426
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
426 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
WTF is with those eyebrows!?!
They look like giant fake caterpillar stickers or something.
Respectfully, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms we can make without resorting to making fun of her appearance.
Edit for clarity: Imagine if you were a woman who disagreed wholeheartedly with Lauren Boebert, and found her a wretched human being, but happened to look a lot like her. Then you see others who think like you do attacking her appearance.
Why would we create an environment that alienates people on anything other than ideological or moral grounds? The only people our criticisms should repel are people with dangerous ideologies that we don't want to be associated with.
No. She's an idiot and she looks stupid.
If it was something about her appearance she had no control over, then yeah. I agree.
But she made herself look stupid, and I'll call her stupid.
This comes off as a really sexist opinion. No one needs to change their appearance just because you don't approve of it. Bodily autonomy is a human right.
Sexist? What does her gender have anything to do with making fun of a persons stupid choices?
Check your own sexism if you think anything in my comments have anything to do with gender inequality.
Yes, bodily autonomy is a human right. It's not like I'm advocating for laws against her eyebrows.
Although she's free to do what she likes, she will still suffer the consequences of general pubic opinion when you purposefully make self look like a clown and being laughed at.
You're implying that because you don't like her appearance and she's capable of changing it to be more pleasing or acceptable to you, it's okay to belittle her for it.
That's right up there with "you should smile more" and "you'd be so pretty with a little bit of makeup".
Again, you're still arguing from the standpoint that I'm making fun of her natural eyebrows.
Which I'm not.
I'm making fun of her shallow decision making and poor choices.
You're attacking appearances. How one dresses or applies makeup doesn't matter in the context of the conversation. These are are matters of personal taste. Why do we need to know your thoughts on this?
Not really, though. You're just talking about how someone's personal taste doesn't align with your personal taste. This is like arguing about favorite colors. It's a weak position to argue as it's entirely subjective. It actively undermines any other argument you might be trying to make.
Of all the things to mention, and you're focused on eyebrows? You sound extremely biased because of this weak argument. It gives the impression that you share this same quality of being shallow. It serves as a potential indicator that you might be unable to pick out relevant detail in a conversation, which also makes you seem like a waste of time to communicate with.
If you're arguing another point this is detracting from that point. If you're not arguing another point, then this insipid opinion is irrelevant to the discussion.
I mean, whether they are natural or not shouldn't matter. The "shallow decision making and poor choices" are just as accessible to a leftist woman. It feels kind of yucky to be setting standards for how you think it is acceptable for women to present themselves, regardless of whether they are on the same side of the political aisle.
"We can shame women for how they choose to present themselves as long as they disagree with us about Palestine" is a weird take when you examine it for what it is.
We both think that she's an idiot. Why does she have to look stupid? If some right wingers were talking about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez this way we would find that repugnant.
Normally, one should not mock someone's appearance. But, I think fascists and nazis are excluded from this ruleset.
Hitler's mustache is now so closely associated with nazis and fascism that we would rightly mock anyone who unironically kept their facial hair that way. Lauren Boebert's eyebrows don't feel like they deserve the same treatment, since it is very normal for many women with leftist values to keep up their appearance in a similar way. The eyebrows are not the problem; her beliefs are.
poor Charlie Chaplin.
Mocking someones appearance is like dropping a bomb. You might hit your target but this shit has a radius and so you might also hit innocent people.
People who might be already hurting and are insecure. And hurting those people because you are not clever enough to come up with something precise is weak.
No, we can make fun of it if it's crafted. Those eyebrows aren't natural, they're penciled. Face paint is fair game.
I don't know, there's nothing morally wrong with her makeup and face. If she happened to be a leftist but otherwise looked the same, I doubt we'd be rushing to the comments to mock her style. This is alienating to women who are like minded to us but have a similar sense of fashion to Boebert.
Yeah but it’s fun!
It's gross that you are getting downvoted. Lemmy users still have a lot to learn when it comes to debating effectively.