What you say is part of it, but I'd posit the foundational well-spring of beauty obsession in the West is imperialist race supremacy.

Especially before genetics even existed, the only basis on which to conclude Westerners are superior is superficial attributes. If you grow up believing you're better than other people's because you're from a more perfected race then it's a natural corollary that looks would further differentiate the superior to the inferior within the superior race.

Point is the whole framework of racial superiority is independent of actions, character and morals, you just walk around believing you're of higher value than various lower forms of humanity (or higher forms of our cousin primates, depending on the race theory). If you're conditioned to feel this way to understand your general value position within society you're going to have the same thoughts comparing yourself with anyone, including other "civilized" peoples.

And in general, the more I learn about the nuances of politics, history and sociology, the more, not less, things seem reducible to racism.

Why is the genocide happening right now: racism.

Why do we have a war on drugs that fuels organized crime and corrupts our institutions: racism.

Why do we not ensure everyone in our own societies has basic needs despite having the wealth and technology: racism.

Why do we not even consider providing everyone on the planet with basic needs, or have a reasonable go at it: racism.

Why is capitalist polite society unbothered by the failure of its promises: racism.

Why is Western culture obsessed with superficial beauty: racism.

Because sure, social problems are complex ... but also studied exhaustively and we know can be solved. Why not implement those solutions? Racism.

I get what you're trying to say, but in my experience beauty (you're talking about human beauty) isn't necessarily "valued" highly, if highly means deeply. Rather beauty is easily and instantly recognized and thus appreciated. Though it's easy availability in the media, makes it rather superficial and thus not very valuable individually. Or to put it another way, if you're on a dating app you'll see any number of profiles showcasing "beauty", so you can go on an almost unlimited number of dates with beautiful people. However, the vast majority will be single dates because there's no connection (best case scenario), or something seriously wrong with your beautiful date. So whatever qualities your soulmate possesses is "valuable", because it's rare. Beauty isn't rare.

Beauty is a sign of good genetics(as if it was a mark of having good genetics). If you think you've seen a beautiful person who has proven that his/her genetics aren't good, then I would ask you, how beautiful was this person? If it's just a cute face, I wouldn't class that as beautiful. The best of the best beautiful people tend to have good immune systems, great minds and perfect bodies.

Imagine if we had to create our own beauty, such as by selecting the universe to be born into, selecting the parents, and competing against others for those selections. This would add a bit of fairness to beauty, as it would have to be earned.

There are some really beautiful people, far greater than the famous, with genetic mutations resulting in larger smiles, more symmetrical noses, carved out, 'arc'd' eyes, sharper complexion and red lips and so forth.

Beautiful people tend to have symmetrical and perfectly shaped body parts, such as perfectly shaped feet and hands. If the genes are the best of the best, everything about you is a higher quality than the rest...

People tend to prefer the more perfect bodies and minds to the lesser ones. It's in our nature to create idols and we idolize beauty because it gives us something to hope for, to hope to become in the future.

Is it just a corollary of the runaway principle of capitalism?

Can we compare the superficial West to other societies which do not see youth and beauty as the be all and end all?

Just look at how old people are mainly ignored in society. Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

I can only provide a dull quotidian rant. Beauty and youth have never been something I’ve thought much about or focused on. But the frame you’ve presented is one I’ve heard for decades. When I was young, I was more interested in older people because they had experience and knew things I didn’t. I’ve always been more drawn to character, originality, and texture than to beauty, and most of my friends are similar. So I struggle to relate to the kind of picture you’ve presented, though I do recognize that advertising (often appealing to the lowest common denominator) manufactures trends and shapes interests by targeting certain insecurities around perceptions of beauty, etc. But should we give a fuck, and how many of us actually do?

Cosmetic surgery, exercise regimens, dieting, and fashion are all long-standing practices, driven more by people’s lack of confidence than anything else. We confuse physical appearance with success (just as we confuse wealth with success) only because we may not be nuanced enough to recognize that most of us already look fine, and that if we simply relaxed, we’d likely be both happier and more successful. In this sense, I don’t think we care that much beauty itself, only about the apparent currency or leverage it might hold.

I don't know why it is so hard to get people to accept that western society is superficial so far. Maybe you all are very deep souls, yes it is not surprising on a philosophy forum but that does not mean it is the general rule in society and you have to have lived pretty sheltered lives to not think that.

This society teaches, off the top of my head, basically: money, fame, beauty are the major tenets of the good life.

Not sure why there is the resistance to accept that. I am positing why that is but it seems the discussion can't get going on this track yet as the main contention is that society at large does not actually value beauty which I am finding bizarre if anyone looks at mainstream media.

If you want to quibble semantics about they don't really value it then. Value in this context means whatever gets most airtime over other things. The fact it mainstream media is awash with superficial messaging that beauty = good which bleeds into the morals, or lack thereof, of what the average person esteems towards.

Males tend to prefer people who resemble mommy and females tend to prefer people who resemble daddy (or sometimes, in the event of loss, their respective ideas of such). And of course vice-versa as far as one's parents and therefore sensory development is concerned.

Beyond that, evolution (or if a theist, the Curse Upon Man), made it so those who are unfamiliar, do not conform, or are otherwise bizarre, ended up reproducing less until given societies ended up more or less uniform and conforming to one another.

It's really not that exciting nor complicated beyond that.

Some discover this and are able to transcend it, whilst most others will inevitably fail to. And that's just how it is.

Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

I doubt you would find many people in their 20s who agree with this. Older people have the money and the power. Older people are the bosses, younger people are the wage slaves. Older people are the politicians, younger people are the canon fodder.

Superficial beauty is often just about what triggers sexual lust, which is a hugely powerful instinctive force.

The flaccid noodle becomes a turgid rod and the desire inside you aches for the fantasy some passing image creates.

A deformed body can be a great pain; a perfect body is healthy.

We desire beauty because it's a sign of good health(the parents had good genetics, the beautiful one is comfortable and healthy in all fields). When sensed, a beautiful person may be more attractive to the senses; this is proof of their good social health.

Cosmetic surgery is huge outside of the West too. I'd say it's a symptom of modernity, rather than having anything to do with the West specifically. Modernity is spiritual, intellectual and moral famine. All the rest follows logically.

I was going to say, this seems like a rather strange statement. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc., along with most of the "Big Billionaires" are not remotely young. America currently has a gerontocracy by almost any historical standard. I've written about this before in other contexts:

Broadly speaking, [the Baby Boomers] have held the White House since 1993, when they were in their late 20s to mid 40s (Millennials' age today). They will have held it for at least 36 years. They became a majority in Congress in 1998, when the midpoint for the generation was 42 years old, and became a super majority shortly after, which they have retained to this day. By contrast, Congress had just five Millennials through 2019, at which time the oldest in that cohort reached 38 years of age. This was 0.2% representation for 29% of the adult population. Today, the House has 31 Millennial or Gen Z members, the Senate just 1. Congress still has more members aged 78-90 than 18-45. If you make the logical assumption that the vast majority of children belong to households headed by younger adults (i.e. under 45 or 50) you get a slim % of total representation allocated for over half the nation's population.

Cabinet posts aren't any different. They also average at or above retirement age in recent administrations. This is a change from prior decades, but also a huge change from most of human history when the prime of life was considered to be about 25-50. Obviously, part of this has to do with improved lifespans and healthspans on the upper end, but on the lower end it would seem to be an effect of cultural and economic changes (including a prolonged adolescence that lasts for many now into the late-20s).

Obviously, that's more "economics/politics," however it feels to me like "youth culture" has gotten significantly less influential and dominant since the peak from the 1950s - 1990s. I don't have any sort of stat to back that up. It's just that in the 60s-80s in particular, youth culture dominated the zeitgeist. Now, it's sort of crammed online. The kids don't even dominate the nightlife scene anymore.

The preference for looking young seems to be more of a thing for women. Hollywood is full of older male leads. They often look younger than they are, but they're unlikely to be mistaken for people in their 20s. Actually, I'd say the extremely widespread use of anabolic steroids and the growing size of movie stars has actually made romantic/action male leads look a good deal older than prior decades.

I do think there is a shift though in which the archetypes associated with advanced age are pushed out, and a sort of permanent youth is strived for. We have a lot of politicians above 70, but most aren't trying to project "elder statesman vibes."



:up: Right, I've heard it is very popular in East Asia and Brazil. And East Asia's general obsession with not getting tan (and skin-lightening products) seems to go even beyond the West's obsession with getting tan at times.

Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

What?

There are plenty of other evolutionarily useful traits that get sidelined like cooperation and community care in favor of beauty above all else as the highest value. — unimportant

In evolution, Task #1 is reproducing. Beauty is better at promoting sex than being clever at organizing a group sing-along.

aesthetics has been 'fetishized' to use Marx's jargon — unimportant

A better word than "aesthetics" would be something more specific like tits and ass; big breasts; big dicks; gym-sculpted body features (6 or 8 pack, pecs, etc.); blond hair. Youth is fetishized. Except that in many countries, young people are the largest demographic, which makes them compellingly important to the political future.

Is it just a corollary of the runaway principle of capitalism? — unimportant

It's somewhere between very difficult and impossible to answer such questions because we may be the product of that corollary. We might be blind to it.

Just look at how old people are mainly ignored in society. Not even old-old but after 20s people are generally removed from the main stage to accept smaller and smaller roles. — unimportant

Come now! That's not remotely true. It might be true that after 55--certainly after 60--it becomes much more difficult to find appropriate jobs, because one is likely to be older and more experienced than one's supervisors, for one thing.

It depends where you are. Were I to visit any of the gay bars that I used to successfully cruise and socialize in, I would expect to be flat-out ignored (I'm 79). But political pollsters seem to think my opinions are valuable. I have a great credit rating; bankers like me--I'm finally a good risk.

My peak social and career success was between 40 and 50, without a sharp cutoff.

What would life be like in a world where wisdom and personal integrity were the ideals that were instilled as the greatest good — unimportant

We don't know, because wisdom and personal integrity have been on offer for thousands of years and people tend to honor it in the breach more often than in the observance.

I don't know why it is so hard to get people to accept that western society is superficial so far. — unimportant

Because people are alike all over the world and you can't walk 10 feet any place on earth without tripping over at least one shallow air head.

This society teaches, off the top of my head, basically: money, fame, beauty are the major tenets of the good life. — unimportant

What about the motto of the Communist Chinese reform movement: Getting rich is glorious! Just remember: We are all one species and we tend to be very very similar. However... don't give up.

While we are all quite similar, we all also have unique individual aspirations, goals, needs, wants, wishes, values, strengths, and weaknesses. The condition of the world can look very different by shifting one's gaze from the small number of most noticed people (followed by the press, social media, etc.) and the much larger majority who spend their days working, being quite sensible, and just getting on with life.

It also reminds me, maybe it isn't the love of Beauty (philokalia) that is the problem, but the misapprehension of beauty and the prizing of the lesser over the greater beauties?

And oldie but goodie:


O love,
O heart,
Find the way to heaven.

Set your sights on a place
Higher than your eyes can see.
For it was the higher aim
That brought you here
In the first place.

Now be silent.
Let the One who creates the words speak.
He made the door.
He made the lock.
He also made the key.

How many men have found tragic ends
Running after beauty?
Why don’t they look for you? -
The heart and spirit of all beauty.

~ Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi

And Plato in the Symposium:

And the true order of going, or being led by another, to the things of love, is to begin from the beauties of earth and mount upwards for the sake of that other beauty, using these as steps only, and from one going on to two, and from two to all fair forms, and from fair forms to fair practices, and from fair practices to fair notions, until from fair notions he arrives at the notion of absolute beauty, and at last knows what the essence of beauty is.

Strange, your reply didn't show up until now, or I missed it the first time. Hard to miss your posts usually. ;)

Seems yours is the only reply on a similar track that I was thinking with most taking issue at the question itself being fallacious and misguided somehow. No surprise since we are both Anarchist comrades.

Yes, this was covered in the OP. That is the evolutionary instinct. My question concerns how it seems to have been hyper exaggerated beyond the natural level.

Like I mentioned, I would maintain that it is the runaway principle. Same as how high heels are unnatural but they accentuate the natural attributes of a woman.

That explains the what but not the why. As in, why our society lets beauty and aesthetics dominate over more substantive matters like philosophy or more noble pursuits.

Take an extreme example you will not see skimpily dressed women in muslim countries under sharia. Not saying its right but that has been suppressed there. Over here we are the other extreme of licentious lustful desire.

I think this overlooks the huge influence the West has on the rest of the world. Most other countries of the world actively aspire to be the top dogs. Much of their tv is westernized and so too their values of what the good life is seeks to emulate western society.

I was going to say, this seems like a rather strange statement. Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Mitch McConnell, etc., along with most of the "Big Billionaires" are not remotely young — Count Timothy von Icarus

There are different forms of influence of course, but I am just discussing that which is attributed to beauty. Take any of the above and apart from Trump who people would be very excited to see just because of his celebrity, how many of those would have influence in a nightclub setting? :D They would just be seen as old creepy/boring people. Trump people would love to see because he is so outrageous and kind of transcends his age due to his personality. I don't even think of him as an old person as his strength of character transcends that.

I do agree it was an omission on my part not to mention political power in the OP.

There is also celebrity and social status which is another form. Look at the example of Weinstein and Epstein. Both ugly and gross but had influence regardless.

These are not the topic of discussion. I agree they exist and not denying them. I am just asking why society as a social norm values beauty so highly (not to deny there are other forms of social value but they are usually equally shallow).

I am sticking with the evolutionary trait run rampant, a la the peacock's tail. The nub of the question though is why has happened? With the complaints so far about the question maybe the beauty focus is a red herring, a single symptom of a deeper issue, and the question would better be modified to...why is western society at large so shallow?

EDIT: Ah of course! Not sure why I didn't see it before but my communist/anarchist knowledge kicked in and of course the answer is obvious now...capitalism! The root of nearly all of the world's ills!

There's a lot of things wrong with the world, the way beauty is treated is just another one of of those problems. The only answer is there is something wrong with the people who believe it's the right way to act. Why they do it is because of human stupidity, and weakness to natural urges that would allow us to think otherwise. There is nothing truly beautiful about this way of thinking, it completely misrepresents what beauty is about--- it's completely artificial.

Great sex and relationship education, as well as philosophy, would improve the way our society treats beauty.

Eugenics would be a good idea to promote good health in reproduction, it's better than treating children as a father or mother experience(like parents own the child's spirit). I quite like the idea of the Government rearing beautiful children.

What about the motto of the Communist Chinese reform movement: Getting rich is glorious! — BC

Interesting, but isn't that proof it was only when they adopted a mishmash of communist/capitalism which is what it is today? What are your thoughts on this take on this comment ?

There's a lot of things wrong with the world, the way beauty is treated is just another one of of those problems. The only answer is there is something wrong with the people who believe it's the right way to act. Why they do it is because of human stupidity, and weakness to natural urges that would allow us to think otherwise. There is nothing truly beautiful about this way of thinking, it completely misrepresents what beauty is about--- it's completely artificial. — Barkon

Indeed, that is the Eastern philosophy flavor of explaining it. Not saying it is wrong and is a good overall synopsis.

Eugenics would be a good idea to promote good health in reproduction, it's better than treating children as a father or mother experience(like parents own the child's spirit). I quite like the idea of the Government rearing beautiful children.

I guess this is tongue in cheek?

I don't see how eugenics could insult people. It's not that everyone can't reproduce, there's just a program happening where beautiful people are matched together.

The fact it mainstream media is awash with superficial messaging that beauty = good which bleeds into the morals, or lack thereof, of what the average person esteems towards

I agree with you that media is saturated with beauty, but we agree why that is, right? Media seeks to sell stuff. Beauty sells.

But do you really equate media with culture? I don't. Regardless, are you an "average person" that you reference above? I didn't think so. Sounds like we're in agreement.

The OP is a bit of a jumble between beauty and youth, so I'll try to untangle at the same time as giving my 2c:

Beauty
This is not a uniquely western thing at all. We're hard-wired to make a judgement about the health, youth, fertility etc of those around us and be attracted to people with good traits as partners but data even shows it influences our choice of friendship.
So it is completely natural, and all cultures do it. I have noticed though, particularly in videos about celebrities, that people still talk as if beautiful people have done something right, and plain or unattractive people have done something wrong. Rather than it being 90%+ luck (yes, you can age better if you take good care of yourself, but even how your looks change as you age has a significant luck factor).

Age
This one I'm closer to agreeing with the OP.
I lived in China for a few years, and their culture has a lot more reverence for the old. Most of the parks will have big groups of elderly people doing tai chi, dancing together, playing mahjong etc and really looking like they're having fun and basically owning the space. The old don't hide away there, or try to pretend they are young. (though this is changing; the generation in their 50s now is much more likely to try to stave off the visual effects of ageing than their parents were)
Please don't take it that I am saying Chinese culture is better but definitely in this regard I saw it as a positive.
Why there is this difference, I think will come down to many, many factors, and I would say the aesthetics are probably a side effect. That is to say, western culture is more macho, and more rebellious, so it makes men act a certain way and influences both genders' idea of what's needed to be attractive.

What are your thoughts on this take on this comment by boethius — unimportant

I do not agree that everything is reducible to "imperialist race supremacy". There are several "isms" that can be cited as a universal cause of all problems: sexism, communism/capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, racism, classism, and so on. All these 'isms' have real consequences; they are not imaginary, after all.

If you look at the history of housing and housing finance in the United States, it is very clear that race mattered in the way that housing expansion in the 20th century was managed. THE COLOR OF LAW by Richard Rothstein (2018) closely examines how federal law and policy built white-only suburbs and black-only public housing in cities. The policies have knock-on effects for wealth and opportunities three generations on.

However, class plays a role in housing policy as well. People seem to prefer living among people who are similar to themselves in terms of culture, education, and occupation. Class preferences are going to have racial aspects, because of wealth (and thus class) distribution. Upper class people (roughly 10% of the population) prefer to live among other upper class people. Middle class people (entrepreneurial, economic strivers, fairly well educated, etc.) generally do not want to live with people in the lower working classes, regardless of race.

I don't think that arranging to live with people like one's self (race, class, education, etc.) is pathological.

On the other hand, it is perfectly clear that one goal of racial policy is generally to suppress one racial group for the benefit of another. Economic 'warfare' is a very old game, played in both racially homogeneous and racially mixed populations.

This one I'm closer to agreeing with the OP. — Mijin

Good to see some unsolicited support as I was a lone voice, except comrade boethius, on this so far. I would put it down to other respondents being under the veil of western propaganda and are more apologists for capitalism.

Your example reminds me of a documentary I once watched where it was showing how some indigenous tribe revered its old, which was highlighted specifically to contrast how the west does not. One of their rituals was shown of an old lady dressed in nothing but a small sumo style loin cloth was being rubbed down all over with some kind of oil by the younger people.

Yet another example I recall from some seminar where the lady of Italian descent spoke of strong Italian role models who were admired and were the 'alpha females' back in the mother land whereas the culture in America is to shut them away.

↪boethius Strange, your reply didn't show up until now, or I missed it the first time. Hard to miss your posts usually. — unimportant

No worries comrade; clearly still best practice to reply to the OP to avoid this happening.

Seems yours is the only reply on a similar track that I was thinking with most taking issue at the question itself being fallacious and misguided somehow. No surprise since we are both Anarchist comrades. — unimportant

Good to see this is no longer the case, but I don't think the premise is so much denied by apparent antagonists to it, only that the opposing parties in the debate claim to have personally transcended Western beauty superficiality to arrive at a purer Western aesthetic of more than the eye can see ... that still includes slaying mad hot bitches in near infinite supply as a core value ... but also ... something more.

For example:

Or to put it another way, if you're on a dating app you'll see any number of profiles showcasing "beauty", so you can go on an almost unlimited number of dates with beautiful people. — LuckyR

Clearly takes for granted that looks are the main factor of consideration.

It's not as if @LuckyR is ignoring or turning off images to go on dates purely based on indications of character, but rather he only goes on dates with beautiful people but has become tired with getting lucky with an unlimited number of 10's and has to just wait tediously on his trek through the desert of endless 10 to find those few diamonds in the rough who have it all.

But that just begs the question of why apps are looks based in the first place. If beauty was taken for granted by everyone and what they really wanted was character, then that's what dating apps would be designed to swipe on. There wouldn't even be photos, or at least not put forward, but just a list of achievements, maybe a poem or two authored or then at least appreciated by the date-seekers, and other indications of character if that's what people in the West valued more than looks.

Moving on:

Beauty is a sign of good genetics(as if it was a mark of having good genetics). If you think you've seen a beautiful person who has proven that his/her genetics aren't good, then I would ask you, how beautiful was this person? If it's just a cute face, I wouldn't class that as beautiful. The best of the best beautiful people tend to have good immune systems, great minds and perfect bodies. — Barkon

Beauty is not even enough for @Barkon, but bodies must be perfect to indicate good genes, but again he's transcended not only the average Westerner but even @LuckyR who certainly is confusing cuteness with perfection to the detriment of his genetic legacy. Another gullible fool in the casino of life. If you're not at the table with a perfect 10 on your arm who's also a brilliant physicist, pulitzer prize winner and composer who never gets ill: you're the sucker.

Again, beauty is yesterday's news, and you better be bringing a great mind and never mention any illness whatsoever if you want your perfect body to even have a chance of copulating with @Barkon's.

.... I'm just going to go ahead and QED on the West's particular obsession with appearances deriving from hundreds of years of Imperial skin-colour based domination ideology and amplified by capitalism that taps into those mental structures if it sells product (which it does).

Goes without saying that Übermensch wear only the superiorist of denim threads as we've been recently reminded.

However, if we agree on the relationship to racism, there is one caveat in that capitalism also promotes non-racism. Wokeism is a corporate philosophy, if we understand wokeism to refer to identify politics completely removed from any economic class based politics.

In order to explain this dichotomy I've had to come up with Racism Optimization Theory (ROT for short) while taking a shower, which seeks to explain the racist dialectic within capitalism.

The three pillars of capitalism as we know it today are corporatist resource extraction, consumerism and imperial domination.

In terms of economic domination of both the foreign people, from whom capitalist elites need the resources and for them to stay poor, and the domestic populations, from whom capitalist elites simply need passivity, these 3 pillars work in complete harmony. Resources are extracted from poor countries to be forced down the gullets of the ignorant masses in the West; fattening up the goose in "goose step".

When it comes to racism however, there is a symbolic tension between the ideals of liberalism that justify "market access", the uniformity sought for efficient consumerism, and the racism required for the foundational imperial power structure.

Racism Optimization Theory describes the mechanisms of how these symbolic tensions are harmonized for smooth oppressive whole.

Make a long story short, contemporary wokeism is the logical terminus of this Rasist Optimziation Theoretical. For, a transnational corporation requires inter-national cooperation within the corporate structure as well as to sell to everyone regardless of race, and so a "colour blind" corporate identity and marketing.

Wokeism provides this ideology with all "unproductive" values that came along with OG liberalism completely removed.

At the same time, the crystallization of wokeism as an oppressive corporate force (it's corporations that do "cancelling" and not any legal process or genuine public outrage; public can be as outraged as it wants, if a corporation doesn't want to use that as a pretext to cancel someone then they won't be cancelled, while a tiny number of super outraged people, regardless of what they're outraged about even making any sense, will be used a pretext to cancel anyone if that's what the very same corporation wants), causes itself the consolidation of naked racism as a potent political force. With anti-racism managed by large multi-national corporations (rather than a religious minister or something like that) and racism securely in the hands of fascists who explicitly want imperial policies, the capitalist system reaches peak efficiency with both cylinders firing at full torque and power.

Lol, beauty is coveted because it is rare. There is a style SUPERFICIAL that is born from PROFOUNDITY. What does a body say about a "soul?" Much of a body tells us about the person. Whether they stuff too many calories into their gullet beyond their capacity for energy expenditure, whether they get too little in comparison with their energy expenditure, whether they're insecure about themselves and need cosmetic surgery. How good their hygiene is. Fashion sense adds to that, a person can be a walking piece of art, and there are artful types indeed. Selecting the right clothing enhances the superficial profundity or even highlights a sort of giving up. There's a lot one can tell about a person from their outward appearance.

What would life be like in a world where wisdom and personal integrity were the ideals that were instilled as the greatest good — unimportant

That's the history of the last 2000+ years lol. I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others.

I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others. — DifferentiatingEgg

I think this highlights the comments boethius made above. It is an attempt to shame me for not being beautiful as being bitter, and I am sure the term 'incel' would be thrown a post or two after, which is the western boogeyman for the unsuccessful capitalist man.

It is like if anyone makes a critique of someone rich then they are just 'haters' and jealous. As if to say "the system is perfect, it is only because you are losing that you are taking issue with it".

Not buying into your whip crack attempt to make me a productive wage slave.

Similar to making fun of someone for having a cheap car like they should aspire to buy an expensive one because society says so.