Ok many comments bash OP for the word choice “prudish” to point out this is a bad faith troll. I would also point out the issue with “hate sex”.
There are people who are not prudish at all, and love sex, and still don’t want to see lewd things. Famously, arousal reduces thresholds for feeling disgust. I would argue that it is quite normal for humans to see overly revealing images of most bodies off putting, unless in an actual sexual situation.
Then, there are people, I would be fine calling them prudish in the lack of a better term, as shyness kind of undersells this, who really don’t want to see, hear, talk about, or even mention sex. Someone like that can still really like sex- doing it, not talking about it.
So “hate sex” is not the same as “don’t want to see explicit porn all the time everywhere”.
Yes, I tried both before going self hosted; and both try very hard to make your life difficult if you don’t subscribe. Actually I got hooked on RSS with Google Reader, which was a perfect, simple, free reader. It got shut down, because I guess it doesn’t make sense to provide that service for free.
The way I understand it, the main thing for incels is that their celibacy is involuntary. They think they’re entitled to sex, and anyone not having sex with them is to blame for their misery. So being a rapist is precisely on brand for them, sadly.
Maybe. Nevertheless, characterizing heroin and opium as social lubricants sounds insane to me, even if the core thought (not every substance use habit is a problem to solve) is valid.
It is not, in fact, a good article. A lot of the text is nonsense mumbo jumbo, a salad of words vaguely related to the topic but often used incorrectly. My guess is that the journalist just didn’t understand what the scientist said. The other possibility is that the scientist was high and was rambling incoherently.
This is a verbatim quote:
Yes, opioids bind to a class of receptors called endogenous opioids, which you find in endorphins, for example. Opioids bind to these receptors—just like natural chemicals do—which results in a response. In some cases, because of decreased sensitivities and certain types of pain, they may enhance a sense of euphoria.
And here we go with the typical thread of “I spent 2.6 seconds vaguely thinking about this so now I know better than any of those so called experts; I should now go online and educate people about the issue. If there is a counterargument, I will double down using only my common sense as source and ignore any input.”
The question was, how can Americans view the death of their soldiers a tragic event. I think it’s trivial that the attacked enemy views the invading soldiers’ deaths as win.
GI Joe did not join the military to attack a third world country. Members of the armed forces, once signed up, have to go wherever they are deployed. So yes, many service members are brave folks who are willing to risk their lives to defend their country. But likely the majority are completely average people who enlisted because they didn’t see many other career opportunities available to them. Either way, they agreed to follow orders.And then they are sent to stupid wars where they are traumatized (and they traumatize civilians of the hostile country) for no good reason. That doesn’t mean they are inherently evil or aggressive people, or even that they want to be at war.
It’s not soldiers who start wars. There is some cognitive dissonance, but one can be angry at corrupt politicians sending troops to unnecessary wars, and respect those same troops as heroes risking their lives for the country.
The common theme about the “issues” listed in the screenshot is that none of them are real, they are all made up by the right wing culture wars, and the only reason that anyone is even aware of them is that Tucker Carson and Alex Jones and their friends spent 10 years faking outrage over them.If someone bases their vote on culture wars issues, instead of considering what each candidate stands for on real world problems, fuck them. No excuses.
If I wanted to hide something from the authorities, I wouldn’t do it using a system whose defining feature is that all transaction data is visible to anyone.
To each their own. I don’t want to see ads on my devices, so I only browse apps or sites where there are no ads or ad blockers can effectively hide them. I don’t want to see idiotic and offensive content in my feed, so I block communities, users, and instances from whom I don’t expect to miss hearing from. I started my lemmy with the same disappointment that OP is describing here. The best advice I got was to block the crazies. It worked. The ability to QC the feed is what makes lemmy worthwile imo, otherwise it would be a flood of spam and propaganda, like the rest of social media.
Ok many comments bash OP for the word choice “prudish” to point out this is a bad faith troll. I would also point out the issue with “hate sex”. There are people who are not prudish at all, and love sex, and still don’t want to see lewd things. Famously, arousal reduces thresholds for feeling disgust. I would argue that it is quite normal for humans to see overly revealing images of most bodies off putting, unless in an actual sexual situation. Then, there are people, I would be fine calling them prudish in the lack of a better term, as shyness kind of undersells this, who really don’t want to see, hear, talk about, or even mention sex. Someone like that can still really like sex- doing it, not talking about it. So “hate sex” is not the same as “don’t want to see explicit porn all the time everywhere”.