[ SECRET POST #6490 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6490 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.
[Dilbert]



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.
[Deltarune, Big Shot]



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #928.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure what this is saying. Are you implying it's shallow or impolite to comment on the appearance of someone whose career is majorly, or sometimes entirely, selling their appearance?

[(Anonymous)]

I took it more as we all know ugly people are awful, which is annoying trope.

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm... the secret would be a pretty roundabout way of wording that sentiment. Plus just because people are calling them ugly doesn't mean the celebrity suddenly ceases to be conventionally attractive in real life.

Maybe OP will drop in and clarify.

[(Anonymous)]

DA
Calling someone you dislike physically ugly even if they are pretty is still wrong. Because it's drawing parallel non-attractive = morally wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I really don't see where the "A, therefore B" or "A = B" claim is being made. People can be coincidentally two things at once without there being causality or the two things being linked, and the comments seem to just be noting that.

I wrote it below, but those comments read to me: "oh, so this celebrity who was of not much value to me as a consumer product because I didn't find them attractive, turned out to be an asshole and therefore even less value to me as a consumer product." or "The fact that they're a dick IRL confirms that this person has no value to me."

Are they nice comments? No, and I'm not arguing they are, but they also aren't saying ugly people are morally bad, or that morally bad people are ugly, or that the two things have any inherent connection.

2nd DA

[(Anonymous)]

I always found them ugly anyway = It's not a big deal that they're a horrible person, because they're ugly which is what matters to the speaker.

Not only does it prioritize looks over personality, it also states that the speaker thinks that people who are ugly are literally worth less as people regardless of their morals or skills or personality. Just because they're talking about a celebrity doesn't mean that they also don't employ this in their own life with regular people, which is what people around them who think of themselves as ugly are going to hear. It's like when people criticize a politician by calling them fat bastards. The fat people around them hear this talk and know that the person considers being fat to be a legitimate criticism on them as a person.

Re: 2nd DA

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, that is totally not how I'd read that, so we'll just have to disagree. When it comes to celebs in particular, where "whether they're attractive to you or not" is the entire purpose of the celeb and their brand in like 99/100 times, it means something different than when it's about average people who have far more to offer, and are more to you, than the brand they're selling you from afar.

[(Anonymous)]

Those are two different things.

Some celebs have actual talent which has nothing to do with their appearance.

For the ones who make a living specifically off of their appearance, no, it's not rude to comment on it. But it's also not a green light to make mean comments whenever you want just because "well, they're out there, sooooooooo......"

When a celeb who's all about their looks turns out to be an asshole, it's best to criticize them for being an asshole. By going "they showed they're as ugly on the inside as they are on the outside" implies that maybe them being an asshole doesn't bother you as much as their looks do (whether or not that's true).

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think that implies that at all? I read that quote and I get "oh, so this celebrity who was of not much value to me as a consumer product because I didn't find them attractive, turned out to be an asshole and therefore even less value to me as a consumer product." or "The fact that they're a dick IRL confirms that this person has no value to me."

I'm not sure why that's interpreted as saying this is not criticizing them for being an asshole, because it sounds like they are to me?

[(Anonymous)]

SA

I also think we may have differing versions of what we mean by "celeb." Not all people who are notable or famous are "celebrities" to me. A celebrity to me is someone who sells themselves, the physical person and/or their life/lifestyle, as part of their brand.

[(Anonymous)]

Seems to me the idea is that once it becomes public that a celeb did something awful, people come crawling out of the woodwork commenting on how they always thought the celeb was "ugly", drawing a connection between awful behaviour and looking "ugly".

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe? Tons of them also say stuff like "their music was always shitty" or "I always hated their movies" and "they were always so cringe and tryhard" and stuff too. Usually what they claim to always have thought was shitty was something the celeb in question was trying to sell them (looks, fashion, style, music, movies), so it tends to have some relevance.

[(Anonymous)]

And saying "their morals turned out to be as shitty as their music always was" is certainly not making any claims that bad music = morally wrong or only good people make good music; that'd be silly!

[(Anonymous)]

OP

Yes, that's what I meant (I'm ESL and did notice that I worded it awkwardly in the comment thread, but I've realized that going back and "correcting" the initial post in a further comment usually doesn't work, so I didn't - no blame to the secret maker(s), they probably don't read the comments under the initial post!).

Why are we insulting their appearance when we could insulting their behavior? What has their appearance to do with anything? It's that annoying "bad person = ugly" trope. People (especially online) already define others and themselves by their looks so much when that's something you can't control, unlike your behavior.

[(Anonymous)]

Anon who started the thread: yeah, my explanation for that was because with so many celebrities, what they sell to people as themselves and their brand is inextricably linked with their appearance and style. Nobody really knows them as people so people can only insult what they give us, which is sometimes music, sometimes art, sometimes acting, and often glossy photoshoots where they try really hard to look sexy. When it comes to celebrities saying their music is shit and their style is shit and their appearance is shit and their movies are shit all parse the same to me - all of them are products they try to sell to us and don't parse the same as saying a real person you know is ugly.

If someone's stance is "nobody should ever insult anyone's physical appearance no matter how bad the person is and no matter how much their personal brand was built upon them being attractive, it's the principle of the thing" then that's their stance. But if you wanted to know why other people might do it, this is one explanation for you.