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.

If that is so then they are quite successful. Dems supporters are busy on green pond and WH Ufc while core problems like war, genocide, oligarchy, ICE, Epstein files have taken a backseat.

Yes, beauty standard is historically pretty high in the case of women. The whole women beauty industry make profit off of manufacturing insecurities about their appearance. Worse happen when Aesthetics becomes priority over Health. News related to ozempic (weight loss drug) death has become a common occurrence in the recent years.

Thanks for replying and it provides proper answer to my first question. But I would like to know your opinion on the 2'nd question, "Is negativity of lookism causing people to incline towards lookmaxxing?" (to aquire pretty privileges)

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?

Poor treatment of attractive sex worker compared to unattractive oligarch is not based on appearance. Your example doesn't help solve the problem of lookism.

Consent is the core concept which makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, consent is eligible in both sexual manner and matter of existence. We didn't ask for animals' consent before raping or killing them.

So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn't consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.

Wise choice, Mr. Schopenhauer.

Thanks for taking this question in purely analytical manner and questioning the conflicting social values. There are many comments here which tries to answer the question but get engaged into sense of social shame and prejudice rather than focusing into the logical consistency with given premise.

Thanks for acknowledging the inconsistencies within social values and showing optimism for the ideal outcome.

I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let's AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.