Another NSG-specific Valentine's thread. But in all seriousness, this sort of thing connects to Valentine's in a way I'll come back to later.
In the 2008 election cycle, I found it upsetting to see others on the left try to pretend Sarah Palin wasn't cute... even though she obviously was, at least at the time. But it left open to interpretation whether it was that they were referring to appearance or interpreted the supposed definition of "cute," rightly or wrongly, as inherently requiring actual innocence to go with it.
Then after the election cycle, there was all that kerfluffle over "fat jokes" directed Meghan McCain's way, even though she was curvy in an attractive way. Now, full disclosure, in THIS case, I don't think Meghan McCain's as "awful" as she's made out to be anyway. I think she's a genuinely well-intentioned conservative. But the notion that she's unattractive is even more ridiculous anyway. And she knows that, or she wouldn't continue to choose outfits that show off her body.
Of course, it's not just the left that does this. You can compare two libertarians; Penn Jillette and Ben Garrison, in how they describe Michelle Obama. (FEB 17 EDIT: For the record, I am not calling Michelle Obama an awful person; sorry if my word choice made it look like that; but the libertarian worldview might bias those who have it into thinking of her as a worse person than others might think she is.) Penn Jillette, for instance, admits she's beautiful, (half a minute after the timestamp, though I recommend listening to the half-minute for context) while Ben Garrison pretends she's less attractive than Melania Trump, which is, quite frankly, absurd. It's possible this comes down to a genuine difference of opinion, but I think it's more likely down to a difference in honesty, given Penn Jillette's history of owning up to screw-ups in disputes with bloggers. (FEB 17 EDIT: Also, fixed typo.)
And then when people try to do the opposite; like calling a white nationalist "dapper;" people give 'em shit for it.
So yeah. A pattern has quite clearly been established. People are apparently supposed to conceal not only attraction to them, but also fear of their ability to use their looks on behalf of their ideas.
I suppose maybe the idea is that acknowledging their attractiveness gives them more power than they would otherwise have, but I'm not sure how you could prove that. How do you distinguish that from, let's say, the way we could offset this power if we were to discuss this out in the open? Is it at all analogous to pretending you don't notice someone's carrying a firearm, because acknowledging it would give them power, even though their actions prove they already know they're carrying it?
And even if it could be proven, would it still be okay to do this? You're sabotaging honesty itself (not to mention embittering voters who happen to be unattractive to your political movements) on behalf of a power play built on lies?
I post this on Valentine's not just because it's vaguely related to it, but also because a lot of my views on both dating AND social issues were shaped by some of the same webforum discussions in which I lurked. To see others expressing opinions similar to my own and then get smeared as someone who "couldn't get laid," I looked back on my old middle school years, in which I probably would've gotten laid if I got over my obsession with the girl I wanted and let the ones who wanted me have me, and I thought "hmm... what else could they be wrong about?"
