>>2229609I think these are two separate groups. Women who attack the looks of women (especially celebrities) who are pretty objectively conventionally attractive are almost always doing it because of some other reason.
Anons call women ugly, but what they really mean is stuff like
>she's not as pretty as similar celebrities>she's talentless and seemingly is only valued for her looks, and I think that she is overvalued given her mediocre looks>she acts as if she is prettier than she is, and I personally dislike that lack of self-awareness because I hate being reminded that my own self-evaluation could be delusionally positive>I hate her for some other reason and now want to hate her for every reasonAnd so on.
There's also a contingent of people that simply forget that normal women don't walk around with professional lighting and Photoshop filters.
Normal women defenders typically don't speak up in any real numbers because most them recognize that haters are not honestly arguing that these women are actually ugly. Plus, whiteknighting is a more bannable offense than nitpicking.
Even you are still couching your words.
>[Rancefag] looks completely averageI think if we stepped back and tried to actually be honest, she easily qualifies as pretty. But it's probably the case that you're afraid to say that because you know you'll likely get dogpiled because there's really no reason to want to defend her other than an autistic attachment to "the truth." Beauty is indeed somewhat subjective, and people will exploit that fact in order to straight-up lie to you about who is and isn't attractive in whatever way serves them.
Post too long. Click here to view the full text.(derailing)