get very brutal and lead to suicide) hasn't been considered an issue of a group because no one has yet made the emotional argument it should be discrimination of a group. >and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such. There is a lot of history of who was considered black and who wasn't that might be of note.
  - notahacker 9y ago
    Nobody is pretending that ugly and socially awkward people have never been discriminated against by individuals and peer groups; all kinds of people are cruelly and unusually treated on a large variety of arbitrary and non-arbitrary criteria on a daily basis, and many more are marginalised. But social awkwardness isn't something which was only decriminalised 14 years ago in the US and still illegal in 72 countries. Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners. Beautiful, socially adept people don't hold tiki-torch-lit rallies to venerate people that lead the fight to keep ugly or socially awkward people as property. Maybe nobody influential is making the emotional argument that kids bullied for their individual awkwardnesses should be protected as a group because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group... Protected discrimination classes haven't emerged as a consequence of extensive research to find hints of systematic discrimination, they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination. If you're inclined to make the mistake of assuming that discrimination against protected classes is historic or the result of statistical fishing expeditions, it's probably because - whatever other mistreatment or misfortunes you might have suffered in your life - you're not in a group that is subject to organised and systematic attempts to suppress it.
    - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
      > because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group Why is the metric about who is making the argument, instead of what is actually happening? Also, many influential people make arguments such as 'kids being kids' that open tolerate bullying. Especially people directly involved in the school system that should be protecting these kids. There is no one in the national spotlight for it because it isn't outrageous enough for our society to put it in the national spotlight. >Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners. Writers at major news organizations, who have audiences that would make most pastors jealous, have written such things. Especially if we talk about people who openly support discrimination against short men. And the attack on men's sexuality is pretty brutal as well, yet openly tolerated (just look at how often virgin is equated to someones who hates women and wants to enslave/kill them). > they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination And there are still groups who have experienced such who haven't yet been made into a protected class. For an example I think we can both agree on, sexual orientation hasn't yet been made (federal level in the US at least) into a protected class. Also, this doesn't explain why the majorities are also protected. Race is a protected class, not just being a minority. (Age is a weird one where being old is protected but being young isn't, despite massive historic discrimination against young people, namely the forcing of young men to die in wars on behalf of old people.)
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
>Under this hypothesis, the struggles of the ugly and socially-unskilled may be less emotionally compelling because they are less likable and so we have less empathy for them. The ends up being the reason they should be considered for protective group status ends up being the same reason they would not pass any such consideration.

notahacker 9y ago

Conventionally ugly and socially-unskilled people might get rough treatment from their peers, but generally haven't been subject to special laws against them, pogroms or even the relatively mild insinuation they should be avoided as a group because of their "immorality" or "agenda". Also, appearance and social skills are gradients which don't fit neatly into groups, and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such.

Karunamon 9y ago
>...or even the relatively mild insinuation they should be avoided as a group because of their "immorality" or "agenda". No, instead you get barbs about "creepiness" or "weirdness". Our society generally treats introverts poorly outside of very specific niches.
BearGoesChirp 9y ago
Is it that society hasn't discriminated against them, or that we haven't been made aware of such discrimination. Many extremely racist laws that directly discriminated against minorities have fallen out of common knowledge and we are only aware of it because the common understanding of past injustice (and a few specific stories) are in the collective knowledge. So perhaps such discrimination has existed, but too few have worked to add it to the common knowledge of our society. For example, maybe ugly people get significantly lower pay and longer prison sentences (all else being equal), but no one has spent the time researching such data? Should laws against sexual harassment end up being considered, to some extent, laws against the unattractive and socially awkward since the same interaction may or may not be considered harassment? Maybe treatment of socially awkward children (which can get very brutal and lead to suicide) hasn't been considered an issue of a group because no one has yet made the emotional argument it should be discrimination of a group. >and many people who might widely be considered to sit at the ugly/unskilled end of the spectrum have absolutely no desire to identify as such. There is a lot of history of who was considered black and who wasn't that might be of note.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Nobody is pretending that ugly and socially awkward people have never been discriminated against by individuals and peer groups; all kinds of people are cruelly and unusually treated on a large variety of arbitrary and non-arbitrary criteria on a daily basis, and many more are marginalised. But social awkwardness isn't something which was only decriminalised 14 years ago in the US and still illegal in 72 countries. Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners. Beautiful, socially adept people don't hold tiki-torch-lit rallies to venerate people that lead the fight to keep ugly or socially awkward people as property. Maybe nobody influential is making the emotional argument that kids bullied for their individual awkwardnesses should be protected as a group because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group... Protected discrimination classes haven't emerged as a consequence of extensive research to find hints of systematic discrimination, they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination. If you're inclined to make the mistake of assuming that discrimination against protected classes is historic or the result of statistical fishing expeditions, it's probably because - whatever other mistreatment or misfortunes you might have suffered in your life - you're not in a group that is subject to organised and systematic attempts to suppress it.
  - BearGoesChirp 9y ago
    > because nobody influential is making the emotional argument for discriminating against socially awkward children as a group Why is the metric about who is making the argument, instead of what is actually happening? Also, many influential people make arguments such as 'kids being kids' that open tolerate bullying. Especially people directly involved in the school system that should be protecting these kids. There is no one in the national spotlight for it because it isn't outrageous enough for our society to put it in the national spotlight. >Influential religious leaders do not deliver sermons on the duty of ugly people to subordinate themselves to their partners. Writers at major news organizations, who have audiences that would make most pastors jealous, have written such things. Especially if we talk about people who openly support discrimination against short men. And the attack on men's sexuality is pretty brutal as well, yet openly tolerated (just look at how often virgin is equated to someones who hates women and wants to enslave/kill them). > they've arisen as a response to obvious, organised and usually very open attempts to encourage and enforce systematic discrimination And there are still groups who have experienced such who haven't yet been made into a protected class. For an example I think we can both agree on, sexual orientation hasn't yet been made (federal level in the US at least) into a protected class. Also, this doesn't explain why the majorities are also protected. Race is a protected class, not just being a minority. (Age is a weird one where being old is protected but being young isn't, despite massive historic discrimination against young people, namely the forcing of young men to die in wars on behalf of old people.)

BearGoesChirp 9y ago

>Under this hypothesis, the struggles of the ugly and socially-unskilled may be less emotionally compelling because they are less likable and so we have less empathy for them. The ends up being the reason they should be considered for protective group status ends up being the same reason they would not pass any such consideration.