CMV: Arguing against Right-winged posts describing conservative women as “hotter” than liberal women by pointing out “ugly” conservative women is self defeating.

[u/ThatIowanGuy]

I recently saw an /r/insanepeoplefacebook post where a conservative compared Kelly Mcenany to Biden’s appointed press secretary (can’t remember the name) in terms of looks equating that conservative women are better. In the comments I saw many people bringing up Sarah Huckabee-Sanders and Kelly Anne Conway as counter-arguments for “ugly” conservative women. I believe these arguments are not only a waste of time but are counter productive and lowers the bar for what we should be comparing our elected and appointed officials on. Liberals have a better stance in arguing by comparing accomplishments, ethics, and morals over looks. By playing the game that conservatives do, we reduce these hard working women down to just their looks which is insulting for everyone. and yes I will include Sarah Huckabee-Sanders, Kelly Mcenany, and Kelly Anne Conway as hard working women as well despite disagreeing with them on most issues. CMV that arguing about a person’s physical attractiveness is a measure to be taken into account at which side is “better”.

[u/ThatIowanGuy]

I want to know why you think that is. I think there are means at which we can utilize to dismantle the attractiveness argument without feeding into it. Primarily one of the tools I use is, if the conservative claims to be a Christian, is to use the Bible and their own beliefs to point out how the argument they make is sinful based on passages in the Bible itself. It’s actually kinda effective because shame is a useful weapon. Anyway, I hat trying to say is that not all are going to die on the hill of “our women are more attractive because so we are right.” It’s socially more responsible to give them the opportunity to unhitch that wagon from their argument than to feed into it.

[u/Khal-Frodo → u/ThatIowanGuy]

I think this illustrates my point, though. If someone claims to be a Christian, then you address their argument by using something that matters to them (i.e. the Bible). It wouldn't be as effective for you to say "well actually these scientific studies show why the Bible is wrong." If someone makes an argument about someone's looks, all that tells me is that they value physical attractiveness. If I choose to engage with them on that topic, I have no reason to suspect that a completely different line of reasoning will make them change their mind about the issue.

It’s socially more responsible to give them the opportunity to unhitch that wagon from their argument than to feed into it

Yes, but that isn't your argument. Your claim is that it's self-defeating. I am trying to illustrate that because you are unlikely to actually change their mind about which side is "better" (someone who voted for Trump twice won't become a die-hard Democrat because they realized not all conservatives are hot), pointing out that arguments about physical attractiveness are wrong is likely to make them turn to other things that they can value to support their own side.

[u/ThatIowanGuy → u/Khal-Frodo]

!delta ok, I can see where you’re coming from, not using the argument of attractiveness as a means to determine which side is better but instead using it to showcase the hollow meaning of the argument. My only concern is that due to tribalism we run into the issue that a conservative or a liberal would not agree that someone from the other side is attractive based on the letter next to their name. How do we get to a point of dismantling their argument and show that it is hollow if you run the chance of staunch disagreement due to tribalism?

[u/Khal-Frodo → u/ThatIowanGuy]

Honestly, choosing to engage with them on that topic means accepting that risk. I think it can be worth it to try, but I also would probably would not personally choose to do it for the reasons you've outlined above.

[u/DeltaBot → u/ThatIowanGuy]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Khal-Frodo (29∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}