143
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 04 Jun 2024
143 points (100.0% liked)
games
20525 readers
392 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
-
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
i don't know when people started saying conventionally attractive instead of just attractive
Just hedging against "actually, attraction is a subjective experience" by vaguely waving your arms at some "widely held" conventions no one can provide documentation for.
I don't think documentation is really necessary when pretty much all media in the US portrays white, young, thin, slightly athletically toned, clear-skinned, white-toothed, symmetrical-faced people with societally-approved matching gender characteristics as "attractive". Characters who exhibit those traits are portrayed/coded as attractive, and they are the people put in front of the camera on things like the news. Just saying "attractive" when talking about someone with those features is basically saying that anyone who does not have those features is inherently not attractive, when in reality many people have different opinions on what they find attractive.
To be honest the line about documentation was just me being venomous, and referring to people using arguments they can't actually articulate themselves. My entire point is just they are hedging their statements.