Lookism.net - Sluthate's Even More Autistic Spinoff

[supdup]

Anyways as a quick summary before I go to bed:

>people get discriminated and treated negatively because of their looks
>it is not their fault, and they can not do much about it
>if you deny this you are lying to yourself
>attractiveness is largely objective and anybody that claims they like having a subpar partner is coping hard
>visit lookism.net if you are suffering from lookism in your daily life

AMA done for now.

All these are bold assertions. You have given us absolutely zero reason to accept any of your assertions as true. Did you go the Holden school of logic? Where they teach you that if you repeat an assertion enough times, it becomes truer?

 

[Baryon Jones]

Have you ever stopped to consider that you might have been picked on because you're an asshole?

No, because he's never read any shit studies that show assholes have no friends.

What is kinda bugging me here though is this trivialises legit grievances, like mental health issues, mobility problems, &c. After all the whole lookism shtick is 'my life sucks because I'm not a clavin klien model'... well boo fucken hoo.

 

[supdup]

@Humanoid Email Address I can't find a translation,but to me it looks pretty comprehensible and im not even an english native speaker

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...chologie/Psy_II/beautycheck/english/index.htm

That website is basically the summary of the study,they even some pics of the making-of and for me,non-native english speaker is rather easy to understand

Same sentence as before,written in "proper" english

Finally, the results of our studies on social perception suggest that there is a well-defined stereotype of attractiveness: People with more attractive faces were assessed to be more successful, contended, pleasant, intelligent, sociable, exciting, creative and diligent than people with less attractive faces. These results particularly show the far-reaching social consequences human facial attractiveness may have. In order to illustrate this, we constructed three-dimensional animated avatars (head models) using original faces that had been given extreme values like "very unintelligent" or "very successful" in previous ratings.

Nothing changed.

Why did my post get rated "dumb",did someone get triggered by the fact that looks aren't subjective and there's a stereotype of what is attractive? Poor boys,reality is hard

This study is saying that attractive people were assessed to be more successful, contended, etc .. It does NOT say that those that aren't stereotypically attractive are actively discriminated against which is the point you're trying to make.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

Did you go the Holden school of logic?

How rich, coming from a retard whose every post so was laughably illogical that it had to been mercilessly cut down after a mere sentence or two.

 

[Positron]

I said go worship a hooker and stop bothering us!

 

[Baryon Jones]

How rich, coming from a exceptional individual whose every post so was laughably illogical that it had to been mercilessly cut down after a mere sentence or two.

Holden's entire logical ouput is 'for all X, if X is a woman RAPE RAPE RACISM RAPE PITY' so its hilarious to watch him talk about other peoples logic. Kinda like critiquing hygiene while covered in shit.

 

[ON 190]

He thinks if he claims to mercilessly cut down our posts that he'll be worshipped as a Guatemalan trucker god.

 

[Dove]

This study is saying that attractive people were assessed to be more successful, contended, etc .. It does NOT say that those that aren't stereotypically attractive are actively discriminated against which is the point you're trying to make.

Where did i say that the persons who weren't attractive were discriminated? I didn't even make any point,i just posted the study and asked opinions.

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...ish/sozialewahrnehmung/sozialewahrnehmung.htm

The results are alarmingly clear. We found an enormously influencing attractiveness-stereotype: The more attractive the presented faces were, the more successful, content, friendly, intelligent, socialble, accessible, exciting, creative and busy the persons were estimated. The opposite applies to unattractive faces: The more unattractive the faces were the more negative characteristics were attributed to the person.
The correlation between attractivity and positive personality characteristics is very high (correlation coefficients between 0.70 and 0.90). We kept interfering factors, such as clothing, smiling, hair-style, jewelry, lighting effects or changing background consistent so that the only stimulus to be judged is the (more or less attractive) face itself.

So there may not be a discrimination against non-attractive nor ugly persons,but for sure there is one for ugly ones.

The definition of halo effect at it's best

 

[Baryon Jones]

He thinks if he claims to mercilessly cut down our posts that he'll be worshipped as a Guatemalan trucker god.

Typical of self loathing racists really.

Where did i say that the persons who weren't attractive were discriminated? I didn't even make any point,i just posted the study and asked opinions.

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...ish/sozialewahrnehmung/sozialewahrnehmung.htm

The results are alarmingly clear. We found an enormously influencing attractiveness-stereotype: The more attractive the presented faces were, the more successful, content, friendly, intelligent, socialble, accessible, exciting, creative and busy the persons were estimated. The opposite applies to unattractive faces: The more unattractive the faces were the more negative characteristics were attributed to the person.
The correlation between attractivity and positive personality characteristics is very high (correlation coefficients between 0.70 and 0.90). We kept interfering factors, such as clothing, smiling, hair-style, jewelry, lighting effects or changing background consistent so that the only stimulus to be judged is the (more or less attractive) face itself.

So there may not be a discrimination against non-attractive nor ugly persons,but for sure there is one for ugly ones.

The definition of halo effect at it's best

Its still a flawed, outdated study from a 3rd rate college.

 

[Rin]

Where did i say that the persons who weren't attractive were discriminated? I didn't even make any point,i just posted the study and asked opinions.

http://www.uni-regensburg.de/Fakult...ish/sozialewahrnehmung/sozialewahrnehmung.htm

The results are alarmingly clear. We found an enormously influencing attractiveness-stereotype: The more attractive the presented faces were, the more successful, content, friendly, intelligent, socialble, accessible, exciting, creative and busy the persons were estimated. The opposite applies to unattractive faces: The more unattractive the faces were the more negative characteristics were attributed to the person.
The correlation between attractivity and positive personality characteristics is very high (correlation coefficients between 0.70 and 0.90). We kept interfering factors, such as clothing, smiling, hair-style, jewelry, lighting effects or changing background consistent so that the only stimulus to be judged is the (more or less attractive) face itself.

So there may not be a discrimination against non-attractive nor ugly persons,but for sure there is one for ugly ones.

The definition of halo effect at it's best

Too autistic; didn't read.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

Holden's entire logical ouput is 'for all X, if X is a woman RAPE RAPE RACISM RAPE PITY' so its hilarious to watch him talk about other peoples logic.

There we go again. Accusations, accusations, no examples, nothing.

Baryon's feet stink. They do. I know.

 

[Rin]

There we go again. Accusations, accusations, no examples, nothing.

Baryon's feet stink. They do. I know.

You need to work on your shitposting, man. Shaner's started a third account, so that'll slow him down a bit, but he's gaining at a much faster rate than you do. You've been flagging lately, and I'm starting to worry that you're losing your touch.

 

[Baryon Jones]

Too autistic; didn't read.

I actually went to the trouble of looking up the journal's rank, and it got ignored... I should know better.

There we go again. Accusations, accusations, no examples, nothing.

Thats because I measure conversational success in ad-homs per paragraph.

Edit

Baryon's feet stink. They do. I know.

That's a medical condition you insensitive fuck...

 

[Frank Rizzo]

I actually went to the trouble of looking up the journal's rank, and it got ignored... I should know better.


Thats because I measure conversational success in ad-homs per paragraph.

One thing you need to know about Dove, and most SH'ers in general actually, is that they'll source *any* article that proves their point "right", no matter how autistic and how wrong said article is. Then, they post it and basically crow about "HUR DUR, SEE, WE'RE RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG! LOLZ!"

 

[Baryon Jones]

One thing you need to know about Dove, and most SH'ers in general actually, is that they'll source *any* article that proves their point "right", no matter how autistic and how wrong said article is. Then, they post it and basically crow about "HUR DUR, SEE, WE'RE RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG! LOLZ!"

Its amusing that dove doesn't respond to it, it really is. Watching these hard-of-thinking twits try to use academic principles is like one of those cat vids where the cat is trying to catch fish on an ipad screen, just sad rather than adorable

 

[Frank Rizzo]

Its amusing that dove doesn't respond to it, it really is. Watching these hard-of-thinking twits try to use academic principles is like one of those cat vids where the cat is trying to catch fiah on an ipad screen...

Eh, by this point, a debate with Dove usually goes like this:

Dove: LOLZ, HEY FAGGOTS, HERE'S AN ARTICLE THAT PROVES SLUT HATERS ARE RIGHT!

Dove proceeds to post uncited, biased article from random website

Kiwis: Um, this doesn't really prove anything. How big was the study? How long did it go on? It doesn't answer every question....

Dove: FUCK YOU FAGGOTS! I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!

 

[Cthulu]

There we go again. Accusations, accusations, no examples, nothing.

Baryon's feet stink. They do. I know.

You need copdog in your life.

 

[Baryon Jones]

Eh, by this point, a debate with Dove usually goes like this:

Dove: LOLZ, HEY FAGGOTS, HERE'S AN ARTICLE THAT PROVES SLUT HATERS ARE RIGHT!

Dove proceeds to post uncited, biased article from random website

Kiwis: Um, this doesn't really prove anything. How big was the study? How long did it go on? It doesn't answer every question....

Dove: FUCK YOU FAGGOTS! I'M RIGHT, YOU'RE WRONG!

His cognitive bias is like tasty, tasty bacon.

 

[Frank Rizzo]

His cognitive bias is like tasty, tasty bacon.

Slut Haters really *do* seem to have an almost psychotic obsession with needing to be proved right. It actually gets kinda sad at some points.

 

[Baryon Jones]

Slut Haters really *do* seem to have an almost psychotic obsession with needing to be proved right. It actually gets kinda sad at some points.

Its a good thing I'm not here to engage in intellectual discourse with them... as previously stated I'm just buffing my ad hominem score.