[LOL] cannot be stressed enough how cringe it is that autismo PSLers

[lonelyjak]

what really matters for decent looks is that all of your individual features work well with each other and are the correct proportion, compatible coloring etc. in the context of talking about focusing on single features my response about harmony makes perfect sense

none of that exists

yeah it does. some people look decent with a relatively large philtrum and others do not; proportions of overall facial features relative to each other matter. likewise when it comes to coloring some people have desirable hair + eye color combos and others do not; this can even include the color of the eyebrows as well

the reason bad features look bad is because they're extreme which implies disproportionality. harmony implies good proportions. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

[eldajaal1488]

what really matters for decent looks is that all of your individual features work well with each other and are the correct proportion, compatible coloring etc. in the context of talking about focusing on single features my response about harmony makes perfect sense

none of that exists

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

[lonelyjak]

none of that exists

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

I would even argue that some people would look worse if they had insane cheekbones or very angular hunter eyes (assuming that these features didnt properly harmonize with the rest of their face)

[eldajaal1488]

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

I would even argue that some people would look worse if they had insane cheekbones or very angular hunter eyes (assuming that these features didnt properly harmonize with the rest of their face)

i mean if u put overly angular eyes on face with low overall masculinity yeah, mass in cheekbones should be universal, like eyebrows, good contrast etc.
like think of that standup comedian guy who banged kim kardashian, masculine face with bulging eyes. looks weird af but still good. would be like that but reversed. if u put ,,hunter'' eyes on him he would be straight up brad pitt tho

[lonelyjak]

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

I would even argue that some people would look worse if they had insane cheekbones or very angular hunter eyes (assuming that these features didnt properly harmonize with the rest of their face)

i mean if u put overly angular eyes on face with low overall masculinity yeah, mass in cheekbones should be universal, like eyebrows, good contrast etc.
like think of that standup comedian guy who banged kim kardashian, masculine face with bulging eyes. looks weird af but still good. would be like that but reversed. if u put ,,hunter'' eyes on him he would be straight up brad pitt tho

yeah I get what youre saying

[Steppenwolf]

none of that exists

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

the avg person is subhuman, even more so depending on the country. having only nordic countries as somewhat gl on avg. precisely, bc they're not avg, they are superior 

[Steppenwolf]

none of that exists

yeah it does. some people look decent with a relatively large philtrum and others do not; proportions of overall facial features relative to each other matter. likewise when it comes to coloring some people have desirable hair + eye color combos and others do not; this can even include the color of the eyebrows as well

the reason bad features look bad is because they're extreme which implies disproportionality. harmony implies good proportions. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

[eldajaal1488]

facial averageness is kinda legit thing look it up. odd good looking people obviously are real, they just happen to have good features+low facial averageness. to x its weird looking, to someone its second coming of jesus

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

the avg person is subhuman, even more so depending on the country. having only nordic countries as somewhat gl on avg. precisely, bc they're not avg, they are superior 

avg person is subhuman but if u merge 100 normies into 1 with something like faceapp, u wont end up with subhuman. thats how all these ,,pheno'' averages are made. its not average face, its averaged face.
obviously nerdics mog more or less due bonemass

[lonelyjak]

yeah it does. some people look decent with a relatively large philtrum and others do not; proportions of overall facial features relative to each other matter. likewise when it comes to coloring some people have desirable hair + eye color combos and others do not; this can even include the color of the eyebrows as well

the reason bad features look bad is because they're extreme which implies disproportionality. harmony implies good proportions. I dont know whats so hard to understand about that

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features. theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

[eldajaal1488]

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features, theres nothing controversial about saying this

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

i kinda felt like hes trolling us too, but i love talking LOOKZ so much its all good, even if he is

[Steppenwolf]

it does not and you would only think that because of specific nordic countries

dude why would u think specific nerdic country? like think about it, someone else whos flawless is already gl. doesnt need insane cheekbones or very angular ,,hunter'' eyes, which obviously would make 1 from gl to insanely gl. facial averageness is basically meme term for no flaws

the avg person is subhuman, even more so depending on the country. having only nordic countries as somewhat gl on avg. precisely, bc they're not avg, they are superior 

avg person is subhuman but if u merge 100 normies into 1 with something like faceapp, u wont end up with subhuman. thats how all these ,,pheno'' averages are made. its not average face, its averaged face.
obviously nerdics mog more or less due bonemass

yes you do, unless you do it in specific nordic countries as i already said

[Steppenwolf]

you are acting no differento to what OP describe. some people look decent with a 'relatively' large philtrum maybe because their entire face isn't utterly horrendous

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features.

you are not thinking about what you are saying. such thing doesn't exist. it's easy to look at someone like Lachowski and instinctively see it as "harmonious" or it "just works." but it's something you can't even reverse, you can't think what it could be otherwise, because you're forgetting it's not a Frankenstein with individual features set together, whch is why you constantly push the "works together" nonsense. you are not seeing the pattern that many pure (in the sense of European) caucasians present that is the "fine" traits, in width, and angularity of whole skull. which on Lachowski in specific with his soft features being top-tier and so his low-asymmetry makes him what he is

theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

ok, but it seems you did not understand yet why i said we can so easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries (there's no actual "parts" and only wholes. which is why you should consider an actual holistic approach and try tackle and understand why people look the way they do, why features when isolated are the way they are, which often involves the whole skull, tendons, skin et cetera)

[lonelyjak]

no...some people have stretched out facial features overall and the large philtrum fits in with that; other people have more compact facial features and the large philtrum contrasts badly with it

OP is saying that many autistic PSLers think that a slayer MUST have a single, particular good feature. im saying that good looks originate in overall facial harmony. so im not even advocating that every good looking person must have a particular type of ramus or whatever, im literally saying that in every situation its different and that a persons features should harmonize well with their other features in order to look good

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features.

you are not thinking about what you are saying. such thing doesn't exist. it's easy to look at someone like Lachowski and instinctively see it as "harmonious" or it "just works." but it's something you can't even reverse, you can't think what it could be otherwise, because you're forgetting it's not a Frankenstein with individual features set together, whch is why you constantly push the "works together" nonsense. you are not seeing the pattern that many pure (in the sense of European) caucasians present that is the "fine" traits, in width, and angularity of whole skull. which on Lachowski in specific with his soft features being top-tier and so his low-asymmetry makes him what he is

theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

ok, but it seems you did not understand yet why i said we can so easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries

no...the problem is that youre being autistic about this. have you never heard of the golden ratio? if you insist on having some sort of a general baseline for harmony then thats it, however I still insist that there is a certain aspect of harmony thats subjective, individual and hard to formularize. youre just upset that you cant take a semi-abstract phenomena like beauty and break it down into a precise formula, classic autism.

tell me this, how do you mathematically formulate what a perfect sunset is? trick question, you cant! we have a general idea of what a perfect sunset looks like but theres also great space for subjectivity and individual preference too. youre trying to square the peg here and demanding a precise schemata where there is none

your second statement is completely subjective. you literally just pulled that out of your ass. sure there are lots of botched surgeries (the bogdanovs, or when girls get those stupid disproportional lip fillers); the reason theyre considered botched is because the surgery violated the original sense of harmony through overcorrection in some manner. however there are also lots of good surgeries where the person ends up significantly improving their appearance and it looks quite natural. 

you cant be taken seriously, especially with your second statement. do you really expect to drop an arbitrary, opinionated rhetorical turd like that without being called out for it? "muh 95% of surgeries are uncanny valley" 

:spiderol:

just stop bro, this is a tedious conversation and im tired of repeating myself and knocking down your non-sense troll crap

*edit:

"ok, but it seems you did not understand yet why i said we can so easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries (there's no actual "parts" and only wholes. which is why you should consider an actual holistic approach and try tackle and understand why people look the way they do, why features when isolated are the way they are, which often involves the whole skull, tendons, skin et cetera)"

are you kidding me? ive been advocating a holistic approach this entire time. if anything we're arguing apples and oranges (but youre too dense to realize this). what im saying isnt mutually exclusive with what you seem to be trying to say

[Steppenwolf]

yet, its on the nose stupid, the reason why both is wrong is the same reason we think of 95% of surgeries as uncanny. both ways of thinking is addressing aesthetics as if humans were Frankenstein

its amazing how what you think im saying is 100% the opposite of what im actually saying. 

im proposing a completely holistic and organic way of assessing aesthetics; this is completely opposite to acting as if humans were frankenstein. good looking people have balanced features that are harmonious with their other features.

you are not thinking about what you are saying. such thing doesn't exist. it's easy to look at someone like Lachowski and instinctively see it as "harmonious" or it "just works." but it's something you can't even reverse, you can't think what it could be otherwise, because you're forgetting it's not a Frankenstein with individual features set together, whch is why you constantly push the "works together" nonsense. you are not seeing the pattern that many pure (in the sense of European) caucasians present that is the "fine" traits, in width, and angularity of whole skull. which on Lachowski in specific with his soft features being top-tier and so his low-asymmetry makes him what he is

theres no one single trait that makes someone good looking, rather its the sum of the parts that makes a person good looking (or not) and this particular "sum of the parts" differs from individual to individual. theres no specific formula for this. theres absolutely nothing controversial about what im saying

youre trolling me and just being deliberately stubborn

ok, but it seems you did not understand yet why i said we can so easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries

no...the problem is that youre being autistic about this. have you never heard of the golden ratio? if you insist on having some sort of a general baseline for harmony then thats it, however I still insist that there is a certain aspect of harmony thats subjective, individual and hard to formularize. youre just upset that you cant take a semi-abstract phenomena like beauty and break it down into a precise formula, classic autism.

the golden ratio is absolutely retarded. i'm amazed you brought this up when it has been disproved by 3000000 morphs, you're definitely not a lookism og or knew Deliciadecu

tell me this, how do you mathematically formulate what a perfect sunset is? trick question, you cant! we have a general idea of what a perfect sunset looks like but theres also great space for subjectivity and individual preference to. youre trying to square the peg here and demanding a precise schemata where there is none

this utterly random digressing comical text you spewed not only sounds like and ad but also oblivion dialog wheel npc discourse

your second statement is completely subjective. you literally just pulled that out of your ass. sure there are lots of botched surgeries (the bogdanovs, or when girls get those stupid disproportional lip fillers); the reason theyre considered botched is because the surgery violated the original sense of harmony through overcorrection in some manner. however there are also lots of good surgeries where the person ends up significantly improving their appearance and it looks quite natural.

no, i did not. the reason we can instantly detect it and distinguish as uncanny valley is that it doesn't match the craniofacial structure. those that are camouflaged, which are uncommon, since the norm is simpler cosmetic procedures, are those that alter the craniofacial structure itself, such as the maxilla 

you cant be taken seriously, especially with your second statement. do you really expect to drop an arbitrary, opinionated rhetorical turd like that without being called out for it? "muh 95% of surgeries are uncanny valley" 

just stop bro, this is a tedious conversation and im tired of repeating myself and knocking down your non-sense troll crap

very ironic considering everything about "harmony" is utterly vague. you can't go on this conversation without parroting "harmony" each one-liner you type because not only you are braindead, but you're a newcomer spewing cancerous stupid buzzwords you npc freak

[lonelyjak]

@Steppenwolf

the golden ratio is absolutely retarded. i'm amazed you brought this up when it has been disproved by 3000000 morphs, you're definitely not a lookism og or knew Deliciadecu

morphs eh? so youre talking about artificial modifications of someones face made to forcefully align with the golden ratio? why rely on morphs and why not use it on natural photos to see if it fits with the golden ratio or not? did you even read what I wrote? I clearly stated that theres something about harmony/beauty thats abstract and hard to concretely quantify even beyond the golden ratio. the golden ratio is just a general, provisional baseline

the fact that you bring up morphs and start accusing people of not being lookism OGs or whatever just shows how insecure you actually are. youre likely one of those people that OP is talking about, thats why youre still wasting my time with this pointless discussion. newsflash, ive been at PSL for a long time and I never learned what half of those stupid anatomical terms mean. it was always half serious/half meme, but you looksmaxx newbie cancers took that shit seriously and became unbearable with your idiotic morphs, endless jargon and wheatwaffle tier takes

this utterly random digressing comical text you spewed not only sounds like and ad but also oblivion dialog wheel npc discourse

ever heard that old saying: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? beyond a few general rules, you cant create a formula for beauty because in many cases its subjective. you gave some butthurt response because you knew that you couldnt answer a legitimate question about beauty. youre just a seething autist who tries to understanding everything mathematically or whatever

no, i did not. the reason we can instantly detect it and distinguish as uncanny valley is that it doesn't match the craniofacial structure. those that are camouflaged, which are uncommon, since the norm is simpler cosmetic procedures, are those that alter the craniofacial structure itself, such as the maxilla 

LOL you couldnt refute that you pulled the 95% figure out of your ass so you just gave me a word stew response. wheres the proof that we can easily detect uncanny valley in 95% of surgeries? thats a pretty bold statement. are you sure you werent just pulling that figure out of your ass to (weakly) support your own stance?

very ironic considering everything about "harmony" is utterly vague. you can't go on this conversation without parroting "harmony" each one-liner you type because not only you are braindead, but you're a newcomer spewing cancerous stupid buzzwords you npc freak

yep..harmony/beauty can be an abstract concept. who would have thought! the fact that you cannot grok legitimate philosophical considerations like the sunset analogy shows that theres something about beauty you dont understand

my stance has always been that its important to holistically consider how all of a persons features work together instead of autistically singling out a single feature when trying to explain why someone looks good. my stance is very simple and common sense but for some reason you want to keep attacking it and dragging on a pointless conversation