I’m actually more on the political left. However, I observe that whoever calls the bluff of “looks don’t matter in Society” (for example, when compared to things like gender) gets blasted or canceled.
I think this is one of the central debates of our Time.
Why is it that in a age of 100% information access, calling out that “the emperor has no clothes” causes such strong reactions?
Additionally, it somehow seems that this debate cannot be had without dealing with ‘loony’ bases like the Incels.
…and that fact, just to start with, is very meaningful.
We can, and do, mandate racist employers to not discriminate in hiring.
We can, and do, mandate ableist businesses to accommodate the disabled.
We can, and do, mandate sexist banks and lenders to do business with women.
But we can not, obviously, mandate women to have sex with physically undesirable men.
This is not a matter of people denying reality so much as it's people pretending to deny reality because openly acknowledging it presents society with an intractable problem that requires reversing the clock on feminism's progress and denying rights to half the population to "solve".
Everyone knows that looks are extremely important to women. And those that don't know it intuitively have a plethora of stated versus revealed preference studies to reference. We deny it not because we don't know it. We deny it because acknowledging unsolvable problems is extremely uncomfortable.
You may be missing my point. I thoroughly agree with so-called "blackpill" analysis of the problem. And I believe that most people do too, if you got them drunk and honest enough.
The issue is that civilization "solved" the problem by codifying lifelong monogamy into law, repressing the rights of women, treating them as chattel, and exacting draconian punishments for exercising their hypergamy.
There is precisely ZERO chance we will ever go back to that.
So what other solution is there? The reality is that there is no solution. Nor can we even pretend that there is a solution. At least with other difficult problems like climate change or racial achievement gaps, we can play little games like carbon credits and school funding reallocation that won't fix the problem but we can at least pretend it might. What could we possibly even pretend to do about this problem? Government-funded bimax surgery for all? Mandatory CRISPR gene modifications of gametes to ensure sexually dimorphic physical traits for all? I don't think so.
Even acknowledging the problem immediately suggests "historical" solutions, all of which are complete anathema to our modern society.
So, we're stuck. Humans are very good at denying the existence of a problem if there's no viable solution. And that's what we're doing now. So we gaslight legitimate incels into believing they just need to work on their hygiene and personality and hope for the best. This
Admitting that life is inherently unfair and the narrow margins your dubious "free will" can exert its power in are decided at birth and through events outside of your control gets many people's panties twisted. Probably because it absolutely rejects the cherished lie of individualistic self-determinism?
I don't see how recognizing the fact that life can never be 100% fair means that therefor we shouldn't do whatever is possible.
If someone will have disadvantages compared to me no matter what I do, so what? I still don't have to help make it even worse, or even stand by and not help move the needle at least a little in the better-world direction.
What's wrong with simply having that goal as an ideal and a direction that you aim? Forget about how far you can actually get, you still have a choice which direction to walk.
The political left is obsessed with economic and political inequality but their theories fall flat on their face, when you confront them with the fact that there are other forms of injustices and privileges in this world that result from genetics or pure luck.
Then they resort to just world fallacies.
I think this is one of the central debates of our Time.
Why is it that in a age of 100% information access, calling out that “the emperor has no clothes” causes such strong reactions?
Additionally, it somehow seems that this debate cannot be had without dealing with ‘loony’ bases like the Incels. …and that fact, just to start with, is very meaningful.