全 32 件のコメント

[–]AutoModerator[M] [スコア非表示] stickied comment (0子コメント)

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

  • Do not call other users trolls, morons, children, or anything else clever you may think of. Personal attacks, whether explicit or implicit, are not permitted.

  • Do not accuse other users of being shills. If you believe that a user is a shill, the proper conduct is to report the user or send us a modmail.

  • In general, don't be a jerk. Don't bait people, don't use hate speech, etc. Attack ideas, not users.

  • Do not downvote comments because you disagree with them, and be willing to upvote quality comments whether you agree with the opinions held or not.

Incivility will result in a permanent ban from the subreddit. If you see uncivil comments, please report them and do not reply with incivility of your own.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]TinyBaron [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I find the cookie cutter bottle blonde fembots on the Conservative Entertainment Complex™ to be butt ugly.

That's just me though.

[–]redditor_furiosa [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I mean, enough make up, self tan, and hair products, we can all be "attractive", I guess.

[–]TinyBaron [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Lots of exercise, implants and tight short dresses help...

[–]yhwhx [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

A recently published study in the Journal of Public Economics concludes that the attractiveness of a candidate does correlate with their politics.

Proving that conservative voters are shallower than liberal voters?

EDIT: voter -> voters

[–]Nekowulf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I dunno. Can't be that shallow if they voted for trump.
Though maybe his resemblance to a pumpkin swayed the latte lovers?

[–]FatandmeanWashington [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I have been to the south, not accurate.

[–]Mfran1989 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The study is about politicians..Not normal people.

[–]Jeraltofrivias [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A recently published study in the Journal of Public Economics concludes that the attractiveness of a candidate does correlate with their politics. They find that politicians on the right are more good looking in Europe, the United States and Australia.

POLITICIANS

Edit: Not incredibly surprising Republican/conservative voters would be more swayed by a pretty face than by substance.

[–]LKArtf4 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That is not even fake news but bullshit news.

[–]ebenezerscrooge3 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

First of all, this study is is extremely doubtful, and doesn't appear to have a particularly strong connection to reality. And, just to point out, regardless of whether I think the study has any merit, intelligence is preferable to attractiveness, especially for women who want to make something of themselves, and not become a trophy wife, whose life isn't her own. Beauty fades too quickly, and requires an increasing amount of effort to maintain, not to mention that there is nothing cute about a shallow airheaded older woman, who needs to be protected and watched over, instead of standing on her own two feet, because she's spent her entire life using her physical appearance to avoid the responsibilities and maturity that is supposed to come with adulthood.And like I said, beauty fades rather quickly, but intelligence and education will allow you to develop your own life, and not answer to anybody, because everything you have is yours. And as a woman, that's what I've always been interested in. And I understand conservatives are upset because they're nostalgic for the days when a woman only spoke when she was spoken to, and when she understood that her life, body, and mind was not her own. So, even if this study made sense, which it doesn't, I don't really see it as anything to be proud of. We all know that Democrats and liberals are more likely to be educated, and it's a statistical fact, that liberals possess above average intelligence at higher rates than conservatives, so they can most definitely keep their "Most likely to be beautiful" award. Also, this study makes, no sense, as it references mostly politicans and public figures, as opposed to the rank and file. And rank and file Republican voters are overwhelmingly uneducated, low income, misinformed about politics, and easily dragged around by the nose. This study simply does not fit an accurate representation of the population. Also, what about black people, who vote Democrat almost to a person? White people are simply more likely to vote Republican, and white people are still a supermajority of the country. If a greater percentage of the population was black,(and Hispanic/Asian., there would be a different conclusion.

[–]ianrl337 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would kind of believe this, but their are hot girls on both sides. One of my friends started going to country music events in the late 90s for the girls. Until then he couldn't stand country music. But he got pulled in by the tight jeans and big hair. On the more liberal side you have more entertainers and the rock, rap, and goth girls. It all depends what you are into. Me, I just want a reasonably attractive woman with a brain, can think for herself, and likes orgasms that last all night long.

[–]Takuri [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Yikes... "The study shows correlation, not causation..."

It's been a few years since I took statistics... but... last time I checked the difference between correlation and causation is rather important.

It's a correlation that "Crime increases when Ice cream sales increase". But, Ice cream is not the cause of the crime increase. So why should "beauty" play any role in ones personal politics?

Why doesn't it sounds more plausible that due to their "improved looks", that these kinds of people are allowed to live a life that affords them a certain kind of privilege that other "less attractive" people do not?

[–]ZornsLemmon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Why would becoming a republican make you more attractive?

You really think that's what they were trying to prove?

[–]Takuri [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not entirely sure what they think they're trying to prove. They started their article with a statement you learn is categorically false in statistics 101. So their either trying to prove a point we know is false, or generally trying to blow smoke up the asses of some already pretty arrogant motherfuckers.