Warning: If you already have some body image issues, this article may be upsetting to you. I'm not sure if this is the right topic. I considered ~society and ~health as well. Anyway, this is one...
Warning: If you already have some body image issues, this article may be upsetting to you.
I'm not sure if this is the right topic. I considered ~society and ~health as well.
Anyway, this is one of the more disturbing uses of LLMs that I've come across. In a nutshell, it's a customized GPT that acts as a incel-philosophy based counsellor which not only promotes the ideology, but also viciously denigrates the user's physical appearance in order to sell product.
Also, just an interesting peek into incel culture. Hardmaxxxing, mogging, Eppley-tier implants, PSL scores, all sorts of weirdo terminology that I was unfamiliar with before.
I've decided I'm better off not looking up any of this and I will continue to assume that PSL scores are in fact pumpkin spice latte scores: A measurement of how "basic" one is. I just don't want...
I've decided I'm better off not looking up any of this and I will continue to assume that PSL scores are in fact pumpkin spice latte scores: A measurement of how "basic" one is.
We need to start working on society-scale therapy. Incels need it, Israel needs it, MAGA needs it. The only groups doing anything like it (society-scale gaslighting) are working people in the...
We need to start working on society-scale therapy. Incels need it, Israel needs it, MAGA needs it. The only groups doing anything like it (society-scale gaslighting) are working people in the wrong directions. More well meaning people are too afraid of collective manipulation. The truth is manipulation isn’t wrong. Causing harm is the only wrong thing.
If we ever figure this out we’ll wonder how we ever lived without it.
Isn't that effectively the role religion has historically played? I'm not really sure there is a way to do it without harming people. I'm almost entirely uneducated on religions so perhaps there...
Isn't that effectively the role religion has historically played?
I'm not really sure there is a way to do it without harming people. I'm almost entirely uneducated on religions so perhaps there are some that have caused no harm, but that seems hard to believe based on my understanding of general human behaviors.
I don't think you can avoid all harm at that scale. But I was raised in a religion (Quakerism) that's generally pretty ethical. It's explicitly non-violent, generally pretty anti-evangelical,...
I don't think you can avoid all harm at that scale. But I was raised in a religion (Quakerism) that's generally pretty ethical. It's explicitly non-violent, generally pretty anti-evangelical, famous for its organized response to slavery in the US. I'd say it's mostly an atheistic humanist religion these days.
That's an interesting claim but it makes sense to me in brief. I remember back in the day wanting to build education and fitness apps that used skinner boxes to help people become smarter or...
That's an interesting claim but it makes sense to me in brief. I remember back in the day wanting to build education and fitness apps that used skinner boxes to help people become smarter or healthier.
I know now that that has a lot of problems, but the idea of using subversion to make someone better is really fascinating to me. Especially from an ethics standpoint.
I care about results, not necessarily about it being nefarious in nature. If it turns out the only way to "manipulate" people into goodness at a societal scale is by making them happy and...
I care about results, not necessarily about it being nefarious in nature. If it turns out the only way to "manipulate" people into goodness at a societal scale is by making them happy and comfortable then so be it. The only downside is that's probably one of the more expensive options.
I learned that what most people would call manipulation, with a negative implication, can be good by watching an expert businessman work. Getting people to work together at a company (in this case it was a morally neutral business) requires convincing people to do things. The more correct you are at what needs to be done and the better you are at convincing people the more successful you'll be as a leader.
I think the issue is, bad actors will be probably be more motivated and successful at using propaganda tools. Which leads me to hope that there are intrinsic limits to the effectiveness of such...
I think the issue is, bad actors will be probably be more motivated and successful at using propaganda tools. Which leads me to hope that there are intrinsic limits to the effectiveness of such methods, since humanity is definitely going to maximize them.
People on both sides are trying to convince people. It's just fundamentally easier to have people confirm their biases than to have them take blame and better themselves. The ones doing it in the...
People on both sides are trying to convince people. It's just fundamentally easier to have people confirm their biases than to have them take blame and better themselves. The ones doing it in the wrong direction have a lot easier time on their hands.
You’re absolutely right, they’ve got a massive practical advantage in being untethered by facts or morality, but the frustrating part to me is watching people on the side of truth and reality just...
You’re absolutely right, they’ve got a massive practical advantage in being untethered by facts or morality, but the frustrating part to me is watching people on the side of truth and reality just shrug and keep doing what doesn’t work.
I’m 100% with @teaearlgraycold here - results matter above all else, and I have no interest in holding onto some misguided sense of propriety while the authoritarians take over. If confirming people’s biases works we need to accept that and channel it for the good of society, rather than standing by and watching while others channel it for their own ends.
I think it does work, but it's going to naturally be slower to convince people the "right" way. It's also always naturally easier to break down rather than build up. If the ends justify the means...
watching people on the side of truth and reality just shrug and keep doing what doesn’t work.
I think it does work, but it's going to naturally be slower to convince people the "right" way. It's also always naturally easier to break down rather than build up.
If the ends justify the means and we abandon all morals, what really separates the two messages? Hell is almost always paved through good inentions, after all. I'm open to ideas, but part of the slowness simple comes from the number of people in the country.
If the ends justify the means and we abandon all morals with regards to manipulation and trick people into having healthy, fulfilling lives, what separates those messages from the ones that let...
If the ends justify the means and we abandon all morals with regards to manipulation and trick people into having healthy, fulfilling lives, what separates those messages from the ones that let billionaires loot our government?
The end result, definitely. In this case, the road to hell seems to be paved with the insistence on moral purity over effective action.
This sounds like the monologue from a jrpg villain lol. Who has the authority to determine what is and isn’t a healthy life? That’s not something with an objective answer. Not to mention the...
If the ends justify the means and we abandon all morals with regards to manipulation and trick people into having healthy, fulfilling lives, what separates those messages from the ones that let billionaires loot our government?
This sounds like the monologue from a jrpg villain lol.
Who has the authority to determine what is and isn’t a healthy life? That’s not something with an objective answer. Not to mention the immense power the people running this manipulation has.
It sounds like you're assuming that there's one group trying to manipulate the populace, and thus Democrats should avoid pulling those levers so as not to be all powerful? But there will never be...
It sounds like you're assuming that there's one group trying to manipulate the populace, and thus Democrats should avoid pulling those levers so as not to be all powerful? But there will never be one group. There will always be push and pull between different factions, unless one side sits on their hands and says they couldn't possibly compete because they'd just have too much power if they did.
And do you trust anyone to manipulate you into living a healthy, furfilling life? Do you think someone else's vision of a healthy, furfilling life is compatible with yours? Do you think they will...
And do you trust anyone to manipulate you into living a healthy, furfilling life? Do you think someone else's vision of a healthy, furfilling life is compatible with yours? Do you think they will make sure you have that life over their own priorities?
That's the road to hell. It's not that it can't be done. It's thst humans have a habit of corrupting under power and focusing on their own best interests when they get the chance. Hitler started out as wanting to recover Germany's devastated economy at first.
You know who has, with words and emotional appeals, convinced me to take actions that led me to live a healthier and more fulfilling life? My wife. My friends. My parents. My teachers. Government...
You know who has, with words and emotional appeals, convinced me to take actions that led me to live a healthier and more fulfilling life? My wife. My friends. My parents. My teachers. Government scientists. Medical professionals.
We live in a pool of opinions and information, and all of it affects us. All of the people around us affect us. For one political party to grab ahold of those social media levers and start pulling them in ways that'll lead to suffering and the other party to reject trying to compete in that arena just means that one side has undisputed control.
We are on the road to hell right now, and it's because one side is leading us there while the other doesn't even know how to fight.
Slippery slopes are slippery, but I feel like we're back in the 90's with that Poe's Law callout. Yes, Hitler rose to power on populism from the economic suffering of the populace. Who do you think is doing that right now? It's not the Democrats.
I mentioned this in another response but: this stance assumes platforms are on parity and that we'd get the same results if we used the same tactics with different messaging. I don't really agree....
For one political party to grab ahold of those social media levers and start pulling them in ways that'll lead to suffering and the other party to reject trying to compete in that arena just means that one side has undisputed control.
I mentioned this in another response but: this stance assumes platforms are on parity and that we'd get the same results if we used the same tactics with different messaging. I don't really agree. The message is the whole thing people are resonating with. One that tells them "it's not your fault, it's the women and brown people who are putting you down".
It's not like democrats have zero messaging or personalities out there. But you look st the people pulling the levers, and the messages they want to spread and you wonder: how do you tell people what they need to know vs what they want to be true?
This hasn't fundamentally changed over the last century. Just the tools. But the fundamentals is that it's a low easier to blame the jews for ruining your economy (or anyone else that isn't that person) than it is to offer a cohesive economic plan to stimulate jobs generate useful resources for the population. It's faster and more satisfying to burn a house down than build it back up.
I'm more than happy to hear suggestions otherwise to fight this. Butif you really feel we need a loud message, Tides isn't the going to be that megaphone.
The thing is, you can tell people things they want to be true that lead them in prosocial directions. "If you get an education and work hard, you can have a good life." "If you follow the social...
The thing is, you can tell people things they want to be true that lead them in prosocial directions. "If you get an education and work hard, you can have a good life." "If you follow the social contract you too could have the house with a white picket fence, a partner who loves you and looks after you you, and 2.5 children." "Being educated is a moral good and is part of being a good citizen." "If you work hard within the system, the system will take care of you."
The trouble with all of those things that I really do think everyone wants to believe is that they depend on reciprocity. "If you [right thing], you'll get [right reward]." But that sense of reciprocity has been decaying over the last half-century. I'm honestly not sure what messages that support the USA as a whole could work right now.
Well yeah. That's why as of late I care a lot more about action rather than words. And why I don't necessarily think social media blasting is the end all be all of messaging to people. You'll need...
Well yeah. That's why as of late I care a lot more about action rather than words. And why I don't necessarily think social media blasting is the end all be all of messaging to people. You'll need to show with your actions to actually mean what you say.
Thing is I think the messaging is working. But change this way is slow. Excruciatingly slow if you compare it to the destruction happening every week in government. I don't know if there's a faster way to do anything, at least without blood being spilt.
There are some things appealing about being manipulated into good things, but only if it's from someone altruistic "Better Living Through Algorithms" by Naomi Kritzger
There are some things appealing about being manipulated into good things, but only if it's from someone altruistic
Aye, that's the issue. Altruism is already an extremely rare trait, and it seems to be completely non-existent once you amass enough power to affect mass change. And even if that person is truly...
Aye, that's the issue. Altruism is already an extremely rare trait, and it seems to be completely non-existent once you amass enough power to affect mass change.
And even if that person is truly altruistic, it doesn't mean there aren't others that are less so and will try to exploit the system. The AI in thst story could be sold off to a private equity who then shifts the habits to make them more profit, or compromised by hackers, or simply makes a bad cultural call for a person's life.
Well, good intentions would separate them, for a start. Well intentioned failure would be a colossal improvement over the outright malice that's winning the propaganda war right now. But I do...
Well, good intentions would separate them, for a start. Well intentioned failure would be a colossal improvement over the outright malice that's winning the propaganda war right now.
But I do agree to an extent; much as I'd like to advocate a complete no holds barred approach, and much as I think the seriousness of the situation warrants it, I've already begrudgingly concluded that objective truth has to be the red line. I wouldn't have too much trouble squaring the moral question, but practically speaking I think it'd be too risky to step past.
My problem is more with the methods - or lack thereof. Where are the armies of bots pushing talking points to control the narrative? Where are the bought and paid for social media services acting as echo chambers? Where are the quips and slogans and misdirects and question dodges and stupid nicknames that play to people's emotions?
I hate, hate, hate that those things work. But they clearly do. I used to believe the truth would win out, and then I saw people denying their own lived reality in favour of what social media pipes into their brains. People (in the J from Men in Black sense) apparently make their decisions on vibes rather than facts - so let's use this in our favour. We don't need to abandon the truth because the lies aren't what really matters, the emotions are.
Core principles are worth holding onto, but only if they really truly are core, stripped to the bone, "if I abandon this then the whole cause was for nothing" principles. Everything else is up for grabs, and right now I see a whole lot of people ignoring proven effective techniques not because they're a fundamental compromise of their position, but because they're a bit distasteful. That strikes me as painfully naive. If you stand in front of tanks, the tanks are gonna win.
Do you think none of the propaganda started as good intentioned messaging? It feels like a lifetime ago, but there was a time where Joe Rogan was a respected interviewer who challenged viewpoints...
Well intentioned failure would be a colossal improvement over the outright malice that's winning the propaganda war right now
Do you think none of the propaganda started as good intentioned messaging? It feels like a lifetime ago, but there was a time where Joe Rogan was a respected interviewer who challenged viewpoints on all side. You could say his endgame was always to end up as it is now in 2025, but what would the difference be?
My problem is more with the methods - or lack thereof. Where are the armies of bots pushing talking points to control the narrative? Where are the bought and paid for social media services acting as echo chambers
The sad thing is they probably already exist. But as I said before, the message is harder to resonate when you're not confirming people's biases.
You're assuming these platforms are on parity when it's cleared institutional actors very much have a partisan stance in all this. Left bots would be banned on Twitter while right bots would stay afloat. Our mort "left" platform is Probbaly Reddit and the effect seems to be diminished compared to newer formats like TikTok.
The true fact of the matter is that none of us are organized, right nor left. There's no organized message becsuse there's no organization, period. You can see from this last week how there's been fits fights in the Oval office over clashing ideals. From the party thst supposedly "falls in line". If you want a coherent message, that involves rallying around a central leader (be it a person or organization), and it seems we still can't do that.
On top of the morals, I just don't know if anything you say is even feasible in this environment. But if you wanna try it out, start now. It takes at least a decade to truly yield fruit.
Taking your Joe Rogan example, I don’t think he intended it to be propaganda at all, I think he’s an entertainer and a useful idiot for the right. That’s kind of the point I’m making: concerted...
Do you think none of the propaganda started as good intentioned messaging?
Taking your Joe Rogan example, I don’t think he intended it to be propaganda at all, I think he’s an entertainer and a useful idiot for the right.
That’s kind of the point I’m making: concerted and extremely well executed PR campaigns are successfully making use of popular media - like Joe Rogan’s podcast - as a tool to push a crafted message to a targeted audience, and they’re doing a very good job of it. The skill and success of messaging from anyone else isn’t coming close, and that’s a huge problem.
The sad thing is they probably already exist. But as I said before, the message is harder to resonate when you're not confirming people's biases.
I see hundreds if not thousands of anti-immigration posts, ranging from the subtle to the outright Nazi, absolutely blanketing Reddit on a daily basis.
I’ll believe that there’s an equal effort to counter that when I see anything even close to the same amount reminding people that higher union membership correlates to higher quality of life, or that the vast majority of all theft is wage theft, or any of a million other talking points that would force the conversation towards actionable, positive change.
You're assuming these platforms are on parity when it's cleared institutional actors very much have a partisan stance in all this
Nope, I’m saying that an extremely effective use of funds would be purchasing significant influence over those major platforms and performing that same algorithmic fuckery to deprioritise partisan disinformation.
the effect seems to be diminished compared to newer formats like TikTok
An interesting example in and of itself, given how serious the US government were about banning it before everything went to shit. I would be astonished if Bytedance aren’t engaging in exactly the kind of soft, persistent, and very effective control over broad trends and messaging that I’m talking about here.
There’s always an element of risk and an element of luck in foreseeing which outlets will be successful, but I don’t think it can possibly be pure coincidence that one of the largest sources of news and information on the planet is in a position to be heavily influenced and directed by the Chinese government.
In an ideal world I’d hope for nobody to have that level of power and influence, but since they clearly do already I’d like at the very least to see people who want a better world learning from these tactics and putting similar plans into motion. Consider it pre-emptively securing the next big platform against outside influence, if that framing makes you more comfortable.
If you want a coherent message, that involves rallying around a central leader (be it a person or organization), and it seems we still can't do that.
I can live without coherent, and without a leader or figurehead. For now I’m mostly concerned by the Overton window rocketing rightwards with very little effective counter, driven less by the actual demagogues and more by the clear, concerted efforts of special interest groups like the Heritage Foundation. Unilateral action by a small, well funded, and skilled organisation has been enough to reshape the US and the world without them even beginning to worry about organising everyone involved. Where’s the equivalent shadowy cabal trying to improve the world in an equally Machiavellian way?
I just don't know if anything you say is even feasible in this environment. But if you wanna try it out, start now. It takes at least a decade to truly yield fruit.
I wish I could. I’ve been saying this since Cambridge Analytica successfully fractured the European Union - just a hair under a decade ago, as it happens. But I have neither the money nor the skillset for this kind of work, and sadly the type of mindset that takes a person to billionaire status seems to be one that rarely overlaps with altruism.
And I see hundreds of posts covering the real news, opposing immigration, expressing frustration at the current regime, dissecting the laws, etc. I can't say what is "louder" per se on reddit. But...
I see hundreds if not thousands of anti-immigration posts, ranging from the subtle to the outright Nazi, absolutely blanketing Reddit on a daily basis.
And I see hundreds of posts covering the real news, opposing immigration, expressing frustration at the current regime, dissecting the laws, etc. I can't say what is "louder" per se on reddit. But I see enough to not think Reddit has descended into conservative bastion.
But it's also reddit, where you tailor your community. You very much can make it into one of you surround yourself with such communities. So I can't really agree or disagree. It's whatever you choose to hear.
an extremely effective use of funds would be purchasing significant influence over those major platforms and performing that same algorithmic fuckery to deprioritise partisan disinformation.
And you think that overrides whatever Musk or Zuckerberg wants to push? They don't even need to ban it, just adjust the weights. Even if it does, do you expect quick change just becsuse you were smart with funds? We didn't get into this situation in 5 mere months.
Unilateral action by a small, well funded, and skilled organisation has been enough to reshape the US and the world without them even beginning to worry about organising everyone involved.
But there was an organization to begin with. I think we both agree that we don't even have that. Or if we do, that they lack the power of Peter Thiel. That figurehead doesn't need to be a single person, but it does need to coordinate. I don't know the liberal equivalent of Thiel.
I deliberately browse Reddit without an account, and it’s very clear when a significant bot campaign is happening. The ramp up in rhetoric on the UK front-page-facing subreddits as we got closer...
It's whatever you choose to hear.
I deliberately browse Reddit without an account, and it’s very clear when a significant bot campaign is happening. The ramp up in rhetoric on the UK front-page-facing subreddits as we got closer to local elections recently was legitimately scary, and it dropped back to baseline again almost overnight after they were over.
And you think that overrides whatever Musk or Zuckerberg wants to push?
I think that reaching a point where Musk owns a significant media outlet was a huge failure to start with. The thing you’ve said that I agree with most is that this is a decade long process - and a lot of important battles have already been lost.
I’m not saying that adopting the same tactics would be an overnight success, but the answer to “shit, should’ve bought a controlling stake in Twitter before Elon could” isn’t to give up now, it’s to recognise the effectiveness of that move, to study what’s working, to copy what we can immediately, and to start trying to emulate the longer plays in the future.
I don't know the liberal equivalent of Thiel.
Fair, and on this I sadly agree with you. There’s nobody that I’m aware of with sufficient money and sufficient idealism to get the job done.
But I still can’t help but look at media and PR from the establishment left - from organisations and individuals with real, global-scale power and influence - and think really?! This ineffectual, legacy media, milquetoast, kid gloves approach is the best you’ve got?
I’ve said before that the wealthy establishment types are the ones who’ve by definition benefitted most from the last 70 years of relative Western stability. They’ve got the most to lose from a bunch of populist reactionaries burning it to the ground and picking the coins out of the ashes. So while I wouldn’t expect any of them to be the person we really need, I do wish a few of the more idealistic ones would grow enough of a spine to at least start the fight as if they mean it.
There was a recent Tildes discuss which linked to a video about plastic surgery in China. They mentioned an app which analyses your face and then harshly critiques it, and link you affiliated...
There was a recent Tildes discuss which linked to a video about plastic surgery in China. They mentioned an app which analyses your face and then harshly critiques it, and link you affiliated cosmetic surgeons and medical beauty companies. They had this woman who's spent an absolute fortune already on her face try this app and it's still not happy with her and recommenda surgery.
The apps in China are targeting women to convince them they won't be happy or successful without being beautiful. These chats are targeting young men with the same message.
The tech doesnt cause this ideology , it just aids transmission and hold on tighter: the tech is there to drive engagement for a frenzy that's already in place in their minds.
Here's the thing that sucks about all of this: being beautiful legitimately will make your life measurably better, all other things equal. If you look at an average looking person, it doesn't...
Here's the thing that sucks about all of this: being beautiful legitimately will make your life measurably better, all other things equal.
If you look at an average looking person, it doesn't matter if they're a man or woman, and you compare them with an attractive person, with similar education levels, intelligence, family background, so on and so forth, the attractive one will, on average, earn more, have a more successful time meeting partners, have more friends, and so on and so forth.
I think a lot of people turn to these ultra cynical, negative spaces because so much of the world seems dead set on denying the fact that being unattractive sucks. People hear "real beauty is on the inside" or, "yes, she's beautiful, but she doesn't have a personality like you", or "women don't care about what a man looks like, they care about their character.
Then they spend a week or two in the real world, and realize that all of these pithy condolences are basically bullshit. Their response is obvious: do whatever it takes to become attractive by any means necessary to the point of obsession.
I think we're much better off not tiptoing around the fact that being attractive is an all around net positive with very few downsides, just like we don't tiptoe around the fact that being smart is a net positive. It seems like a much healthier mindset to say "some people are hot, and some people aren't, just like some people are smart, and some people aren't. That's just life. It's not fair, but if you spend all of your time obsessing about it you will legitimately make yourself miserable."
I think I also run contrary to the opinions of a lot of people online that plastic surgery is negative. It can legitimately improve people's quality of life and mental health. If you have an aspect of yourself that you're so insecure about that it harms your day to day life, and you have the capability and desire to change that thing, I think it's good to do so. Just like everything, a grounding in reality and moderation is key.
"pretty privilege" is real, 100%. But "well dressed and look not homeless/aggressive" treatment is 100% real as well, and obtainable by almost everyone. People are often very quick to dismiss...
"pretty privilege" is real, 100%.
But "well dressed and look not homeless/aggressive" treatment is 100% real as well, and obtainable by almost everyone.
People are often very quick to dismiss their own okay-level pretty privilege: if someone doesn't have scars/tattoos/warts/open sores/obvious deformity on their face, and they are clean and have a non-aggressive expression, they're in the "normal" range already. Nobody needs exceptional symmetry and head turning beauty to simply get by: the vast majority of us are in this range and young men and women do not need surgery to get here.
Regular looking people find love and employment: there are so many more areas where someone could easily "max" before beauty needs to be considered.
"all other things equal" was doing a lot of heavy lifting in your opening statement. Not beautiful folks can definitely tip the balance in their favour and edge out beautiful people 9 times out of ten, by the way they dress, smile, take honest interest in others, be polite, be appreciative, and attend to their mental health. This combination is called grace, charm, rizz, whatever.
I used to serve a fair number of beautiful young people, when I worked as a server at a fancy date night cafe. Not all of them have charm, and not all of them are beautiful. The most beautiful people can still be irritating, rude, snarling, snapping, condescending etc. They might get dates sure but I doubt they can find happiness.
Edit: surgeries are for life - they can be botched, and your body will react to them as one ages, and often require more maintenance surgeries to "keep", and will bring on a host of other problems and sources for insecurities.
I wonder if it’s being attractive itself that smooths over interactions or rather the confidence that tends to come with being attractive that does. Looking at my own behavior, others being...
I wonder if it’s being attractive itself that smooths over interactions or rather the confidence that tends to come with being attractive that does.
Looking at my own behavior, others being attractive has rarely if ever changed my opinion about them or how I interact with them (with the obvious exception being people who I’m romantically or sexually attracted to). What’s made a much bigger difference is how the other person handles themselves in interactions, and that’s where confidence makes a huge difference — it’s much easier to have conversations with someone who has a healthy level of confidence and conducts themselves well.
The problem I think is that lack of attractiveness (or perception of such) drags down one’s self-image, undermining their confidence and making them more awkward, which makes social interactions more rough which can in severe cases turn into isolation and depression, which then reduces level of self-care (hygiene, etc) creating a downward spiral.
Confidence is a huge part of "charm" for sure. I will even grant that for children who grew up pretty, they receive a lot more positive attention and considerations that become foundational to why...
Confidence is a huge part of "charm" for sure. I will even grant that for children who grew up pretty, they receive a lot more positive attention and considerations that become foundational to why they are confident as teens and into adulthood.
The reverse is certainly also true: teens who give off a negative "vibe" will continue to receive unfavourable treatment from others, or are simply ignored, becoming a vicious cycle of poorer treatment <---> resentment / anger downward spiral.
Surgery is being sold as the magical way out. Could community funded make over and positive interactions with both men and women make a difference? Teens are highly sensitive to pity and obligatory niceness though, and a lot of well meaning adults trying to help likely won't be anywhere near as effective as from beautiful peers.
If you're insecure about an aspect of your appearance to the level that it affects your day to day life, you have two choices: have a surgery to (potentially) fix that thing, or work on your...
If you're insecure about an aspect of your appearance to the level that it affects your day to day life, you have two choices: have a surgery to (potentially) fix that thing, or work on your insecurities. Maybe that one change to your appearance will be enough to soothe your insecurities forever, but will it really?
Maybe, maybe not. But if the surgery is done well it has a good chance of bringing you those tangible, external advantages either way - it seems like that’s a worthwhile conversation to have...
Maybe, maybe not. But if the surgery is done well it has a good chance of bringing you those tangible, external advantages either way - it seems like that’s a worthwhile conversation to have alongside the “insecurity” framing?
It's a cost/benefit assessment, like anything. Getting over insecurities is a lot of work. Some people never manage it despite truly trying to. The underlying thing that's making you insecure is...
It's a cost/benefit assessment, like anything. Getting over insecurities is a lot of work. Some people never manage it despite truly trying to. The underlying thing that's making you insecure is still there as well. If you're insecure because you have a massive, easily noticable growth on your face people find off-putting, even if you're able to work through that insecurity, you still have a huge growth that's off-putting to people. The removal of that kind of thing is pretty affordable and accessible in the grand scheme of things as well.
You may just figure that the cost and effort involved in getting your nose fixed is a lot lower than the mental effort involved in coming to terms with it, with the added bonus of actually having a nose you like at the end.
For other things that you can't change, or you can't change as easily, it's pretty clear that working on accepting the things you don't like about your appearance is the better, and only real option.
You can't change your height without ridiculously expensive and crippling surgery, same goes for a lot of other physical traits. You're probably better off just coming to terms with those traits. For everything else in the middle, that's a personal choice where the specific situation, risks, and benefits need to be weighed.
I don't think you can really make a hard and fast rule about it.
It doesn't help that dating apps highlight photos. If you meet someone, their sense of humor or a kindness can create a good impression that overrides looks. Also pheromones play a role.
It doesn't help that dating apps highlight photos.
If you meet someone, their sense of humor or a kindness can create a good impression that overrides looks.
Not only highlights certain profiles/photos, but charge extra money for people to access them as well. A society moves increasingly away from meeting in person, we're pushing lonely vulnerable...
Not only highlights certain profiles/photos, but charge extra money for people to access them as well.
A society moves increasingly away from meeting in person, we're pushing lonely vulnerable young people further and further into the grips of highly unethical digital platforms that gain when we all lose.
That sense of humour, the enticing pheromone, the easy air, the grace in how one treats waitstaff, a particular grin or glint in the eye.... All that gets locked behind pay gates and the "no you're hideously subhuman give this surgeon a call first" industry.
I'm really not opposed to surgery: it's like getting tattooed or ears pierced. But what I find alarming is how little folks are aware of them being potentially a lifelong permanent financial and health commitment. If folks can change how they appear magically without any drawbacks, 100% I would love for people to be able to look however they want every single day. Many people are happier after surgery, that's true, but many people are still unhappy after surgery, which is the trend I find more alarming.
Done. You really should @ ping either me or mycketforvirrad for this sort of thing in the future though, because it's only by chance that I saw your request here.
(Can we add surgery.cosmetic tag please?)
Done. You really should @ ping either me or mycketforvirrad for this sort of thing in the future though, because it's only by chance that I saw your request here.
Tagman! Thank goodness you're here! The villain tied me to the rails and set a bomb under the st-- wait, what are you doing? No don't just tag death.rail! Don't leave!!
Tagman! Thank goodness you're here! The villain tied me to the rails and set a bomb under the st-- wait, what are you doing? No don't just tag death.rail! Don't leave!!
I found this link in the OP's, and it's fascinating. It's a profile of the plastic surgeon referenced by the chatbot. https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/incel-plastic-surgery.html
I found this link in the OP's, and it's fascinating. It's a profile of the plastic surgeon referenced by the chatbot.
Warning: If you already have some body image issues, this article may be upsetting to you.
I'm not sure if this is the right topic. I considered ~society and ~health as well.
Anyway, this is one of the more disturbing uses of LLMs that I've come across. In a nutshell, it's a customized GPT that acts as a incel-philosophy based counsellor which not only promotes the ideology, but also viciously denigrates the user's physical appearance in order to sell product.
Also, just an interesting peek into incel culture. Hardmaxxxing, mogging, Eppley-tier implants, PSL scores, all sorts of weirdo terminology that I was unfamiliar with before.
I've decided I'm better off not looking up any of this and I will continue to assume that PSL scores are in fact pumpkin spice latte scores: A measurement of how "basic" one is.
I just don't want to be unhappy this time
We need to start working on society-scale therapy. Incels need it, Israel needs it, MAGA needs it. The only groups doing anything like it (society-scale gaslighting) are working people in the wrong directions. More well meaning people are too afraid of collective manipulation. The truth is manipulation isn’t wrong. Causing harm is the only wrong thing.
If we ever figure this out we’ll wonder how we ever lived without it.
Isn't that effectively the role religion has historically played?
I'm not really sure there is a way to do it without harming people. I'm almost entirely uneducated on religions so perhaps there are some that have caused no harm, but that seems hard to believe based on my understanding of general human behaviors.
I don't think you can avoid all harm at that scale. But I was raised in a religion (Quakerism) that's generally pretty ethical. It's explicitly non-violent, generally pretty anti-evangelical, famous for its organized response to slavery in the US. I'd say it's mostly an atheistic humanist religion these days.
That's an interesting claim but it makes sense to me in brief. I remember back in the day wanting to build education and fitness apps that used skinner boxes to help people become smarter or healthier.
I know now that that has a lot of problems, but the idea of using subversion to make someone better is really fascinating to me. Especially from an ethics standpoint.
I care about results, not necessarily about it being nefarious in nature. If it turns out the only way to "manipulate" people into goodness at a societal scale is by making them happy and comfortable then so be it. The only downside is that's probably one of the more expensive options.
I learned that what most people would call manipulation, with a negative implication, can be good by watching an expert businessman work. Getting people to work together at a company (in this case it was a morally neutral business) requires convincing people to do things. The more correct you are at what needs to be done and the better you are at convincing people the more successful you'll be as a leader.
I think the issue is, bad actors will be probably be more motivated and successful at using propaganda tools. Which leads me to hope that there are intrinsic limits to the effectiveness of such methods, since humanity is definitely going to maximize them.
People on both sides are trying to convince people. It's just fundamentally easier to have people confirm their biases than to have them take blame and better themselves. The ones doing it in the wrong direction have a lot easier time on their hands.
You’re absolutely right, they’ve got a massive practical advantage in being untethered by facts or morality, but the frustrating part to me is watching people on the side of truth and reality just shrug and keep doing what doesn’t work.
I’m 100% with @teaearlgraycold here - results matter above all else, and I have no interest in holding onto some misguided sense of propriety while the authoritarians take over. If confirming people’s biases works we need to accept that and channel it for the good of society, rather than standing by and watching while others channel it for their own ends.
I think it does work, but it's going to naturally be slower to convince people the "right" way. It's also always naturally easier to break down rather than build up.
If the ends justify the means and we abandon all morals, what really separates the two messages? Hell is almost always paved through good inentions, after all. I'm open to ideas, but part of the slowness simple comes from the number of people in the country.
If the ends justify the means and we abandon all morals with regards to manipulation and trick people into having healthy, fulfilling lives, what separates those messages from the ones that let billionaires loot our government?
The end result, definitely. In this case, the road to hell seems to be paved with the insistence on moral purity over effective action.
This sounds like the monologue from a jrpg villain lol.
Who has the authority to determine what is and isn’t a healthy life? That’s not something with an objective answer. Not to mention the immense power the people running this manipulation has.
It sounds like you're assuming that there's one group trying to manipulate the populace, and thus Democrats should avoid pulling those levers so as not to be all powerful? But there will never be one group. There will always be push and pull between different factions, unless one side sits on their hands and says they couldn't possibly compete because they'd just have too much power if they did.
And do you trust anyone to manipulate you into living a healthy, furfilling life? Do you think someone else's vision of a healthy, furfilling life is compatible with yours? Do you think they will make sure you have that life over their own priorities?
That's the road to hell. It's not that it can't be done. It's thst humans have a habit of corrupting under power and focusing on their own best interests when they get the chance. Hitler started out as wanting to recover Germany's devastated economy at first.
You know who has, with words and emotional appeals, convinced me to take actions that led me to live a healthier and more fulfilling life? My wife. My friends. My parents. My teachers. Government scientists. Medical professionals.
We live in a pool of opinions and information, and all of it affects us. All of the people around us affect us. For one political party to grab ahold of those social media levers and start pulling them in ways that'll lead to suffering and the other party to reject trying to compete in that arena just means that one side has undisputed control.
We are on the road to hell right now, and it's because one side is leading us there while the other doesn't even know how to fight.
Slippery slopes are slippery, but I feel like we're back in the 90's with that Poe's Law callout. Yes, Hitler rose to power on populism from the economic suffering of the populace. Who do you think is doing that right now? It's not the Democrats.
I mentioned this in another response but: this stance assumes platforms are on parity and that we'd get the same results if we used the same tactics with different messaging. I don't really agree. The message is the whole thing people are resonating with. One that tells them "it's not your fault, it's the women and brown people who are putting you down".
It's not like democrats have zero messaging or personalities out there. But you look st the people pulling the levers, and the messages they want to spread and you wonder: how do you tell people what they need to know vs what they want to be true?
This hasn't fundamentally changed over the last century. Just the tools. But the fundamentals is that it's a low easier to blame the jews for ruining your economy (or anyone else that isn't that person) than it is to offer a cohesive economic plan to stimulate jobs generate useful resources for the population. It's faster and more satisfying to burn a house down than build it back up.
I'm more than happy to hear suggestions otherwise to fight this. Butif you really feel we need a loud message, Tides isn't the going to be that megaphone.
The thing is, you can tell people things they want to be true that lead them in prosocial directions. "If you get an education and work hard, you can have a good life." "If you follow the social contract you too could have the house with a white picket fence, a partner who loves you and looks after you you, and 2.5 children." "Being educated is a moral good and is part of being a good citizen." "If you work hard within the system, the system will take care of you."
The trouble with all of those things that I really do think everyone wants to believe is that they depend on reciprocity. "If you [right thing], you'll get [right reward]." But that sense of reciprocity has been decaying over the last half-century. I'm honestly not sure what messages that support the USA as a whole could work right now.
Well yeah. That's why as of late I care a lot more about action rather than words. And why I don't necessarily think social media blasting is the end all be all of messaging to people. You'll need to show with your actions to actually mean what you say.
Thing is I think the messaging is working. But change this way is slow. Excruciatingly slow if you compare it to the destruction happening every week in government. I don't know if there's a faster way to do anything, at least without blood being spilt.
There are some things appealing about being manipulated into good things, but only if it's from someone altruistic
"Better Living Through Algorithms" by Naomi Kritzger
Aye, that's the issue. Altruism is already an extremely rare trait, and it seems to be completely non-existent once you amass enough power to affect mass change.
And even if that person is truly altruistic, it doesn't mean there aren't others that are less so and will try to exploit the system. The AI in thst story could be sold off to a private equity who then shifts the habits to make them more profit, or compromised by hackers, or simply makes a bad cultural call for a person's life.
Well, good intentions would separate them, for a start. Well intentioned failure would be a colossal improvement over the outright malice that's winning the propaganda war right now.
But I do agree to an extent; much as I'd like to advocate a complete no holds barred approach, and much as I think the seriousness of the situation warrants it, I've already begrudgingly concluded that objective truth has to be the red line. I wouldn't have too much trouble squaring the moral question, but practically speaking I think it'd be too risky to step past.
My problem is more with the methods - or lack thereof. Where are the armies of bots pushing talking points to control the narrative? Where are the bought and paid for social media services acting as echo chambers? Where are the quips and slogans and misdirects and question dodges and stupid nicknames that play to people's emotions?
I hate, hate, hate that those things work. But they clearly do. I used to believe the truth would win out, and then I saw people denying their own lived reality in favour of what social media pipes into their brains. People (in the J from Men in Black sense) apparently make their decisions on vibes rather than facts - so let's use this in our favour. We don't need to abandon the truth because the lies aren't what really matters, the emotions are.
Core principles are worth holding onto, but only if they really truly are core, stripped to the bone, "if I abandon this then the whole cause was for nothing" principles. Everything else is up for grabs, and right now I see a whole lot of people ignoring proven effective techniques not because they're a fundamental compromise of their position, but because they're a bit distasteful. That strikes me as painfully naive. If you stand in front of tanks, the tanks are gonna win.
Do you think none of the propaganda started as good intentioned messaging? It feels like a lifetime ago, but there was a time where Joe Rogan was a respected interviewer who challenged viewpoints on all side. You could say his endgame was always to end up as it is now in 2025, but what would the difference be?
The sad thing is they probably already exist. But as I said before, the message is harder to resonate when you're not confirming people's biases.
You're assuming these platforms are on parity when it's cleared institutional actors very much have a partisan stance in all this. Left bots would be banned on Twitter while right bots would stay afloat. Our mort "left" platform is Probbaly Reddit and the effect seems to be diminished compared to newer formats like TikTok.
The true fact of the matter is that none of us are organized, right nor left. There's no organized message becsuse there's no organization, period. You can see from this last week how there's been fits fights in the Oval office over clashing ideals. From the party thst supposedly "falls in line". If you want a coherent message, that involves rallying around a central leader (be it a person or organization), and it seems we still can't do that.
On top of the morals, I just don't know if anything you say is even feasible in this environment. But if you wanna try it out, start now. It takes at least a decade to truly yield fruit.
Taking your Joe Rogan example, I don’t think he intended it to be propaganda at all, I think he’s an entertainer and a useful idiot for the right.
That’s kind of the point I’m making: concerted and extremely well executed PR campaigns are successfully making use of popular media - like Joe Rogan’s podcast - as a tool to push a crafted message to a targeted audience, and they’re doing a very good job of it. The skill and success of messaging from anyone else isn’t coming close, and that’s a huge problem.
I see hundreds if not thousands of anti-immigration posts, ranging from the subtle to the outright Nazi, absolutely blanketing Reddit on a daily basis.
I’ll believe that there’s an equal effort to counter that when I see anything even close to the same amount reminding people that higher union membership correlates to higher quality of life, or that the vast majority of all theft is wage theft, or any of a million other talking points that would force the conversation towards actionable, positive change.
Nope, I’m saying that an extremely effective use of funds would be purchasing significant influence over those major platforms and performing that same algorithmic fuckery to deprioritise partisan disinformation.
An interesting example in and of itself, given how serious the US government were about banning it before everything went to shit. I would be astonished if Bytedance aren’t engaging in exactly the kind of soft, persistent, and very effective control over broad trends and messaging that I’m talking about here.
There’s always an element of risk and an element of luck in foreseeing which outlets will be successful, but I don’t think it can possibly be pure coincidence that one of the largest sources of news and information on the planet is in a position to be heavily influenced and directed by the Chinese government.
In an ideal world I’d hope for nobody to have that level of power and influence, but since they clearly do already I’d like at the very least to see people who want a better world learning from these tactics and putting similar plans into motion. Consider it pre-emptively securing the next big platform against outside influence, if that framing makes you more comfortable.
I can live without coherent, and without a leader or figurehead. For now I’m mostly concerned by the Overton window rocketing rightwards with very little effective counter, driven less by the actual demagogues and more by the clear, concerted efforts of special interest groups like the Heritage Foundation. Unilateral action by a small, well funded, and skilled organisation has been enough to reshape the US and the world without them even beginning to worry about organising everyone involved. Where’s the equivalent shadowy cabal trying to improve the world in an equally Machiavellian way?
I wish I could. I’ve been saying this since Cambridge Analytica successfully fractured the European Union - just a hair under a decade ago, as it happens. But I have neither the money nor the skillset for this kind of work, and sadly the type of mindset that takes a person to billionaire status seems to be one that rarely overlaps with altruism.
And I see hundreds of posts covering the real news, opposing immigration, expressing frustration at the current regime, dissecting the laws, etc. I can't say what is "louder" per se on reddit. But I see enough to not think Reddit has descended into conservative bastion.
But it's also reddit, where you tailor your community. You very much can make it into one of you surround yourself with such communities. So I can't really agree or disagree. It's whatever you choose to hear.
And you think that overrides whatever Musk or Zuckerberg wants to push? They don't even need to ban it, just adjust the weights. Even if it does, do you expect quick change just becsuse you were smart with funds? We didn't get into this situation in 5 mere months.
But there was an organization to begin with. I think we both agree that we don't even have that. Or if we do, that they lack the power of Peter Thiel. That figurehead doesn't need to be a single person, but it does need to coordinate. I don't know the liberal equivalent of Thiel.
I deliberately browse Reddit without an account, and it’s very clear when a significant bot campaign is happening. The ramp up in rhetoric on the UK front-page-facing subreddits as we got closer to local elections recently was legitimately scary, and it dropped back to baseline again almost overnight after they were over.
I think that reaching a point where Musk owns a significant media outlet was a huge failure to start with. The thing you’ve said that I agree with most is that this is a decade long process - and a lot of important battles have already been lost.
I’m not saying that adopting the same tactics would be an overnight success, but the answer to “shit, should’ve bought a controlling stake in Twitter before Elon could” isn’t to give up now, it’s to recognise the effectiveness of that move, to study what’s working, to copy what we can immediately, and to start trying to emulate the longer plays in the future.
Fair, and on this I sadly agree with you. There’s nobody that I’m aware of with sufficient money and sufficient idealism to get the job done.
But I still can’t help but look at media and PR from the establishment left - from organisations and individuals with real, global-scale power and influence - and think really?! This ineffectual, legacy media, milquetoast, kid gloves approach is the best you’ve got?
I’ve said before that the wealthy establishment types are the ones who’ve by definition benefitted most from the last 70 years of relative Western stability. They’ve got the most to lose from a bunch of populist reactionaries burning it to the ground and picking the coins out of the ashes. So while I wouldn’t expect any of them to be the person we really need, I do wish a few of the more idealistic ones would grow enough of a spine to at least start the fight as if they mean it.
There was a recent Tildes discuss which linked to a video about plastic surgery in China. They mentioned an app which analyses your face and then harshly critiques it, and link you affiliated cosmetic surgeons and medical beauty companies. They had this woman who's spent an absolute fortune already on her face try this app and it's still not happy with her and recommenda surgery.
The apps in China are targeting women to convince them they won't be happy or successful without being beautiful. These chats are targeting young men with the same message.
The tech doesnt cause this ideology , it just aids transmission and hold on tighter: the tech is there to drive engagement for a frenzy that's already in place in their minds.
(Can we add surgery.cosmetic tag please?)
Here's the thing that sucks about all of this: being beautiful legitimately will make your life measurably better, all other things equal.
If you look at an average looking person, it doesn't matter if they're a man or woman, and you compare them with an attractive person, with similar education levels, intelligence, family background, so on and so forth, the attractive one will, on average, earn more, have a more successful time meeting partners, have more friends, and so on and so forth.
I think a lot of people turn to these ultra cynical, negative spaces because so much of the world seems dead set on denying the fact that being unattractive sucks. People hear "real beauty is on the inside" or, "yes, she's beautiful, but she doesn't have a personality like you", or "women don't care about what a man looks like, they care about their character.
Then they spend a week or two in the real world, and realize that all of these pithy condolences are basically bullshit. Their response is obvious: do whatever it takes to become attractive by any means necessary to the point of obsession.
I think we're much better off not tiptoing around the fact that being attractive is an all around net positive with very few downsides, just like we don't tiptoe around the fact that being smart is a net positive. It seems like a much healthier mindset to say "some people are hot, and some people aren't, just like some people are smart, and some people aren't. That's just life. It's not fair, but if you spend all of your time obsessing about it you will legitimately make yourself miserable."
I think I also run contrary to the opinions of a lot of people online that plastic surgery is negative. It can legitimately improve people's quality of life and mental health. If you have an aspect of yourself that you're so insecure about that it harms your day to day life, and you have the capability and desire to change that thing, I think it's good to do so. Just like everything, a grounding in reality and moderation is key.
"pretty privilege" is real, 100%.
But "well dressed and look not homeless/aggressive" treatment is 100% real as well, and obtainable by almost everyone.
People are often very quick to dismiss their own okay-level pretty privilege: if someone doesn't have scars/tattoos/warts/open sores/obvious deformity on their face, and they are clean and have a non-aggressive expression, they're in the "normal" range already. Nobody needs exceptional symmetry and head turning beauty to simply get by: the vast majority of us are in this range and young men and women do not need surgery to get here.
Regular looking people find love and employment: there are so many more areas where someone could easily "max" before beauty needs to be considered.
"all other things equal" was doing a lot of heavy lifting in your opening statement. Not beautiful folks can definitely tip the balance in their favour and edge out beautiful people 9 times out of ten, by the way they dress, smile, take honest interest in others, be polite, be appreciative, and attend to their mental health. This combination is called grace, charm, rizz, whatever.
I used to serve a fair number of beautiful young people, when I worked as a server at a fancy date night cafe. Not all of them have charm, and not all of them are beautiful. The most beautiful people can still be irritating, rude, snarling, snapping, condescending etc. They might get dates sure but I doubt they can find happiness.
Edit: surgeries are for life - they can be botched, and your body will react to them as one ages, and often require more maintenance surgeries to "keep", and will bring on a host of other problems and sources for insecurities.
I wonder if it’s being attractive itself that smooths over interactions or rather the confidence that tends to come with being attractive that does.
Looking at my own behavior, others being attractive has rarely if ever changed my opinion about them or how I interact with them (with the obvious exception being people who I’m romantically or sexually attracted to). What’s made a much bigger difference is how the other person handles themselves in interactions, and that’s where confidence makes a huge difference — it’s much easier to have conversations with someone who has a healthy level of confidence and conducts themselves well.
The problem I think is that lack of attractiveness (or perception of such) drags down one’s self-image, undermining their confidence and making them more awkward, which makes social interactions more rough which can in severe cases turn into isolation and depression, which then reduces level of self-care (hygiene, etc) creating a downward spiral.
Confidence is a huge part of "charm" for sure. I will even grant that for children who grew up pretty, they receive a lot more positive attention and considerations that become foundational to why they are confident as teens and into adulthood.
The reverse is certainly also true: teens who give off a negative "vibe" will continue to receive unfavourable treatment from others, or are simply ignored, becoming a vicious cycle of poorer treatment <---> resentment / anger downward spiral.
Surgery is being sold as the magical way out. Could community funded make over and positive interactions with both men and women make a difference? Teens are highly sensitive to pity and obligatory niceness though, and a lot of well meaning adults trying to help likely won't be anywhere near as effective as from beautiful peers.
If you're insecure about an aspect of your appearance to the level that it affects your day to day life, you have two choices: have a surgery to (potentially) fix that thing, or work on your insecurities. Maybe that one change to your appearance will be enough to soothe your insecurities forever, but will it really?
Maybe, maybe not. But if the surgery is done well it has a good chance of bringing you those tangible, external advantages either way - it seems like that’s a worthwhile conversation to have alongside the “insecurity” framing?
It's a cost/benefit assessment, like anything. Getting over insecurities is a lot of work. Some people never manage it despite truly trying to. The underlying thing that's making you insecure is still there as well. If you're insecure because you have a massive, easily noticable growth on your face people find off-putting, even if you're able to work through that insecurity, you still have a huge growth that's off-putting to people. The removal of that kind of thing is pretty affordable and accessible in the grand scheme of things as well.
You may just figure that the cost and effort involved in getting your nose fixed is a lot lower than the mental effort involved in coming to terms with it, with the added bonus of actually having a nose you like at the end.
For other things that you can't change, or you can't change as easily, it's pretty clear that working on accepting the things you don't like about your appearance is the better, and only real option.
You can't change your height without ridiculously expensive and crippling surgery, same goes for a lot of other physical traits. You're probably better off just coming to terms with those traits. For everything else in the middle, that's a personal choice where the specific situation, risks, and benefits need to be weighed.
I don't think you can really make a hard and fast rule about it.
It doesn't help that dating apps highlight photos.
If you meet someone, their sense of humor or a kindness can create a good impression that overrides looks.
Also pheromones play a role.
Not only highlights certain profiles/photos, but charge extra money for people to access them as well.
A society moves increasingly away from meeting in person, we're pushing lonely vulnerable young people further and further into the grips of highly unethical digital platforms that gain when we all lose.
That sense of humour, the enticing pheromone, the easy air, the grace in how one treats waitstaff, a particular grin or glint in the eye.... All that gets locked behind pay gates and the "no you're hideously subhuman give this surgeon a call first" industry.
I'm really not opposed to surgery: it's like getting tattooed or ears pierced. But what I find alarming is how little folks are aware of them being potentially a lifelong permanent financial and health commitment. If folks can change how they appear magically without any drawbacks, 100% I would love for people to be able to look however they want every single day. Many people are happier after surgery, that's true, but many people are still unhappy after surgery, which is the trend I find more alarming.
Done. You really should @ ping either me or mycketforvirrad for this sort of thing in the future though, because it's only by chance that I saw your request here.
Oh! I will pull out the Tag signal next time :) thanks
Lamest superhero ever! :P
Tagman! Thank goodness you're here! The villain tied me to the rails and set a bomb under the st-- wait, what are you doing? No don't just tag death.rail! Don't leave!!
death.rail, author.whine, author.complain, train.coming, author.plead, train.arrival, author.deceased, job.done.here
I found this link in the OP's, and it's fascinating. It's a profile of the plastic surgeon referenced by the chatbot.
https://www.thecut.com/2019/05/incel-plastic-surgery.html