chapotraphouse
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
Like any descriptor of someone being attractive or good looking, there's a time and a place where it's appropriate or creepy regardless of the actual words and phrases used.
Acceptable if you're a film noir gumshoe
idk why people are against saying hot/pretty/good looking, what is wrong with these, if you're already accepting the premise that commenting on someone's physical appearance is warranted
I dont like it, its opposite would be "eyesore" which is tremendously insulting in particular as both terms refer to marks of ones appearance one has little to no control over. And if there are people who are "easy on the eyes" then there are people who are "eyesores".
Also I have never seen it used in a nonsexualizing manner.
"A sight for sore eyes" however is a goat compliment.
makes me feel like i'm listening in to a table of elderly men drool over their teenage waitress tbh
Weird, context matters, but yeah, weird. I've only heard "easy on the eyes" to refer to UI color schemes.
I've only heard "easy on the eyes" to refer to UI color schemes.
This is the best use i could have. Or used as a criticism of art. If something is easy on the eyes maybe it's not challenging/interesting enough.
wait why can't art just be nice to look at?
To me it evokes a mentality where other people's appearances are only considered through the lens of how they serve the person speaking. I'm not a fan. Even where complimenting someone's appearance is appropriate, I think it frames the compliment as "you're not like those uggos I hate seeing"
Handsome. For everyone, regardless of accordance to beauty standards.
I mean, I've read/heard worse. Context and consent matter and what-not.
not substantially different from "good looking"
Death to America