Also, a lot of the pictures of Conover are from his Adam Ruins Everything days when he was playing a specific character. He presents a little differently now, not that the fixation on his appearance is valid.
The backlash to Conover’s mistake reminds me of the total war behavior some people express on line, which is unfortunate and not especially liberal.
Have to admit that I'm baffled by the negative comments on Conover's appearance, especially in relationship to the other people pictured in this post. Maybe his shirts and ties tend to clash a bit too much but he otherwise looks like an average dude. People tend to forget the implicit rule: If you're gonna make negative comments on another person's appearance then you should be better looking that that person.
Did you happen to see Adam Conover's response to his being mocked? It doesn't address Rebecca Watson's comments about his appearance; it's more focused on the substance of her (and other folks') criticism. Worth a listen, I think.
The people who want to police our verbal weapons against fascists + their lampreys (a tribe that prides itself on having neither rules nor bottom) seem to want us to limit ourselves to bringing only plastic spoons to knife fights, + then wonder why we always lose.
The onus is on these self-appointed "insult police" to demonstrate the harm they can deliver within the bounds they prescribe first, before they have grounds to be listened to.
For whatever reason this brings to mind that Charlie Chaplin had a "Charlie Chaplin" moustache until Adolf Hitler wore an "Adolf Hitler" moustache and then Charlie Chaplin was all like, "Fuck, really?"
People get judged on their appearance. If they are good, their appearance gets associated with goodness. And vice versa. Bringing Cynthia Erivo into the mix is interesting because she plays a character that introduced green skin as being evil (in the Wizard Of Oz), only for that opinion to be turned on its head (in Wicked). Is that generalization unfair? Yes. It sure the fuck is! But we humans sure do like shorthand when we can get to it.
I tip my white hat to you. Hopefully that association still means what I think it means.
Criticism of appearance can be intimately tied to context. Imagine a pop star says that she thinks a buzz cut is the most handsome hair for a dude. Then your friend, explicitly because of that, gets and keeps a buzz cut. Regardless of how it looks, you can give him a bit of a hard time, right? I think of this in the context of the MAGA standard tough guy look and MAGA standard attractive female look that has spread throughout the second branch of the US government. The issue is not first or primarily whether or not the look works on a person, it's that they are costuming as a MAGA standard bearer, and that's a bad look no matter how you wear it.
Your description of 'bad guys' is pretty relative. I happen to like a lot your baddies and dislike your based good guys. Putting that aside, I broadly agree that mocking appearance items that cant be changed falls into more bully territory. But the precious progressives get upset, REALLY upset, when you mock anyone, especially women, on their side. I recall vividly that progressives went nuts when it was pointed out on Twitter a few years back that the female Premier of Ontario looked exactly like Orville Reddenbacher. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
You wrestled with the ethical implications of all this as fairly as one may.
I myself have never especially noticed Conover’s clothes and hair, because I have been fixated on his Colbert-style mugging for the camera, which gives his face a Mr. Beast-level of Punchability.
Mocking people’s appearance is childish, unintelligent, unfunny, lazy, and inappropriate. If they are “bad”, it victimizes them, which is a position bad people are very good at taking advantage of.
Also, a lot of the pictures of Conover are from his Adam Ruins Everything days when he was playing a specific character. He presents a little differently now, not that the fixation on his appearance is valid.
The backlash to Conover’s mistake reminds me of the total war behavior some people express on line, which is unfortunate and not especially liberal.
Have to admit that I'm baffled by the negative comments on Conover's appearance, especially in relationship to the other people pictured in this post. Maybe his shirts and ties tend to clash a bit too much but he otherwise looks like an average dude. People tend to forget the implicit rule: If you're gonna make negative comments on another person's appearance then you should be better looking that that person.
That last sounds like *only* "punching down" is acceptable, which is the opposite of the usual moral calculus.
Did you happen to see Adam Conover's response to his being mocked? It doesn't address Rebecca Watson's comments about his appearance; it's more focused on the substance of her (and other folks') criticism. Worth a listen, I think.
He must have posted it around the same time as I sent this out - I'll give it a watch today and probably edit this article to mention it
Here you go - https://www.instagram.com/p/DKAzv4buGPO/
That's actually a really heartening response. Thanks for the link.
I thought so too! And you’re welcome.
The people who want to police our verbal weapons against fascists + their lampreys (a tribe that prides itself on having neither rules nor bottom) seem to want us to limit ourselves to bringing only plastic spoons to knife fights, + then wonder why we always lose.
The onus is on these self-appointed "insult police" to demonstrate the harm they can deliver within the bounds they prescribe first, before they have grounds to be listened to.
So far, their record is paltry to non-existent.
Good essay and good point, I particularly like your observation about all the collateral damage an appearance insult directed at one person can cause.
For whatever reason this brings to mind that Charlie Chaplin had a "Charlie Chaplin" moustache until Adolf Hitler wore an "Adolf Hitler" moustache and then Charlie Chaplin was all like, "Fuck, really?"
People get judged on their appearance. If they are good, their appearance gets associated with goodness. And vice versa. Bringing Cynthia Erivo into the mix is interesting because she plays a character that introduced green skin as being evil (in the Wizard Of Oz), only for that opinion to be turned on its head (in Wicked). Is that generalization unfair? Yes. It sure the fuck is! But we humans sure do like shorthand when we can get to it.
I tip my white hat to you. Hopefully that association still means what I think it means.
Criticism of appearance can be intimately tied to context. Imagine a pop star says that she thinks a buzz cut is the most handsome hair for a dude. Then your friend, explicitly because of that, gets and keeps a buzz cut. Regardless of how it looks, you can give him a bit of a hard time, right? I think of this in the context of the MAGA standard tough guy look and MAGA standard attractive female look that has spread throughout the second branch of the US government. The issue is not first or primarily whether or not the look works on a person, it's that they are costuming as a MAGA standard bearer, and that's a bad look no matter how you wear it.
Your description of 'bad guys' is pretty relative. I happen to like a lot your baddies and dislike your based good guys. Putting that aside, I broadly agree that mocking appearance items that cant be changed falls into more bully territory. But the precious progressives get upset, REALLY upset, when you mock anyone, especially women, on their side. I recall vividly that progressives went nuts when it was pointed out on Twitter a few years back that the female Premier of Ontario looked exactly like Orville Reddenbacher. Look it up, if you don't believe me.
I don't think the line between those features of presentation in our control, and those not, is as bright as suggested here.
You wrestled with the ethical implications of all this as fairly as one may.
I myself have never especially noticed Conover’s clothes and hair, because I have been fixated on his Colbert-style mugging for the camera, which gives his face a Mr. Beast-level of Punchability.
Mocking people’s appearance is childish, unintelligent, unfunny, lazy, and inappropriate. If they are “bad”, it victimizes them, which is a position bad people are very good at taking advantage of.
Yes
Yeah pretty sure Socrates was ugly.