Counterpoint: sometimes it’s just a funny picture I like, and sometimes it’s some anime titties I like. Assuming it’s always going to be a meaningful representation of the user is unrealistic.

No u

That’s fair, but I get the feeling that the researchers came up with their conclusion before performing their study, and then interpreted their findings to fit that pre-supposed conclusion. The only thing this study can fairly claim is that some homophobic men may harbor homosexual desires. They’ve failed to demonstrate any causal linkage between those two attributes, but they’re heavily suggesting one exists. Maybe their abstract grossly oversimplifies things, but it seems to extrapolate their findings far beyond any reasonable conclusion in my opinion, and that makes me question their methods and motives more than I normally would. The publication date also raises flags, as the common pervasive sentiment about homosexuality was very different in 1996 than it is today. All of those things combined indicate to me that this study should be carefully considered with plenty of grains of salt at hand.

But to get back on topic a little bit - my original intent was to refute the notion that if someone has a problem with the methodology of a scientific study, then they must perform their own study and present evidence to support a contrary claim. The examples I listed are things it would be reasonable to expect a layman with solid critical thinking skills to point out as potential flaws in this particular study, potential areas to look further into, to confirm whether or not the study is scientifically sound.

No, what you said was “if you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study”.

“Disagree with the science” is a disingenuous oversimplification bordering on nonsensical. People are calling into question the methods of the study, and the conclusions reached by the scientists interpreting the data. All of which can be accomplished with good critical thinking, and all of which is part of the scientific process. We’re not “disagreeing with the science”. We don’t need to repeat this experiment or run our own to be able to point out that it looks like there are flaws in this study - we just need to have good critical thinking skills.

If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.

What facts? Are you implying that the content of a scientific study becomes “fact” simply because a scientist publishes it? Because that’s wrong, and any published scientist will tell you as much.

Nah, nope, nuh-uh, that’s not how science works. A person’s concerns about the methodology or conclusions of a particular study are not invalid just because they haven’t run their own experiments.

It’s pretty easy for even a layperson to question this particular study, for a few reasons:

• The sample sizes are very small
• Some men can get erections/aroused if the wind blows the wrong way, or even for no reason at all - putting porn in front of someone and expecting them not to become aroused is a dubious assumption at best
• Using some external test to determine someone’s sexuality, instead of using the person’s self-identification, goes against the last 30 years of progress we’ve made in gender and sexuality studies
• The conclusion of the study may indicate some level of homophobic or anti-homosexual bias

Don’t gatekeep good critical thinking. Good critical thinking is the only thing you ever need to question any scientific study.

This is a meme post about em dashes, dawg

I think it’s nice actually that we can recognize that pregnant women and children are more vulnerable groups of people that sometimes require more protection than men. I say that as a man.

Again, we’re talking about a hypothetical situation

I’m laying down actually

Oof, the alt text on that second one was unexpectedly dark lmao

:3DD

Props for living up to your username

No! Heathen! Download the source for every package and compile it yourself! Compile the kernel yourself, compile the compiler yourself! Never script anything, always do every step manually, every time! Using tools that make things convenient and foolproof makes you weak and unappreciative of the real hardship and struggle it requires to checks notes use a personal computer!

True revolutionaries buy Sabian anyways

Saw Bob Vylan in the mud and muck last year at Louder than Life, and that’s the performance that has stuck with me the most by far from that fest. Such a high energy performer, and there were only maybe a couple hundred people in the crowd (early set, on one of the smaller side stages, so kind of expected). The messages in the lyrics are spot on too, but it was kinda funny looking around at all the rural Kentuckians there looking all uncomfortable and rolling their eyes when they realized what they were listening to lmao

Absolutely! Like I said, this is a topic I’ve always struggled with, and I’ve leaned both ways. I just so happen to be leaning on the side of recreational air travel this week lol.

The example with Prague strikes me as rooted in capitalism, not so much tourism. Like, ideally governments (local or otherwise) in tourist-heavy areas step in and implement things that address those capitalistic problems you describe - penalize rental property conglomerates, enforce a liveable minimum wage, build affordable permanent housing and mixed-use spaces, etc. I hear your comparison between tourism and imperialism, and I get that some tourist areas are pretty awful where the local residents are treated as subhuman and that definitely sucks, but idk, it feels more like a capitalist/classist issue to me.

I think the difference is that it’s harder (impossible-feeling) for people with ADHD to abandon the nostalgia box distraction and get back to the chore they were doing. Or, once a person with ADHD finishes going through the nostalgia box and starts coming down off that dopamine hit, it can be hard (impossible-feeling) to do anything afterwards, let alone the boring chore, leaving the person stuck in a “frozen” state.

Obviously there are different levels of severity to ADHD, and my understanding of it is colored/biased by my personal experience, I’m not a doctor, etc., but this is the difference I’ve noticed at least.

Do you think “having tourism” would do more damage than “not having tourism”? Because that’s what we’re really comparing here. Tourism may be a net negative, but if the absence of tourism is a bigger net negative, well, I’d argue that “having tourism” is the better option.

Obviously making tourism into a net positive should be the goal, but that’s a whole different discussion (which your idea of “educational holidays” probably fits into). But I don’t think we get there with a blanket ban on most forms of air travel. Not to mention, making air travel more efficient/greener would have huge ripple effects across multiple industries. That seems like a no-brainer approach to me, at least in the long term.

Man, this is one I’ve tried to wrestle with multiple times. I feel like there are monumental benefits to trans-Atlantic/trans-Pacific recreational flights (really just most long international flights). Banning those would almost certainly increase feelings of isolation, and probably make the already-rampant xenophobia plaguing the world even worse. There really aren’t viable alternatives to flying for getting across a multi-thousand-mile-wide ocean - boats are too slow for the average person, and building trains over the ocean is impractical. Maybe the focus should be on making planes more environmentally friendly, instead of outright banning them?

Is this an AI-generated response? On a post demonizing AI? Lol bold