17 ms·

Why Is It OK to Be Mean to the Ugly?

50 points by hirundo 5y ago

Topgamer7 5y ago
It's not.
SpaceNugget 5y ago
Most people _know_ that it's "Not OK" to be mean to anyone. Doesn't stop people from being mean unfortunately.
arkad 5y ago
Not exactly related, but some time ago I realized it's not ok to make fun of people with physical disabilities but somehow it's totally acceptable to make fun of people with lower IQ.
- cafard 5y ago
  It is? Maybe it was forty and fifty years ago.
  - acuozzo 5y ago
    Not OP. FWIW, I think OP isn't referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities; just those with an IQ one standard deviation down from the mean e.g. 85. In my experience, there's often no backlash against jokes or even serious talking points about "stupid people".
- Zababa 5y ago
  I don't think it is? Making fun of people that do one stupid action is I think okay, but making fun of people that have a harder life than other people because of how they're born doesn't seem okay to me.
- snet0 5y ago
  In my experience, people who are fine with IQ jokes are also fine with disability jokes.
- caymanjim 5y ago
  I think others are confusing your "lower IQ" comment to mean "people with intellectual disabilities", which I don't think you're defending. It's obvious that "stupid" people (those seen as "normal stupid") are one of the last publicly-acceptable targets of ridicule. It's common for even the most well-mannered public personalities to speak derisively and dismissively about the stupidity of others. The most common insult toward someone you disagree with is to call them "stupid" or "an idiot". No one says "retarded" in polite company anymore, but it's essentially the same thing.
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    Funny that you mention it, but at one point "mentally retarded" was a gentler term for the then rather harsh clinically-used terms "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile". Now these three words are considered much less offensive than their one-time euphemism. What a world. Here's an article explaining it further: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moron-idiot-imbecile-offensive-history https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moron-idiot-im...
techbio 5y ago
Article is not about "being mean". It's about professional and other discrimination against an unprotected class of underprivileged people.
bko 5y ago
> 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 such a straw man argument. Who is this person that fires people arbitrarily? Does he not have a business to run? Does it not cost him thousands of dollars and probably a few dozen hours of his company's time hiring someone? The only reason I could see him firing someone because of appearance is where it matters. For instance, if you let yourself go and you're in a high visibility role where it could be argued that it affects your job performance (e.g. actress, cocktail waitress) Why do we keep discussing these arbitrary scenarios?
- techbio 5y ago
  Describing the three scenarios in parallel is a rhetorical technique to raise the question of why some are protected by law and custom, and some are not, in roughly similar outcomes. The article links to several studies purporting to show this effect in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness. I get your point. It can be (often is?) reductive to generate a protagonist/antagonist sketch and then extend its implications beyond reason. I don't quite see that happening here.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    > in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness I can't access the article, but I think attractiveness can be a factor in many jobs. People are called "ugly" because they create a negative emotion when you look at them. Having to be around people like that is objectively a bit worse than being around regular/attractive people. It's a bit like talking to someone who's always a bit abrasive vs someone who's always a bit kind. I do agree that compared to other forms of discrimination, there are no legal protections for these people and that maybe that should change.
    - 5y ago
Wohlf 5y ago
Why is it okay to be mean to anyone?
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  If it benefits you. For example, if there are people in a specific group that you'd like to be a part of, defending the persons honor they they are condemning will not earn you points at all. I know people like to act like you can get through life being a damn saint all the time but that is such a facade. The reason the people in power are where they are is because they made fun of the right people with the "right" people. Their status grew and they could eventually form themselves how they wanted to because they had enough power to influence how others figured out who was appropriate to make fun of and such. It's a subtle trust mechanism between people. It determines who you are and what you're willing to partake in but with minor repercussions involved if it's discovered by someone else who may care. I mean think of this, if you participated in the #metoo movement and your case did not lead to any convictions, do you seriously think anybody will not come up to that person without any trust reservations from the start? It's public knowledge you will go public with something you perceive as wrongdoing against you. So if I accidentally offend you, now I might be concerned you may use that to damage my reputation down the line. As a former "always follow logic and be nice christian" person, you will never get anywhere butting heads with people for the sake of righteousness. You will go the way of Thomas Moore, get your head chopped off, and the world will proceed without your input interfering again.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
snet0 5y ago
>In survey after survey, beautiful people are described as trustworthy, competent, friendly, likable and intelligent, while ugly people get the opposite labels. Does this actually provide value without being contrasted to "objective" measures? Are attractive people actually more intelligent, friendly or trustworthy? If they are, this sounds more like a useful heuristic rather than an unfair stereotype. I know I can find this research myself, but it seems weird to not even make reference to any objective measures in this context.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  If I had to wager a guess, it could signal that you have wealth, time, energy, apply effort into bettering yourself, and you care about things that do matter. Ugly people can reflect often that they aren't putting effort in their lives whether it comes to being fat. Genetic issues can signal basically, you have bad genes. If you see someone with down syndrome, your first instinct isn't "They are so attractive!" because it is an enormous detriment to your survival and future offspring. It's all a show. But wisdom isn't what you know, it's knowing how to exploit what others don't to your benefit. It's not nefarious but part of the game. Now this is clearly speculative and based off my own observations. It's significantly more nuanced than this and more than just one unconscious decision people make. It is however ingrained in us to know culturally what "success" looks like, and we meter others based on that.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  > Are attractive people actually more intelligent, friendly or trustworthy? You are getting downvoted, but this seems to be a very non-trivial question, especially if historic context is taken into account. For example, a mere 100-150 years ago, syphilis was widespread in the population, and it often resulted in face deformities [0] and deterioration of the mind [1] at the same time. For someone living in that era, avoiding people who looked ugly and unhealthy might have been a useful heuristic. Maybe we still use an outdated heuristic from the age of syphilis. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Tertiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Tertiary [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis#Neuropsychiatric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis#Neuropsychiatric
Cycl0ps 5y ago
It's a stretch, but I'd say this still falls under Betteridge's law
- techbio 5y ago
  Worth the stretch, especially since it is paywalled, but the "Why?" adds dimension. Is it ok? No. Check. Does it happen anyway? Apparently yes. I think it raises interesting questions about human nature and society.
Aboh33 5y ago
I know this is an opinion piece but surely the NYT has never pushed the ideals of what it thinks Beauty should be?! Gtfo
- caymanjim 5y ago
  The NYT isn't a single mind. It's perfectly fine to present conflicting ideas. All of us hold conflicting ideas ourselves. I don't like that I discriminate against unattractive people. I'm an unattractive person. But I still pursue attractive people for romance, and I even fall under the spell of attractive people in a professional context. Charisma/mojo/whatever you call it goes a long way, and physical attributes are a big part of it.
ladyattis 5y ago
I have a similar problem with being seen as not attractive and being treated poorly for it (not fired, though that's a new one to me). And I've found it really comes down to a variety of factors. Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but sometimes it gets really weird when someone can't work with you or trust you because you're not exactly well made (one eye is off, you're fat, or your voice doesn't fit your build, etc). It really gets to a point that working becomes unbearable. I don't even consider the termination aspect as a major issue. Just being able to not get brushed off while doing your work would be a huge boon for me. Luckily, I'm a software developer now but when I was younger and worked in many public facing jobs it really got annoying. But I guess my point is that societies worldwide really need to get over aesthetics when it comes to work. If I'm not applying to be a model then what I look like shouldn't matter all that much.
ziji 5y ago
If they didn’t make you, they can’t hurt you.
ElijahLynn 5y ago
Also, watch episode 1 of 100 Humans. The experiment gives the same crime to a sampleset of non-attractive and attractive humans and has the 100 humans give them jail sentences. The non-attractive criminals (actors) get nearly twice as much jail time in this experiment.

50 points by hirundo 5y ago

Topgamer7 5y ago

It's not.

SpaceNugget 5y ago

Most people _know_ that it's "Not OK" to be mean to anyone. Doesn't stop people from being mean unfortunately.

arkad 5y ago

Not exactly related, but some time ago I realized it's not ok to make fun of people with physical disabilities but somehow it's totally acceptable to make fun of people with lower IQ.

cafard 5y ago
It is? Maybe it was forty and fifty years ago.
- acuozzo 5y ago
  Not OP. FWIW, I think OP isn't referring to individuals with intellectual disabilities; just those with an IQ one standard deviation down from the mean e.g. 85. In my experience, there's often no backlash against jokes or even serious talking points about "stupid people".
Zababa 5y ago
I don't think it is? Making fun of people that do one stupid action is I think okay, but making fun of people that have a harder life than other people because of how they're born doesn't seem okay to me.
snet0 5y ago
In my experience, people who are fine with IQ jokes are also fine with disability jokes.
caymanjim 5y ago
I think others are confusing your "lower IQ" comment to mean "people with intellectual disabilities", which I don't think you're defending. It's obvious that "stupid" people (those seen as "normal stupid") are one of the last publicly-acceptable targets of ridicule. It's common for even the most well-mannered public personalities to speak derisively and dismissively about the stupidity of others. The most common insult toward someone you disagree with is to call them "stupid" or "an idiot". No one says "retarded" in polite company anymore, but it's essentially the same thing.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Funny that you mention it, but at one point "mentally retarded" was a gentler term for the then rather harsh clinically-used terms "idiot", "moron", and "imbecile". Now these three words are considered much less offensive than their one-time euphemism. What a world. Here's an article explaining it further: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moron-idiot-imbecile-offensive-history https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/moron-idiot-im...

techbio 5y ago

Article is not about "being mean". It's about professional and other discrimination against an unprotected class of underprivileged people.

bko 5y ago

> 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 such a straw man argument. Who is this person that fires people arbitrarily? Does he not have a business to run? Does it not cost him thousands of dollars and probably a few dozen hours of his company's time hiring someone? The only reason I could see him firing someone because of appearance is where it matters. For instance, if you let yourself go and you're in a high visibility role where it could be argued that it affects your job performance (e.g. actress, cocktail waitress) Why do we keep discussing these arbitrary scenarios?

techbio 5y ago
Describing the three scenarios in parallel is a rhetorical technique to raise the question of why some are protected by law and custom, and some are not, in roughly similar outcomes. The article links to several studies purporting to show this effect in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness. I get your point. It can be (often is?) reductive to generate a protagonist/antagonist sketch and then extend its implications beyond reason. I don't quite see that happening here.
- Zababa 5y ago
  > in professions that ostensibly have nothing to do with attractiveness I can't access the article, but I think attractiveness can be a factor in many jobs. People are called "ugly" because they create a negative emotion when you look at them. Having to be around people like that is objectively a bit worse than being around regular/attractive people. It's a bit like talking to someone who's always a bit abrasive vs someone who's always a bit kind. I do agree that compared to other forms of discrimination, there are no legal protections for these people and that maybe that should change.
  - 5y ago

Wohlf 5y ago

Why is it okay to be mean to anyone?

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
If it benefits you. For example, if there are people in a specific group that you'd like to be a part of, defending the persons honor they they are condemning will not earn you points at all. I know people like to act like you can get through life being a damn saint all the time but that is such a facade. The reason the people in power are where they are is because they made fun of the right people with the "right" people. Their status grew and they could eventually form themselves how they wanted to because they had enough power to influence how others figured out who was appropriate to make fun of and such. It's a subtle trust mechanism between people. It determines who you are and what you're willing to partake in but with minor repercussions involved if it's discovered by someone else who may care. I mean think of this, if you participated in the #metoo movement and your case did not lead to any convictions, do you seriously think anybody will not come up to that person without any trust reservations from the start? It's public knowledge you will go public with something you perceive as wrongdoing against you. So if I accidentally offend you, now I might be concerned you may use that to damage my reputation down the line. As a former "always follow logic and be nice christian" person, you will never get anywhere butting heads with people for the sake of righteousness. You will go the way of Thomas Moore, get your head chopped off, and the world will proceed without your input interfering again.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

snet0 5y ago

>In survey after survey, beautiful people are described as trustworthy, competent, friendly, likable and intelligent, while ugly people get the opposite labels. Does this actually provide value without being contrasted to "objective" measures? Are attractive people actually more intelligent, friendly or trustworthy? If they are, this sounds more like a useful heuristic rather than an unfair stereotype. I know I can find this research myself, but it seems weird to not even make reference to any objective measures in this context.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
If I had to wager a guess, it could signal that you have wealth, time, energy, apply effort into bettering yourself, and you care about things that do matter. Ugly people can reflect often that they aren't putting effort in their lives whether it comes to being fat. Genetic issues can signal basically, you have bad genes. If you see someone with down syndrome, your first instinct isn't "They are so attractive!" because it is an enormous detriment to your survival and future offspring. It's all a show. But wisdom isn't what you know, it's knowing how to exploit what others don't to your benefit. It's not nefarious but part of the game. Now this is clearly speculative and based off my own observations. It's significantly more nuanced than this and more than just one unconscious decision people make. It is however ingrained in us to know culturally what "success" looks like, and we meter others based on that.
inglor_cz 5y ago
> Are attractive people actually more intelligent, friendly or trustworthy? You are getting downvoted, but this seems to be a very non-trivial question, especially if historic context is taken into account. For example, a mere 100-150 years ago, syphilis was widespread in the population, and it often resulted in face deformities [0] and deterioration of the mind [1] at the same time. For someone living in that era, avoiding people who looked ugly and unhealthy might have been a useful heuristic. Maybe we still use an outdated heuristic from the age of syphilis. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Tertiary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis#Tertiary [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis#Neuropsychiatric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosyphilis#Neuropsychiatric

Cycl0ps 5y ago

It's a stretch, but I'd say this still falls under Betteridge's law

techbio 5y ago
Worth the stretch, especially since it is paywalled, but the "Why?" adds dimension. Is it ok? No. Check. Does it happen anyway? Apparently yes. I think it raises interesting questions about human nature and society.

Aboh33 5y ago

I know this is an opinion piece but surely the NYT has never pushed the ideals of what it thinks Beauty should be?! Gtfo

caymanjim 5y ago
The NYT isn't a single mind. It's perfectly fine to present conflicting ideas. All of us hold conflicting ideas ourselves. I don't like that I discriminate against unattractive people. I'm an unattractive person. But I still pursue attractive people for romance, and I even fall under the spell of attractive people in a professional context. Charisma/mojo/whatever you call it goes a long way, and physical attributes are a big part of it.

ladyattis 5y ago

I have a similar problem with being seen as not attractive and being treated poorly for it (not fired, though that's a new one to me). And I've found it really comes down to a variety of factors. Obviously, beauty is in the eye of the beholder but sometimes it gets really weird when someone can't work with you or trust you because you're not exactly well made (one eye is off, you're fat, or your voice doesn't fit your build, etc). It really gets to a point that working becomes unbearable. I don't even consider the termination aspect as a major issue. Just being able to not get brushed off while doing your work would be a huge boon for me. Luckily, I'm a software developer now but when I was younger and worked in many public facing jobs it really got annoying. But I guess my point is that societies worldwide really need to get over aesthetics when it comes to work. If I'm not applying to be a model then what I look like shouldn't matter all that much.

ziji 5y ago

If they didn’t make you, they can’t hurt you.

ElijahLynn 5y ago

Also, watch episode 1 of 100 Humans. The experiment gives the same crime to a sampleset of non-attractive and attractive humans and has the 100 humans give them jail sentences. The non-attractive criminals (actors) get nearly twice as much jail time in this experiment.