4
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2026
4 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54671 readers
403 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem with lookism is that it takes someone's appearance as face value and judges based on it which is just prejudice. There's more to a person than its appearance. Why would someone be mocked for its hair-loss, baldness or facial features?
Heuristics. You can't get to know every single person you see, so you make some judgement calls based on the information you have access to, to determine if it's someone you feel is safe and worth interacting with
Heuristics is a good device but it doesn't work with lookism. For example - Baldness isn't a conclusive evidence for a person to be considered unsafe or ill natured. We can't determine everyone's nature by just their looks. "Looks can be deceiving" is a good phrase.