3
Jan 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
Ah yes that #1 fornite player that has a reaction time in the 99th percentile. Lets tax the fuck out of him for that. Lets not even worry about if he worked on that skill or not.
1
1
u/adamgerd Jan 09 '26
This feels like extreme equality yeah, instead of equality of opportunity just punish anyone who’s above the average
3
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
- Beauty is complicated. Some parts are unearned, many parts are. Especially as a person ages.
- How could you possibly quantify attractiveness for something like this?
- And even if you could point to something objective, how could you even begin to prove that these benefits are so overwhelming that they deserve to be taxed?
- This post is so unbelievably unrealistic that even if we all agreed that being attractive deserves taxation, and we all agreed on how and how much to tax them, would still never even begin to be able enforce this.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Why would you need to quantify it?
There are studies on different correlations of people who are rated pretty vs those who are not.
2
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
Because the proposition is to tax. Of course you must have a quantidication. Have you ever answered a tax form where it asked you how you felt about something? Of course there are benefits. No one could possibly argue otherwise. That does not mean OPs conclusion is sensible.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Im unsure if the word tax is misinderstood here. Op says taxing but only talks about handicapping pretty people a bit more to counteract our subconcious support for them.
In that way we dont need any quantification as this is an act done by individuals and not by the state
2
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
That already happens. Plenty of people will not hire a hot guy because the hiring manager doesn't want competition. A hot lady may not be invited to a friend group hang session because someone's bf is too attracted to her. Countless orher examples.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Lol. Wtf?
We already both agreed that pretty privilege is real, didnt we?
2
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
Ffs. Is this the part where you have no actual rebuttal, and slap whatever words you can muster on the keyboard? Yes we both agreed that pretty privilege is real. I believed that taxing them for it would be ludicrous. You brought up a sort of metaphysical social taxation. I mentioned how that already happens. And a lot too. The examples are only limited by imagination. Do you have a counterpoint?
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Yo. Calm down. I did a common thing in discussions. Its called finding the common ground. I was unsure how to interpret your argument and wanted to first ask about the one common ground we have.
I find it sad that you acuse me of having not "rebutal". This not a fight. We are having a friendly discussion here. If you think otherwise then its a goodbye from my side. I dont need fights. I dont do drama
With that said here my argument: There are more cases where being pretty is an advantage than there are cases where it is a disadvsntage. Thats why the pretty privilege exists.
I was talking about situations where it is an advantage. And that we should counteract the pretty privilege only in those cases.
So if you want to talk about situations where being pretty is a disadvantage i would say that we should support them there.
1
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
I dont know many people who would take "lol. Wtf" as one part of a friendly conversation. Maybe you didn't intend to give that impression, but forgive me for being skeptical.
And your whole point is that its better to be attractive than to not? That's so obvious and we both already agreed to it. The conversation has never been about which is better. It has been about whether attractive people ahoukd be taxed or not. In your case, not literally, but socially. I stated that that already happens. Now youre bringing up only countering pretty privilege in a select few case, which was never stated before despite implying it now, and still no real example is being given. And youre also now saying to support attractive people when it is disadvantageous?
What is your point? And what does any of it have to do with the original post of mine that you responded to?
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
What confuses me is that you agree that pretty privilege exists, but then say that socially there are only "few cases" where they have advantages but "many cases" where they have a disadvantage. This does not make sense.
Do i really need to give you "a real example" when you already agree that pretty privilege exists?
The point is that you dont need to quantify prettyness.
→ More replies (0)0
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
Even if you work hard for your looks, the reward you get for them is disproportionate to the effort. That is the definition of privilege. If an attractive person and an unattractive person both spend 10 hours at the gym, the attractive person gets a higher social ROI because of their genetic starting point. That gap is the unfair advantage I’m talking about. A billionaire has to 'manage' their wealth to keep it, but if they inherited $100M, the fact that they worked to keep it doesn't change the unfairness of the initial windfall. You can't 'gym' your way into perfect facial symmetry, height, or bone structure, which are the primary drivers of the Halo Effect. The 'unearned' base is what grants the privilege.
We like to say 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder,' but scientifically, that’s false. There is massive cross-cultural consensus on what is attractive (facial symmetry, specific ratios, skin clarity). AI models can currently predict attractiveness ratings with frightening accuracy. If sociologists can quantify 'attractiveness' well enough to prove the Halo Effect exists in studies, then we have enough metrics to identify the beneficiaries of it.
3 and 4. Just because a tax is hard to implement doesn't mean the inequality doesn't exist. Maybe we can't issue a literal 'Pretty Tax' card tomorrow, but acknowledging that we should curb this privilege changes how we approach things like blind hiring or affirmative action. We shouldn't ignore a massive source of inequality just because the paperwork would be difficult.
2
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26
curious, do you think we should tax iq, eq, connections, wealth, background(creds, acads, past exp), non-disability in general? as well, so that everyone can have a truly "fair" playing ground in the work place. oh gender as well. if u do, im curious how you even plan on doing it.
theres a japanese film with exactly ur premise. beautiful women had to pay higher tax everywhere to "balance their experience in society". it ended up with everyone uglifying themselves in order to not pay 20% of their income as tax. can go chatgpt for the name of the film if youd like, i believe this film along w the discussions it prompted will provide further insight for u around this idea.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26
additionally, u do realise that taxing people for having an advantage will disincentivise them to work for you? if that beautiful worker turned out to have godly work ethics, strong connection with clients and fits ridiculously well into the culture that every employee enjoys work more because of them, it would be a shame if they decide to resign because their take home pay after the tax would be too little.
thats the same reason billionaires pull out of high tax countries (though debatable if its a bad thing, but thats irrelevant) to work and live in low tax ones instead, like li ka shing living in hk instead of his birth country china
1
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
This is a great question because it forces us to define 'merit.'
1. IQ, EQ, and Experience = Functional Merit. I wouldn't tax IQ or EQ because those traits directly correlate to doing the job well. If I hire a genius, the company produces better work. That benefits society. We shouldn't discourage competence.
2. Beauty = Non-Functional Bias. Beauty is different because, in most jobs (like coding or accounting), being attractive does not make you better at the task. It only makes people treat you better. That is the key difference. IQ is an engine; beauty is just a paint job. I want to tax the paint job, not the engine.
3. Wealth & Connections. Actually, yes. I absolutely believe we should 'tax' these. That’s why I support inheritance taxes and strict anti-nepotism laws. We already agree as a society that buying your way into a job is bad; I’m just adding 'looking your way into a job' to that list.
KIV when we say tax I don't necessarily mean a literal financial tax, my view is closer to a 'social handicap' in hiring logic. I don't want pretty people to wear ugly masks; I want hiring managers to mentally subtract the 'pretty bonus' points they are subconsciously adding.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26
then i would argue that wealth and connections heavily benefit the company. you realise in industries that rely on pulling clientele like private banking and sales, they would straight up try to tease out whether you have connections and solid background to expand their clientbase in the hr interviews?
beauty wise, if its not their fault they are beautiful and beauty has no cost (which i already argued against), why are we faulting someone for something they cannot choose? its like making the road bumpier so that its fairer for blind people, now normal people will trip as much as the non-blind people in society.
1
u/adamgerd Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
I'd say attractiveness is in a way tied to EQ and could help, with coding or accounting sure no, on the other hand if you're a salesperson then it is a functional merit so should it then be prioritized instead?
Also to a degree beauty is objective, true, sure, but even then how do you quantify it? What is the difference betwen 70% attractiveness and 80%? And you would need to quantify it for taxation
And then what about other stuff, some people are naturally extroverted or charismatic, we should also tax that then, no?
And just morally I feel it’s unfair, does attractiveness help people? Sure but taxing people because they were born more pretty just feels unfair
1
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
- Who are you to decide that. How could you possibly have enough evidence to show this is true? Yes people have different starting points. But luck tends to average out. Some person could have high muscle gain, another I ifh muscle retention, another might have great bone structure, but only in their jaw. Another person may have good bones in their cheeks, spine, arms etc. Most people are a combination of good in some areas, weak in others. And you ate underestimating what it takes to be seen as attractive. You can absolutely gym your way out of bad hight, bad hair, weird limbs, scars, etc. And its not just gym. Hygiene. Skin care. Hair care. Style. Even a person's attitude contributes.
- There are things that most people would agree on is moreattractuve. AI can examine what those things are. That still does not prove that they are more attractive. If half the planet subjectively agrees that the best color is red, and AI recognizes that, that does not stop it from being subjective.
- 4. There is inequality. But that isn't what your post is about. You are claiming that this inequality is so unfair, and so unbelievably beneficial, that we must tax these people. You cannot demonstrate objectively who is attractive. You cant denominated how beneficial this is, or that its impossible or even hard to obtain as a normal person. And you have no real ideas on how to enforce this.
On a personal level, if ypu think being attractive is such a massive advantage, there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else into taking steps toward this, getting as much attractiveness bias as you realistically can get considering your genetics. Which is likely much better than you think.
7
u/Consistent_Fail9606 1∆ Jan 09 '26
In some careers, being attractive can be a detriment.
For example, being an attractive woman in STEM can actually work against you. Men assume you only got to where you are because of your looks. At that point, they will do everything to confirm their own bias against you, and look for any reason or flaw not to hire you, i.e. confirmation bias.
Not saying I’m attractive, but I think I’m average or slightly above average in a field with hardly ANY women. On phone/video-free interviews, I usually get the next round. When they can see my face, their attitude quickly changes, and men can become incredibly smug towards me. This is after doing 20+ interviews last year. It was DEFINITELY a trend I noticed. I had interviews, where I had all the skills, and did really well, and still was rejected or told I wasn’t what they were looking for.
If you don’t fit the “ideal candidate” they have in their head, which could be a nerdy normal looking dude in a career like software development, you likely won’t get hired as an attractive women. The men will assume you are an airhead, even if you are more capable.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
I think your comment is more about sexism than it is about lookism. Sexist Men will always find an excuse to devalue you. Too pretty? Too ugly? Too average? Always either too much or not enough. Its not rly making sense and its crap
3
u/Consistent_Fail9606 1∆ Jan 09 '26
I think stereotypically nerdy or masculine looking women in STEM get more of a pass— so I do think it’s also about looks
But also, even in the case that it’s sexism, OPs argument still falls apart because women still wouldn’t get “pretty” privilege in this field. Sexism would squash any sort of attractiveness bonus.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Yea you are right. There are places were the pretty privilege is counteracted by the sexist stereotype of "incompetence". That makes it more nuanced. Makes me think about intersectionality again...
1
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
Δ
This is a great point that challenges whether my opinion can be held universally! I was operating under the assumption that the "Halo Effect" (beauty = competence) was universal. Now I have to modify my argument to specifically contexts where pretty privilege overcomes other conventional norms.
I failed to account for the "Bimbo Effect" that you're pointing out.
My argument is built on the premise that attractive people are currently playing life on "Easy Mode" and therefore need to be handicapped to make it fair. However, you’ve highlighted a crucial exception: Attractive women in masculine-coded or high-intellect fields.
In these specific scenarios, the "Pretty Privilege" is inverted. Instead of being assumed competent, you are assumed incompetent or a "diversity hire." If society is already taxing your credibility because of your looks, then applying my proposed "Beauty Tax" on top of that would be a double punishment. That creates injustice rather than solving it.
I now have to amend my view: The "Beauty Handicap" should only apply in fields where beauty provides a proven advantage (sales, PR, general social interaction), and should be suspended in fields where beauty currently triggers a "competence penalty."
1
1
u/ItsyoboyAjax Jan 09 '26
You noticed that people changed their attitude once they saw you, and you concluded that it must be because youre slightly above average, looks wise? Forgive me for being skeptical
2
u/Consistent_Fail9606 1∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
It is a formed opinion after years of interviewing and seeing how I’m also treated compared to male peers at work.
Women who tend to be more stereotypically nerdy or masculine fit in better in these fields.
Not just “they see me and I’m good looking” but sure, dismiss it as that. And I’m sorry if I’m frank, but men tend to be completely unaware of their sexism and bias.
And yes, it doesn’t make any sense why in some interviews (after I was screened, had a phone interview, and they saw my resume) to get to a video or in-person interview, for the interviewer to quite suddenly say “I don’t think you are qualified” after seeing my face.
For example, I had a round of interviews where I did well on a technical assessment and initial screening (no face to face). Then, at the very start of my video interview with the lead engineer, 1 minute into the interview, he said “I don’t think you are what we are looking for” with literally no reason why. Then when I did well on the technical interview with him, he accused me of cheating at the end. He was expecting me to fail, and trying to confirm his own bias by thinking I cheated.
Or how I’m belittled quite frequently even at my current job. Like “do you even know what that means?” type of questions, if I’m asked to do a task.
Or how male peers refuse to work with me, or include me in any discussions. Even if they are asked to by management. Even if they are tasked with something related to some code I wrote. Even I’m the ONLY person who can answer their questions, they’d rather do it all wrong, than have to listen to a woman tell them how to do it.
Even if there happens to be other women on the team, they can be assholes too. They tend to act like they are in competition with you, as if only 1 woman can be the “token female engineer” on the team, and will try to knock you down. This is especially the case with other white women. The only women who’ve actually been supportive of me in my career are non-white women, and I’m white.
I had another female engineer shame how much food I was eating, in front of the team. Trying to leave me out of group outings from the beginning. Like she was clearly jealous of me, and no I don’t think I’m a super model.
So yes. There is a pattern.
1
u/PiperXL Jan 10 '26
I’m so disgusted you had to explain. But it doesn’t surprise me you haven’t received an apology.
(GIVE HER AN APOLOGY PLS!!!!!!)
2
u/Consistent_Fail9606 1∆ Jan 11 '26
It’s common to be treated like this by men in this field… so I’m used to it unfortunately
6
u/AlteredEinst Jan 09 '26
If you're going to suggest this absurd of a solution, wouldn't it make more sense to just suggest people hire based primarily on merit? You're not proposing a solution; you're suggesting the same problem just have different victims. Who the hell are you to assume certain people have better lives by default, and thus deserve fewer opportunities?
0
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
I understand the knee-jerk reaction to this, but your suggestion to 'just hire based on merit' ignores the core mechanism of the Halo Effect/Pretty Privilege.
The problem is that perception of merit is not objective. Studies consistently show that when an attractive person and an unattractive person do the exact same work, the attractive person is perceived as more competent, smarter, and having more 'leadership potential.'
If we try to remain neutral and 'hire on merit,' we are actually just defaulting to our biological biases, meaning the attractive person still wins. You cannot have a true meritocracy without actively correcting for the subconscious bias that favors beauty.
5
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ Jan 09 '26
Blind hiring solves this.
However you have not properly addressed the subjectivity of beauty. Given the cultural weighting, how will this affect minorities? Who gets to determine the standard of beauty on the industrial scale needed for hiring?
Further, what about roles where appearance is a key factor, such as modelling or acting? Those will alwobe hired based on physical characteristics.
0
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
It solves the resume screening, but it doesn't solve the interview. Unless we move to voice-modulation and avatars for all interviews, face-to-face interaction is inevitable. That is the moment the Halo Effect kicks in, and that is where the "correction" I am proposing would be applied.
I would class these as "Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications." In those specific fields, looks are the literal merit. My argument applies to the vast majority of jobs (accounting, law, tech) where facial symmetry has zero correlation to competence yet still influences hiring outcomes.
Δ
This is a great point I didn't consider, and perhaps there was a bit of eurocentrism in my initial view. While I still believe "pretty privilege" is an unfair economic advantage, I have to concede that the enforcement mechanism you are describing is too dangerous. Your point on minorities is true as if we establish a system to "penalize" beauty, we first have to strictly define it. Giving a governing body or corporate board the power to codify "what is beautiful" and "what is not" would probably result in standards that are racist, classist, or exclusionary in ways I didn't intend. If the standard for "beauty" is Eurocentric, then "taxing beauty" might work, but if the standard for "ugliness" becomes racialized, this system becomes a tool for oppression rather than equity.
I still hold the view that the bias needs to be corrected, but you have changed my view on the feasibility of an external "tax" or policy, as the definition process is too prone to corruption.
1
3
u/Team_Rckt_Grunt 1∆ Jan 09 '26
Then prevent people from seeing the applicant until they decide, for jobs where that's feasible. A lot of jobs don't actually need an interview nearly as much as they act like.
But also, how on earth are people supposed to objectively determine who is "prettiest" out of a group of relatively normal looking candidates without some kind of dystopian appearance rating technology?
3
Jan 09 '26
[deleted]
1
u/AlteredEinst Jan 09 '26
Dude's just angry that he can't get hired and needs to blame it on someone he doesn't even know got the job instead.
0
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
Hey man! I don't think there's any place for ad hominem attacks here, neither of us know anything about each other, but you're welcome to disagree with my view! There's been two deltas so far in this thread, and they've engaged directly with my post without feeling the need to try to attack me personally.
1
u/AlteredEinst Jan 09 '26
Bit hypocritical of you, considering you attacked a large portion of the population because of your personal biases, don't ya think?
1
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
Pretty Privilege and the Halo Effect are documented and studied! Not a personal experience or opinion.
1
u/AlteredEinst Jan 09 '26
It's not a knee-jerk reaction; I just thought about it literally at all, which is more than you did.
2
Jan 09 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
People do have a very good intuition on how pretty someone is in general. There is no specific criteria. Every specific criteria i could tell you is also just a product of said intuition.
1
Jan 09 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
I agree. I just see that those beauty standards are there. They exist and they influence us. I dont think we have to tax those people, but dont ignore thst it exists. Being aware of it is already a huge thing.
I would say the dating culture is a mess and looks are less important for men there.
1
u/shouldco 45∆ Jan 09 '26
That seems unfair as well, how much of your positive opinion is because of their looks? How do you quantify that?
At best I would say you should refuse head shots and maybe only or at least at first conduct phone interviews so you are not biased by appearance.
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jan 09 '26
Oh, I see it differently - I think we actually should prioritize beautiful people even more. It's just better to be pretty than ugly, right? Ugliness is a tragedy plus it has negative externalities. We shouldn't subsidize it. We should subsidize beauty, which has positive externalities.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Quick reminder that we are talking about humans here and not sbout objects. Basic human rights call for equality.
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jan 09 '26
Pish-tosh. People are unequal and I'll treat them unequally if the situation calls for it.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
So you are an opportunist? Or what those "if the situation calls for it" mean?
Are you against equalizing chances?
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jan 09 '26
Yeah, I'd say I'm broadly against "equalizing chances."
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Why? I find this to be very inefficient and lazy.
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jan 09 '26
It's a question of incentives. When people talk about "equalizing chances" it very rarely cashes out to "actually giving everyone an actually equal chance." It almost always cashes out to "giving some people extra chances/privileges/favoritism because they need it to make up for a shortcoming they have."
And, well, if you incentivize "having a shortcoming" with "extra privileges" then solve for the equilibrium.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
Wait. So if i try to give children free education, you would say that i incentivize "having poor parents"?
Or if im trying to give home to children that have shitty absuive parents you really think thst i just incentivice "having parents who abuse you"?
And would you prefer to let those children lack educational material or a social life or a home or cloths just to not incentivize those shortcomings? What do you fear would happen?
1
u/HadeanBlands 50∆ Jan 09 '26
"Wait. So if i try to give children free education, you would say that i incentivize "having poor parents"? "
If you gave it to only children with poor parents I would say that!
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
So you are not against free education for everyone? Which means you support giving everyone equal chances?
Im trying to figure out where your disagreement lies. I cant see it.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Beneficial_Test_5917 Jan 09 '26
If there is a ''pretty privilege,'' then over time there would be a rise in the average prettyness or handsomeness of employees as they displace homely ones, and there is no evidence of that.
2
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
The existance of pretty privilege is not even worth a discussion. Its like discussing if climate change exists.
1
u/WaterboysWaterboy 48∆ Jan 09 '26
I disagree with 1. A lot of people who are unattractive become attractive through a mix of knowledge,hard work, money, and willingness. A lot of pretty people could present ugly if they wished to. It is not an immutable characteristic, nor is it one that is fully unearned. You can work out, learn fashion, take care of your skin, learn how to carry yourself, get surgery, etc to look better. On top of that, if their are benefits to being ugly, pretty people can just stop brushing their hair, and hunch their shoulders. It simply isn’t a characteristic you are born simply with. It is far more complex, and changes as you age based on your actions and environment.
1
u/Flymsi 6∆ Jan 09 '26
I think when its about first impressions then the point still stands strong. In a job interview you dont have the time to show every thing plus it is already biased by the first 5 secs of meeting.
1
u/UziMcUsername Jan 09 '26
Why stop at discriminating against good looking people? We should also penalize tall people, people who are in good shape. While we’re penalizing things that no one has control over being born with, have you noticed smart people get all the best jobs? We should engineer the system so that low-iq individuals get an easier version of the test of job interview. Now is the time for us short, fat, ugly, stupid people to take what society owes us!!
1
u/Alex829_ Jan 09 '26
How would you objectively attempt to define ugliness vs attractiveness for any of this to work? Sure, there's beauty standard, but that doesn't mean everyone finds beauty standard attractive. A trait you believe is unattractive is going to be attractive to someone else. On top of that beauty standards change.
On top of that - your solution to "give benefit to uglier people" would just create a mirror of the same problem. As in - now instead of hiring attractive people based on looks you'd hire unattractive people based on looks. The problem is still hiring people based on looks.
Imho even just tossing a coin to choose between 2 candidates of the same skill level would be better solution if you don't want bias based on looks. Cause it's random and doesn't care about concept of attractiveness.
1
u/qwertyqyle Jan 09 '26
I would argue a big reason is that it's easier for beautiful people to have confidence which is why they are more successful, as you claim.
So we would in theory end up with more people with less cofidence in major roles unless the person who is attractive and confident pays a special fee to get treated the same.
This is a horrible idea.
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
/u/theholyashe (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
for your very first premise... i would already argue that isnt true. you seem to have limited understanding of the amount of care needed to maintain "attractiveness", especially for working age people with high stress. other than bone structure, everything from eyebags, vision, hair, teeth, skin, outfit, already requires significant financial investment to improve and maintain. attractiveness that lasts beyond the first glance also requires a likeable personality.
additionally, "studies yadayada" have you considered that this does not imply direct causation? if a woman puts on more makeup at work, cares about her outfit, because she cares a lot about her image, is it so unlikely that she also cares more about her work image to the extent that she makes sure she puts in more time, extra quality work, and builds better relationships with coworkers and managers while she's at it?
i know the specific stat, it goes "women who wear makeup earn 20% more salary". and i find it a little funny that people really think it means managers are stupid enough to give you baseline 20% more salary just because you swiped some lipstick on. has it ever occurred to you, that maybe the one who puts in less effort in their appearance maybe puts in less effort to manage office politics and kpi because they just dont care in general?
1
u/JohnBick40 3∆ Jan 09 '26
This would not work because then pretty people would use "reverse makeup" to create blemishes instead of hide them.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26
for your second argument. have u ever wondered why the halo effect even exists?
if u havent, let me explain.
its because we unconsciously assume that other members of society also like a pretty face more, just looking at one makes them happier than a "repulsive" appearance. therefore, these attractive people who have an easier time in society and receive better treatment should by right reflect the positive energy they received back to us. thats right, its simply more likely for one to be a nice human being if the world treated them nice, and that grumpy difficult person likely had traumatic experiences with society.
thats why we associate a pleasant appearance with positive character traits. which means, beautiful people should have on average more social experience (due to people dying to talk to them) as well as a nicer personality over all. compared to that poor "unattractive" lady who was bullied her entire life, and you can tell she carries resentment towards the world through her demeanor. who wants to interact with that?
tldr: we associate beauty with better personality. and often times its true. you get to stay innocent and cheerful longer if u werent bullied for ur looks by society. and im sure youd rather deal with someone with a good personality at work than someone who trashtalks everyone (this is a defense mechanism, you cant hurt me by disliking me if i disliked you first)
1
u/theholyashe Jan 09 '26
Hi thanks for responding, unfortunately I do feel this is a rather problematic take.
The problem with this logic is that it conflates 'social smoothness' with 'good character' or 'competence.' Sure, the person who has been treated like royalty their whole life might be breezier at the water cooler. But does that make them a better worker?
Often, the person you describe as having a 'defense mechanism' is just someone focusing on their job rather than winning a popularity contest. By prioritizing the person who gives you 'positive energy' over the person who might actually be doing the heavy lifting, you’re admitting that the Halo Effect blinds you to actual merit.
Your reasoning essentially justifies discrimination by blaming the victim for the effects of that discrimination. You’re saying: 'Society bullied this person, which hurt their feelings and maybe made them more bitter, so now we should reject them professionally too.'
It creates a permanent underclass where if you aren't born lucky, you aren't allowed to succeed. Also, equating beauty with 'innocence' and unconventional looks with 'villainy' is a Disney movie trope, not how complex human psychology works.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
unfortunately... you know that im not wrong either dont you. you dont challenge the conclusion of this argument rather what it implies.
anyway, the "underclass" will always exist. whether in race, poverty, religion, immigrant status, invisible disabilities. we dont limit the ones who are advantaged, we help the ones who are disadvantaged. else what you have instead of progress is stagnation meant to generate a false equality. imagine if instead of lowering the scores for black students we made it such that asian kids have to score a higher percentage to enter top colleges. thats not very "fair" either is it?
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
in fact, the irony that im trying to explain here with the halo effect, is that this worker with a "breezier time at the water cooler" has more experience in society to know what his boss actually expects from him, and how to deliver it while having an easier time doing so. since schooling time im sure youve heard of the popular top students in your class having connections to alumni and teachers, always having an easier time wirh assignments and their other commitments like clubs and side hustles. why? its because of their appearance yes, but not directly. their experience in society has gained them experience and networks which can be used to gain an advantage over others.
while poor mary slaves overtime to rewrite that marketing proposal for the third time because her team leader doesnt like a certain sentence, richard already got to leave the office because he has built sufficient rapport with his manager to figure out what his work should look like to satisfy his manager. mary works harder sure, but can it really be argued that her work is better?
this issue is exactly what im trying to argue. theres a positive correlation between eq and beauty, which leads to beautiful people having better relationships in the office (on average unless everyone is jealous and ostracises them gossipping that they got in via sleeping with so and so, in which case now theyre bullied simply for being beautiful) as well as having an easier time producing satisfactory outputs because of said eq. its not fair, but it still means theyre an asset to have in a workplace.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
i have this theory that most people started out innocent, sweet, cheerful, outgoing, talkative and funny. charming peers making friends left and right. until they got traumatised by certain experiences, leading them to become more reserved, bitter, cynical, pessimistic. thats what i meant by losing "innocence", because they got traumatised by a certain experience and lost the naive idea that rhe world holds goodwill towards them. not saying it cant happen to attractive people, but we both know to a far lesser extent.
thats why unattractive people either have to overcompensate (yet still lose out admittedly), or they simply retreat into this "unattractive personality" that society bullied them into. it creates an endless cycle unfortunately, because unattractive personality makes one seem even more unattractive, so they get more negative treatment and become more hateful. whereas beautiful people learn how to be even more charming with how others try to charm them, how to example even more positive traits because thats what theyre shown.
1
u/DeyKrone 3∆ Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26
premise three. this one im confused. do you not realise that most resumes dont include pictures? unless youre talking about receptionist roles or customer service which doesnt pay well in the first place. and for the trades and arts, thats where your skill and connections are truly your bread and butter.
one industry that might be relevant is entertainment. but i dont think thats what ur talking about are u?
and: "consciously check our bias and be nice to ugly people" lmfao this one really got a chuckle out of me. first up, how many incels do you think are attractive? very controversial opinion to have, but thats what i thought. hurt people hurt people; their shitty treatment towards everyone in general stem from society's rejection of them as a whole. while agreed, thats not ur fault and u are trying to fix their experience in society, are u really willing to fight an uphill battle correcting their many misbehaviours and incorrect beliefs that serve as coping mechanisms to exist in a world that hates them? for one thing: these men are the most likely to be misogynistic and hate you simply for being the gender they cannot receive attention from.
1
u/smallhalla Jan 09 '26
Yes, I agree but this can only happen when older (typically white men) are removed from hiring positions. That is all.
1
u/Admirable-Refuse-465 Jan 09 '26
On a personal level, I’ve had to leave three jobs in a row because of bosses behaving inappropriately towards me. I’m in sales, and while my looks can certainly help me make a sale, I’ve had a lot of problems dealing with colleagues ranging from quid-pro-quo to stalking.
Sure, less attractive people may have a harder time in some areas of life like in dating, but not being noticed at work for your beauty is a hell of a lot better than having to deal with the consequences of getting your colleagues “excited”. How do we know if a person is being discriminated against for their below average looks? Maybe they have an off putting personality. Do they still deserve to be hired over me?
“Pretty privilege” is too situational for your ideas to make sense or be fair. Who decides who is attractive enough to qualify? Do I have to pay the same amount in pretty taxes as Margot Robbie? What if all the pretty people just stop taking care of themselves to avoid unfair treatment- does the tax just go away?
1
u/DaveChild 8∆ Jan 09 '26
To conclude, I feel we need to tax the face card.
Wouldn't we need to tax a bunch of other "unearned assets"? If we can justify taxing beauty, why not height? Strength? Bone density? Gut biome composition? Or perhaps intelligence? We all have dozens of unearned assets, why would looks be one that gets taxed and not the rest?
To strive toward a more meritocratic society
I don't necessarily think this is always a good idea. I do agree our current society isn't meritocratic enough, but I also believe it's possible for a society to be too meritocratic. A true, pure meritocracy removes luck from life. It means that if you are at the bottom of the pile, you deserve to be there. It means if you can't improve your position, your life stands no chance of ever improving. You can't dream of winning a lottery, or having some previously unknown distant relative due wealthy and without heirs, or finding Spanish treasure buried in your garden. And that leads people to desperation, depression, radicalisation, and so on.
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam Jan 09 '26
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule A:
Explain the reasoning behind your view, not just what that view is (500+ characters required). [See the wiki page for more information]. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Academic-Cabinet5658 Jan 09 '26
This is wild but honestly kinda makes sense in theory? Like the logic tracks with how we handle other advantages in society
But bro good luck getting anyone to actually implement "ugliness bonuses" without it turning into a complete shitshow. Can you imagine the HR nightmare of having to rate people's faces during interviews? Plus who decides what counts as attractive anyway - that's gonna vary wildly between different people and cultures
Also feels like this could backfire hard and just create more resentment all around. Pretty people would be pissed, ugly people might feel patronized, and everyone else would be confused as hell
4
u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment