> In fact I’d say your theory has the opposite effect… we don’t eat our babies or kill the children of a new partner to ensure our DNA survives.
I don’t think eating a baby is at all like homosexuality.
Yeah that fuckin dick just wants to argue it seems. Talk about missing the forest for the trees lol. As if people going "it's not natural!" Isn't a cornerstone of telling us why we shouldn't exist
Fundamentally they're looking for a victim and an excuse. The purpose is not to safeguard the naturalness of our lives (gestures broadly at poptarts and deodorant) or whatever the excuse is at the moment, it's to attack a perceived easy target.
If someone ate a baby and used the defense that wild animals eat their young, does that make it more acceptable? Of course not.
That said, I hate the entire natural/unnatural thing. As I see it, everything that exists is by definition natural, i.e., part of nature. There's nothing humans can do that isn't natural because we're part of nature. But, I know that this kind of thing is informed by one's worldview and if you believe in a "supernatural" creator - which again, what? - then that may not jive with you.
The natural/unnatural distinction makes sense in the context of the Renaissance era thinking in which it was defined, and we lack a clearer or better term for it now. The popular thinking before the modern era was that only humans had sentience and free will, that animals were effectively automatons, and that the environment and ecosystem of the world was an unbreakable unchangable eternal system, made by God for humans to enjoy and master. Anything in that system of animals and ecosystems was “nature” and anything the result of human free will was outside of nature. So what we really mean by natural is anything that would occur without the direction of human free will. The distinction breaks down and loses meaning under the modern understanding that many other animals are sentient to various degrees and humans are not as special as we thought, that the world was not necessarily made by a god or gods with our mastery in mind, that the world is not an eternal fixed system but changed drastically over millions of years and continues to change, etc. Under this understanding it makes little sense to separate humans from nature. But it’s still useful to have some term for the concept of something that would occur without human direction/will and I think this is one of them. Observing that homosexual interactions occur in nature isn’t the basis for saying it’s morally acceptable, it is a refutation of the argument that homosexuality only exists due to human culture or decisions, which underlies most arguments for it being unacceptable.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Not only the 'natural/unnatural' dichotomy makes no sense by itself, but homosexuality is natural in humans... because it appears in humans, period.
Of course, there's plenty of natural things which are harmful, and homosexuality is not one of them, but not because it's natural.
I think that dude's point is that just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's something to be emulated. Many animals eat their young and each other but nobody is arguing that we humans should do that. That dude is just extending that logic to homosexual behavior.
That being said, imagine some *real* baby back ribs.
Except that the reason it's pointed out when it happens in nature is that people argue that it's unnatural. You're seeing his comment in isolation from that, but when you put them together it's more obviously ridiculous.
"Homosexuality is unnatural!"
"Actually all these animals have homosexual sex."
"Animals also eat their young, should we do that too?"
It is, bizarrely, arguing the opposite point of the first objection: just because it's unnatural doesn't mean it's wrong.
No one is arguing that anyone should or shouldn't be homosexual; rather, the point is that people simply are, and to show how this is we merely have to look to other animals that exhibit the same behavior.
Its just fascinating to me that people adjust facts to fit their world views instead of the other way around. Happens to everyone. Its part of being human.
And that is why humans are dumb.
Anything that shows psilocybin or weed has negative effects
Tons of nitpicking of the article or just vague "let's wait for future studies " or saying the article is bias
Anything that shows the positives of cannabis or psilocybin
"Legalize this shit already!!!'
The sub, like many others, is a victim of its own popularity. It's apparently the most popular science sub in general, so it attracts people who are interested in science, along with those who want to argue with it.
I also suspect that the majority of users aren't serious scientists, which is why the most popular posts and comments aren't usually ones that demonstrate particularly great scientific insight.
I once had someone try to argue me with an “as a scientist” rebuttal. I asked what type of scientist they were and they said they were a computer scientist. I checked their profile because that was vague and not applicable to the conversation and they had a recent post asking what the best colleges were to apply to for a CS degree if you don’t have very good grades in HS lol.
That reminds me of someone I saw on twitter saying AI is gonna rule the world, programmers are going to be the only worthwhile professionals earning millions n shit, and things like sociology and history will be rendered useless. Checked his profile and he was asking someone what the difference between javascript and C# is.
>Checked his profile and he was asking someone what the difference between javascript and C# is.
To be fair to that guy, if you're struggling to figure out that separate coding languages are - how to even phrase this - different from each other, programmers must seem like absolute galaxy-brain tier geniuses.
well, maybe. I mean, my grandma fawns over me like I'm a reality-manipulating demigod when all I do is make shitty webapps. Maybe this guy is the same but on the opposite end of the age spectrum (14 instead of 75).
Also where's your flair from?
My flair is from some old drama where gamers were "discussing" trans people, I think.
It was a one line comment and I think it really speaks for itself:
What do you mean there are weird creatures walking among us called "men" or "women?" Next you're gonna tell me all about the lizard-people and bigfoot.
Reminds me of some jobless virologist who pulled the phd card in a conversation about transgenderism. “I have a phd in biology so i know better”
No argument really, just told the other person they were wrong because PHD.
hey just so yk "transgenderism" is mostly used as a transphobic dogwhistle to make being transgender seem like an ideological value rather than an innate state of being. This is bc of the "ism" suffix connoting ideology (capitalism,communism,etc)
isms do not denote ideology. Autism? Astigmatism?
I’m not gonna change my language because a bunch of dogmatic morons try to co-opt it to promote hate.
it can be used for condition as well as doctrine but its simply true that the vast majority of the usage of the term "transgenderism" is by terfs and its rarely used within the community itself. ISM is used for condition, ideology, and active action but it doesnt mean all 3 simultaneously.
A pandemic denier claimed to "work in the medical field". They were maintenance at a hospital.
An anti-vaxxer forgot to switch from their r science mod account. Or maybe they didn't forget. Who knows. That subreddit is compromised anyways. It's become a front for reactionaries. They post seemingly legitimate science content so they can flood the comments with truther replies.
Serious scientists, once they move out of their specific field, are pretty bad at interpreting data as well, especially if it goes against their preconceived notions because they believe themselves to be better educated than others. You see this all the time with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jordan Peterson, Ben Carson and the like. A physicist or a computer engineer probably has little to say on the validity of a study on animal behavior and how it relates to human ethics.
Jordan Peterson never was a scientist though (not that psychology isn't a science, but he never approached even his own field scientifically)
but I get your point
Not being a scientist has never stopped Jorpy from [claiming to be a scientist.](https://old.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/16xw9pa/fyi_another_spot_where_peterson_claims_to_be_a/)
hey hey hey, we don't him either, we take knowledge production seriously!!
--Signed someone who us getting their doctoral degree in something Philosophy adjacent (media studies).
it's more I don't have the energy to write a few paragraphs to detail to disciplinary distinctions while still drawing from many of the same theorists and thinkers lol
He has a PhD in psychology, that requires a good chunk of research and knowledge of science in theory and practice.
Clinical psychologists are not practicing researchers, but their training is equivalent to any scientists so I think it's quibbling to say he was never a scientist
I don't want to retract any of his achievements but I have no respect for a scientist that would retrofit the data and cherry pick until he could push his idiotic views. It's the psychological equivalent of a climate scientist denying climate change.
But yeah you have a point.
Pretty much all studies ever face the same idiotic criticisms: sample size, correlation is not causation, and “the scientists don’t think this is definitive proof either.” AKA explaining basic parts of the scientific method
That’s very often warranted when it comes to studies filtered through and sensationalised by popular journalism though. And the average reader on /r/science is just the average Reddit-user, which is to say the general public but skewing fairly hard towards young and male.
Of course criticising e.g. sample size can be idiotic if the sample size is actually good, but users of the sub in general have extremely low scientific literacy. You really do kinda need to have someone explain the relevant part of the basics of reading and evaluating a study in pretty much every thread in order for the users to get a decent perspective on the strength of the specific study and what it’s actually implying.
I've seen a lot of people that take a single study as evidence handed down from God, too, rather than understanding that most individual studies just move the needle a little bit in one direction or the other
The absolute worst I've ever seen was a Hacker News post where people couldn't accept that a controversial speed reading technique was effectively a placebo.
> The article’s conclusion doesn’t seem to match the data they collected. They found that most people (52%) do read faster with bionic reading, the effect is generally quite small, but large for some minority of users - at least one user read 293 WPM faster with Bionic Reading!
> The authors then average results (good and bad) across all users, resulting in a number close to zero, and conclude Bionic Reading doesn’t work for anyone, even calling it a placebo effect at the end.
> The problem is, all brains are not the same. It doesn’t have to work equally well for everyone to be valuable.
I want to hurl a brick through my window just re-reading that. I could do the same thing and be like, "this study is misleading. If you look at the original data, reading while upside down and underwater actually makes 14% of people read faster!" The study even refuted the literal, exact point that commenter is trying to make at the end, if only they actually read it (this was part of the article since the very beginning):
> Since posting this experiment, I've received a lot of side comments along the lines of, "Well, of course I don't expect Bionic Reading to work for most people, but for [my subpopulation], it really works." If that were the case, ( . . . )
Everyone thinks that they are better at accounting for confounding factors than people who make it their job.
Yea, sure, random reddit commenter, the people involved in peer reviewed research forgot to account for the first thing that came to your mind in your "what about x?" comment.
>Everyone thinks that they are better at accounting for confounding factors than people who make it their job.
It's actually really easy even for a high-schooler to find tons of possible confounding factors, if you refuse to read the method section and just never engage with which ones were already accounted for and how.
Legit am article posted their about game addiction increasing
And one of the top comments were "did it account for gaming being used as a coping mechanism"
That was legit one of the first sentences in the article. These people don't even read it, just see the title and start commenting lol
I remember getting told by someone once that women were "better suited" to be fighter pilots (and presumably also astronauts) because their bodies can withstand more G-force.
Then he went on in the next breath to complain about female fighter pilots also being *worse* for it because of some other reason that was basically "women aren't socialized to be killers" or something.
Like...neither are men???
I’d wager that an extremely large portion of commenters on Reddit aren’t here to learn anything at all. They just wanna argue stuff they know absolutely nothing on at all.
I started blocking accounts that reply to me with the sole intention of arguing at me without actually reading my replies rather than having a conversation. I’m learning that those types are fewer than I thought they’re just super active as it hasn’t taken too long to start having a more pleasant experience on the site.
Whenever I expand a collapsed blocked comment to see what it says 99% of the time they’re being an ass to someone else.
The block feature was super controversial but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some upsides. The 90-9-1 principle means 10% of users are active commenters. A small percentage of that are the lunatics. It doesn't take much to filter them out.
I'm quite certain a large part of the opposition to the block feature was said crazies. A forum that is well moderated either by mods or at user discretion is no place for the shit stirrers. They thrive in anarchy. That's why they love libertarian ideology.
Honestly, I'm not really informed about or interested in what you are discussing, but it definitely sounds wrong. Too many words and probably a communist lib
i opened a few articles at random, one about cannabis smokers/users being more prone to severe COVID, one about exercise being good for mental health and job satisfaction or something, one about teenage drinking being bad to be permissive about.
all were secondguessed/gainsayed by many of the commenters.
> For some reason people increasingly think their personal anecdotes are as powerful and valuable as well structured
Fun fact, one of the rules in comment ins /r/science is "no anecdotes"
It's not quite impossible, it just requires a very large and dedicated mod team.
/r/askhistorians does it succesfully, but admittedly they are the only ones on the site and they will readily admit that Reddit is in most ways just an awful portal for the kind of content the sub seeks to provide.
People have always been prone to favoring experiential conclusions, so I’d like to see data on it (har har).
That said, It would make sense if we had a higher percentage than, say, 2010, due to the amount of distrust in even science these days.
There's a specific type of stoner redditor that likes to act like weed is the healthiest thing you can consume and that it can cure any illness and shit.
They hate being faced with literally any downside to their habit
And don't you dare pointing out to them that smoking all day every day is an addiction. We recognize daily cigarette smokers as addicts, or daily drinkers, but wake 'n bake gets a pass from these types.
Minor corrections: It is similar to nicotine and dissimilar to alcohol in the way it affects the body. The human body produces its own alcohol while metabolising protein so it is a substance that can create a physical dependency when introduced from an outside source and withdrawal might be lethal. A lot of GABAergic substances are like that, benzodiazepines for example, or opiates or GHB. Nicotine, while extremely addictive, does not create a physical dependency and neither does THC. You can detox from both without medical supervision, it's going to **suck** but you will be fine.
And as a sidenote, while nicotine is a stimulant, it does not render users unable to drive. THC absolutely does and I don't know why people film themselves smoking a blunt behind the wheel. That is highly irresponsible. I smoke weed myself and I know how much it affects my reaction time even when playing video games. This is not a safe condition to be in on a highway!
Smoking yeah, but if by users we include people who just use edibles, that would be unexpected and worthy of further study. And while smoking is bad for respiratory illnesses, there were those studies showing Chinese factory workers who smoked cigarettes getting less exposure to COVID overall. So I think it's sort of complicated which is why the studies are useful.
What is "gainsayed"? Like, I get that redditors aren't going to admit they do something unhealthy, and are going to get defense about it, so the second guessing I understand. I'm just saying I'm too stupid to pull from context that definition.
So the reason it's paired with "second guessing" is because to gainsay someone is to openly deny or argue with them about their point or premise. Second guessing in this case is them doubting or asking questions, so gainsaying is to more openly disagree.
You can be a conservative scientist, or like science as long as you just ignore anyone else but those.in your field and let your biases confirm everything else.
That is called engineer's syndrome. A lot of scientists, but engineers specifically, have the delusion that because their field is highly specialized and requires a lot of knowledge, it means that all other fields are just easy in comparison which they can easily tackle with their big brains. Not necessarily related to conservativism, but when such an engineer is also a conservative, you can already imagine how much they like to consider their opinion on other subjects to be the absolute truth.
Kind of but not really. Dunning-Kruger is knowing very little about a topic but thinking you know everything about it. Engineers syndrome is being very knowledgeable in one very hard topic and because of that you think you can figure out any topic without a lot of research
It might be a default sub? But yeah I was looking up some research about homosexuality there, and Dammn there was surprisingly a lot of homophobia in the comments
Tell the folks at r/science that the scientific community generally accepts that sex and gender are two different things and watch them lose their fucking minds.
/r/askscience is okay, but askhistorians is fantastic. askscience just doesn’t have level of moderation that’s needed to ensure that every answer is high quality.
That’s mostly a problem of finding enough expert volunteers, so I don’t blame the mods for it at all, but it doesn’t really come close to the extreme quality of askhistorians imho.
The problem with r/AskScience is anyone can answer a question, without credentials or sources - it's not r/AskScientists - so you just get le redditsplanation of some viral meme factoids or half-remembered high-school science class without the context, or the higher-level caveats of the simplistic version that's taught to children. The best thing about r/AskHistorians is that hardly anyone is allowed to answer.
>The best thing about r/AskHistorians is that hardly anyone is allowed to answer.
/r/askhistorians doesn't actually require any credentials for answering questions either, just that you're well-read on the current academic literature on the subject, can provide sources if asked and that your answer has an (for Reddit) incredibly high standard.
It's nearly but not quite a pedantic point, because almost only educated historians and those in related fields will be able to meet those three criteria, but the best read and most academically minded of interested laymen or hobbyist historians do also read the academic literature and are sometimes able to provide answers about their specialties.
1. Default subreddit
2. Anti-science cultists are organized in their attempts to brigade any subs they hate
3. And more importantly want to co-opt.
For these reasons, the /r/science mods tend to be...overzealous though justified, in their moderation at times.
I'm sure Flat Earths would love to have a subreddit called 'Science' and spout off their nonsense anti-science cult apocalyptic bullshit without any repercussion.
They're always swarming the comments section on that sub. Ironically, one of the most reactionary and anti-scientific zeitgeists on this entire website.
My theory is that for a long time, these folks saw science as a way of confirming their societal biases and projecting a sense of authority in an argument. Something like "my worldview is proven by science, therefore you are not allowed to disagree!". It doesn't help that for a long time there were some pretty racist/sexist/homophobic theories and beliefs that were seen as scientific but are now thankfully discredited. So these people were used to having the upper hand in an argument regarding "touchy" subjects only to find all that science that supported their beliefs labeled outdated and obsolete. That is why they insist they are "pro science" even when engaging in science denial because what they really are in favor of is outdated science that painted straight white men as superior and attempt to hide this belief by insisting that new science is somehow manipulated by elites with nefarious intentions and thus "propaganda" and i think you exactly where this is going.
/r/science is to science what /r/funny is to funny.
Editorialzed articles with a sample size of 7 getting to the front page because it's something a lot of people agree with, and the average comment section full of armchair dudebros explaining why everyone else is wrong about everything.
Any sub with a super generic name will be populated by the lowest common denominators if this site.
Or the other way:
"Homosexuality is bad because it's not natural"
* "well it is natural because animals do it too"
* "That's a naturalistic fallacy, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good"
I don't even bother trying anymore. Why argue with them? Society is past treating their grievences with any amount of legitimacy.
Correct response: "Oh, you're a homophobe? Gross. Bigots are the worst." And then walk away/block.
I think people are getting their signals crossed on what “natural” means in this context. These people think that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals, so they’re talking about what they think is natural for humans. What animals do is irrelevant and as many people correctly pointed out, animal behavior in general is not a good model for human behavior. This is an interesting scientific finding, but it’s not a great moral argument and if they found the opposite it wouldn’t change anything about the moral arguments in defense of homosexuality, either. What animals do simply shouldn’t matter when talking about what humans should or shouldn’t do.
> \- Gay sex is bad because it's not natural.
>
>
>
> \- Whether it's natural or not is not the point.
Sometimes I think they just hate gay people...
^^^^^^^^^/s
^^^^^^^^^I
^^^^^^^^^know
^^^^^^^^^they
^^^^^^^^^do
More flairs:
> [Please stop assuming my phobie. I hope we get laws for that soon so we can sue people like you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9l7d3b/?context=3)
> [Semiotically irrelevant and inaccurate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9j9dpz/)
> [Mounting isn't always sexual. I think that can be a show of dominance.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9je1cj/)
>Mounting isn't always sexual. I think that can be a show of dominance.
Exactly what I tell my bro every time I mount them (we are married for tax benefits)
>[Please stop assuming my phobie. I hope we get laws for that soon so we can sue people like you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9l7d3b/?context=3)
What could be more of a karen move than wanting to sue someone because they called you phobic?
I’ve got a coworker who has fallen down the Twitter radicalization hole and he tried to make the same arguments about homosexuality. I can’t believe we are still arguing about this in 2024 but here we are.
This is frustrating because as a practicing homosexual, I am actually curious where being gay comes from. Like, there hasn't really been a [consensus ](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms)among scientists, so there is room for discussion here. It's just that anytime this topic comes up it's like a bullhorn for the bigots to come prancing in.
Absolutely. Understanding sexuality and attraction is important and could prove incredibly useful in understanding human behavior in general, and the bigots are making it very difficult.
But ultimately, as far as they are concerned it's irrelevant whether sexuality is biological or learned, natural or unnatural. They are starting with the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong and will twist any finding to fit that view. If it's natural then it's animalistic. If it's biological then it's a sickness or abnormality. If it's chosen then it's a sin. No matter what, to them, you're wrong.
I'll never get it. Being homosexual doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. It literally doesn't do anything. Eating babies literally kills another human being. Raping someone also hurts the victim. Shit like that, things that animals do and are "natural", which we shouldn't be doing. Having sex with someone who isn't of the opposite gender? How is this ever an issue? There is however something, that only we humans do, that's 100% harmful, bad and toxic: starting religions and being part of a religion. *That's* problematic.
Heterosexual men being overly horny to the point they harm women: it's nature, we can't do anything about it
Gay people existing: well yeah sometimes we shouldn't follow nature otherwise we may as well accept rape and murder
I think the same goes for trans people. They are so afraid of looking at a women and think “wow she’s hot. She give me the tummy tickle” and then they find out they used to ba a man. The phobia is wild.
I once heard a theory that suggested homophobia sometimes develops in response to fears of de-population. Also, in some societies, the economic and social success of a household depended on having *lots* of kids and grandkids. In a time with no social safety nets, children not only were used to increase household wealth (either by working for their parents or funneling money into the house by working elsewhere), but were investments in the parent’s future, as well. When you’re too old and infirm to take care of yourself, you have an army of adults kids and grandkids to look after you. So, from that cultural framework, being gay could be seen as an affront to the family. It would basically be taken as a sign that you don’t care if your family starves and becomes poor so long as you find your pleasure.
But that’s a few guesses, and these ideas aren’t to be universally applied to all cultures and communities without further inquiry. The truth is that sexual and gender dynamics are complex and there are few cross-cultural universals. For instance, in some cultures, a man is only considered gay is he is penetrated by another man. If it’s the other way around, then he’s still considered straight. In that case, being gay versus straight is an issue of power dynamics and cultural beliefs around what is or isn’t masculine. The cross-cultural analysis of sex and gender is a pretty interesting topic!
Depopulation guy has it right: people only care about gayness when they think "their kind" is on the decline. Could be a race thing, could just be basic familiar narcissism.
When they think their kind is on top? Ruling shit? Owning all the things? Suddenly: be as gay as you want.
If anything the argument for why this evolved in humanity has to do with bonobo diplomacy/aggression reduction (enhancing social bonds in the group is a net benefit, even if those bonds don't result in offspring) and a eusocial K-selection strategy (gay uncles and lesbian aunts might not have kids of their own, but can put more resources towards raising related offspring than the parents could do alone).
Frankly, things that aren't evolutionarily beneficial in some way don't stick around for long. The only reason any controversy exists around this at all is because some dudes get mad at the thought that another dude might try to flirt with them and assume they'll be mistreated in the process.
I’ve been waiting to see r/science here, idk how often they are featured on here, but reading comment sections on that sub has been a horrible experience.
> You mean every other post then. This subreddit has been a *** agenda churning machine post-2016
On Psychology Today posts, yes. Also lmao "***" what a ***** ****** ***** ******* he needs to ************* ***** ******** immediately
> it's not like homosexual dogs would ever have a romantic spaghetti dinner together where one of them eats a strand of spaghetti but then it's the same strand.
It's too bad that's way too long for a flair.
>As a younger man I read an article that speculated over 70% of Giraffes not only engage is same sex sexual encounter ~ but do so with surprising frequency.
No wonder Geoffrey let things at toys r us slide.
it was always my understanding that homosexual behaviour was widely observed - but that observation of homosexual preference was limited to humans and sheep
an understanding i generally reserve for meta-discussion since actually throwing my hat into that dumpster fire means losing a hat and gaining nothing but contempt
anecdotal evidence is worth nothing, but I grew up with a dog who would only mate with male dogs. We would joke about our gay dog, because it was the 00's and "lol gay" was the one joke allowed that decade.
"It's interesting how many people immediately think to use rape, murder, infanticide, and cannibalism as a counter to someone who says homosexual behaviors is naturally occuring. Makes you wonder why so many of you rushed to associate homosexual behavior with violent behavior."
end it
You are replying to a thread of people being homophobic, saying "I miss the times before the internet". This comment very very clearly states that you believe homophobia was not as bad before the internet.
You’re suggesting I didn’t know about homophobia before the internet? Bro I was called gay all the time by my mannerisms when I was kid. If you had a little reading comprehension I was just suggesting we didn’t have to deal with all this drama before the internet and it was actually not that exhausting
Snapshots:
1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061306/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1dm12r0/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1dm12r0/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
2. This is making homophobia even more infuriating. It is actually natural - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061608/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9k37o8/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9k37o8/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
3. Animals killing their weakest child happens a lot too. It's interesting how some animal behaviors we use to support our own while others we don't include because obviously we're not that. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061709/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9kij1m/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9kij1m/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
4. Territorial and dominance hierarchy behavior. I doubt there is romantic or partnership behavior behind it. Stop anthropomorphizing creatures who lack higher cognitive function. Humans are so horny bro. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061830/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9lq0h2/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9lq0h2/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
5. just look at the comments here and you see exactly how that happened - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622062436/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jfpgd/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jfpgd/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
6. Doesn’t surprise me at all. Sex studies of humans are most often focused on MF pairs and also most often focused on penile-vaginal sex to a degree that they exclude MF pairs who engage in sex that does not include penile-vaginal sex. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622062939/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jr2hw/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jr2hw/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
7. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/ - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622063322/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!")
*I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
And they have the nerve to call me degenerate, because I have the greater ambition of creating a gigantic harem like I'm a Chinese Emperor x Pokemon. It's just nature, baby
Know whats another funny thing, is nobody gay says woke anymore, and it pretty much only exists in the minds of homopheelers. ( Thats my fun new word for THE WEAK.)
Scared of gays, Hatin gays; same damn thing. is the lamest, weakest, most pathetic thing Ive ever had the displeasure to have to observe in someone whom thinks ' oh im sooo manly ' * puke*
Roll onto your back and pee weakling; dont being hate onto good people. Mind your damn buisiness.
Im usually a nice lady. but i have some triggers, or whatever . idgaf.
I hate this anti-anthropomorphization thing as if we aren't also animals. Assuming that nothing goes on in non-human brains is worse than thinking they may be in any way similar to us.
For starters, idgaf what orientation you are nor do I dislike anyone for doing whatever they feel like doing, but I am a little confused here if anyone can shed some light. Personally, I absolutely agree with the first response that homosexuality existing in nature shouldn’t be the way something is acceptable.
Animals are generally stuck in survival mode and as far as I know usually lack the capacity to comprehend much past “live another day”. Knowing this, we can safely assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality can be boiled down to two things (both or one at a time), dominance and/or maintaining a bloodline. Because of this survival mode, horrible things happen like birds dropping weaker babies out of the nest and listening to them cry underneath until they ultimately die.
Isn’t it a little bit clunky to accept one thing’s natural existence as solidification of one’s beliefs outside of the original action’s intent, yet only do so when that thing is acceptable to you/your race ethically?
Is this an unpopular take?
All these types are argument are heavily semantic and arise from the fact that the noun *nature* and its adjective has notoriously many, many different related meanings.
Merriam-Webster lists 15 different definitions (28 if you include all the subtypes) for *natural* here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural
Not all of them are relevant here (for example the musical meaning ♮) but many different ones are being used in that link and causing lots of needless arguments.
Not really, you are technically correct in that argument is occasionally used in threads, the real argument is that conservatives are never arguing in good faith. They will say that gay sex is bad because "it is not natural" and than one comment later claim that it being natural does not have any relations to whether it should be accepted. They are not arguing about semantics. They just hate LGBTI+ people and will use anything to make their lives worse.
"but it's natural to be gay" is such a weak-ass naturalistic fallacy that I cringe every time someone trots it out... ^(even though I myself once wrote an entire paper along those lines back in college😅)
'natural' doesn't mean 'good' or 'right' or 'ethical' or 'useful' or 'worthwhile' or 'valuable' or really much of *anything* really - neither does 'artificial' mean 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'unethical' or 'useless' or 'worthless' or you get the picture.
Just because animals do it doesn't mean it's okay for humans to do it, that's a ridiculous argument and should simply be shut down outright, it's not even worth discussing.
Forget "is it *natural* to be gay," and let's get down to brass tacks: is it *ethical* to be gay?
That's the only question that truly matters. If you can't answer that question without pointing to fucking giraffes or monkeys, then gtfo
The argument over whether it's "natural" to be gay comes as a response to the favored conservative argument that being gay is unnatural and against God's will and thus should be banned. It's not an argument made in a vacuum. You're right, the crux of the discussion should be on morality, but when a major argument against it calls it unnatural, it stands to reason that an argument debunking that claim would aim to show that it's naturally occurring as well.
No what I'm saying is - their argument "it is wrong to be gay because it is unnatural" begs the question, "is it wrong to be unnatural?" Right? That's implicit in their argument.
So instead of saying "it doesn't matter whether it's natural," you're saying, "it *does* matter whether it's natural and..." then continue to argue that it *is* natural - but in doing so you've already accepted their false premise, "it is wrong to be unnatural."
When you engage with that argument without questioning the premise, you legitimize it. It stands to reason that right and wrong have nothing to do with natural and unnatural, or natural and artificial, that's very plainly true if you put a few minutes thought into it - so why should you pretend otherwise, *especially* when dealing with such a fundamental question as "is it okay to be gay?"
Ah I gotcha. But yeah, like the other guy said, it's not really about having a real conversation or inadvertently confirming the premise of their argument, since they're not arguing in good faith. These are people who will simultaneously say that being gay is unnatural and then immediately say that just because something is natural doesn't mean we should do it, as evidenced by the linked post.
The legitimacy of the argument never mattered in the first place to homophobes. Being pedantic (and correct) matters far less than having a pithy answer and walking away.
> In fact I’d say your theory has the opposite effect… we don’t eat our babies or kill the children of a new partner to ensure our DNA survives. I don’t think eating a baby is at all like homosexuality.
Man the gay agenda got *weird* since I started missing meetings
Well what did you think we were grooming them for, if not to harvest their adrenochrome?
I must keep missing the baby eating meetings at my local gay agenda cult. What a shame.
Fr fresh baby is so much better. If I had known about these meetings I would have stopped dumpster diving in the medical waste bin ages ago
See how important every vote is?
I heard you aren't allowed to renew your card if you miss more than 10.
Maybe not the way you do it.
Yeah that fuckin dick just wants to argue it seems. Talk about missing the forest for the trees lol. As if people going "it's not natural!" Isn't a cornerstone of telling us why we shouldn't exist
Fundamentally they're looking for a victim and an excuse. The purpose is not to safeguard the naturalness of our lives (gestures broadly at poptarts and deodorant) or whatever the excuse is at the moment, it's to attack a perceived easy target.
Especially since those sound like things for which heterosexuality is a prerequisite.
If someone ate a baby and used the defense that wild animals eat their young, does that make it more acceptable? Of course not. That said, I hate the entire natural/unnatural thing. As I see it, everything that exists is by definition natural, i.e., part of nature. There's nothing humans can do that isn't natural because we're part of nature. But, I know that this kind of thing is informed by one's worldview and if you believe in a "supernatural" creator - which again, what? - then that may not jive with you.
The natural/unnatural distinction makes sense in the context of the Renaissance era thinking in which it was defined, and we lack a clearer or better term for it now. The popular thinking before the modern era was that only humans had sentience and free will, that animals were effectively automatons, and that the environment and ecosystem of the world was an unbreakable unchangable eternal system, made by God for humans to enjoy and master. Anything in that system of animals and ecosystems was “nature” and anything the result of human free will was outside of nature. So what we really mean by natural is anything that would occur without the direction of human free will. The distinction breaks down and loses meaning under the modern understanding that many other animals are sentient to various degrees and humans are not as special as we thought, that the world was not necessarily made by a god or gods with our mastery in mind, that the world is not an eternal fixed system but changed drastically over millions of years and continues to change, etc. Under this understanding it makes little sense to separate humans from nature. But it’s still useful to have some term for the concept of something that would occur without human direction/will and I think this is one of them. Observing that homosexual interactions occur in nature isn’t the basis for saying it’s morally acceptable, it is a refutation of the argument that homosexuality only exists due to human culture or decisions, which underlies most arguments for it being unacceptable.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Not only the 'natural/unnatural' dichotomy makes no sense by itself, but homosexuality is natural in humans... because it appears in humans, period. Of course, there's plenty of natural things which are harmful, and homosexuality is not one of them, but not because it's natural.
I think that dude's point is that just because it happens in nature doesn't mean it's something to be emulated. Many animals eat their young and each other but nobody is arguing that we humans should do that. That dude is just extending that logic to homosexual behavior. That being said, imagine some *real* baby back ribs.
Except that the reason it's pointed out when it happens in nature is that people argue that it's unnatural. You're seeing his comment in isolation from that, but when you put them together it's more obviously ridiculous. "Homosexuality is unnatural!" "Actually all these animals have homosexual sex." "Animals also eat their young, should we do that too?" It is, bizarrely, arguing the opposite point of the first objection: just because it's unnatural doesn't mean it's wrong. No one is arguing that anyone should or shouldn't be homosexual; rather, the point is that people simply are, and to show how this is we merely have to look to other animals that exhibit the same behavior.
I wonder why some of these anti-science folk join r/science? If you aren't here to learn something why waste your time?
Because science, fuck yeah! Unless it's suggesting something I don't like, in which case, science, fuck no!
Channing Tatum says fuck science.
Its just fascinating to me that people adjust facts to fit their world views instead of the other way around. Happens to everyone. Its part of being human. And that is why humans are dumb.
“Alternative facts” in a nutshell
Anything that shows psilocybin or weed has negative effects Tons of nitpicking of the article or just vague "let's wait for future studies " or saying the article is bias Anything that shows the positives of cannabis or psilocybin "Legalize this shit already!!!'
The sub, like many others, is a victim of its own popularity. It's apparently the most popular science sub in general, so it attracts people who are interested in science, along with those who want to argue with it. I also suspect that the majority of users aren't serious scientists, which is why the most popular posts and comments aren't usually ones that demonstrate particularly great scientific insight.
I once had someone try to argue me with an “as a scientist” rebuttal. I asked what type of scientist they were and they said they were a computer scientist. I checked their profile because that was vague and not applicable to the conversation and they had a recent post asking what the best colleges were to apply to for a CS degree if you don’t have very good grades in HS lol.
That reminds me of someone I saw on twitter saying AI is gonna rule the world, programmers are going to be the only worthwhile professionals earning millions n shit, and things like sociology and history will be rendered useless. Checked his profile and he was asking someone what the difference between javascript and C# is.
>Checked his profile and he was asking someone what the difference between javascript and C# is. To be fair to that guy, if you're struggling to figure out that separate coding languages are - how to even phrase this - different from each other, programmers must seem like absolute galaxy-brain tier geniuses.
well, maybe. I mean, my grandma fawns over me like I'm a reality-manipulating demigod when all I do is make shitty webapps. Maybe this guy is the same but on the opposite end of the age spectrum (14 instead of 75). Also where's your flair from?
My flair is from some old drama where gamers were "discussing" trans people, I think. It was a one line comment and I think it really speaks for itself: What do you mean there are weird creatures walking among us called "men" or "women?" Next you're gonna tell me all about the lizard-people and bigfoot.
Reminds me of some jobless virologist who pulled the phd card in a conversation about transgenderism. “I have a phd in biology so i know better” No argument really, just told the other person they were wrong because PHD.
hey just so yk "transgenderism" is mostly used as a transphobic dogwhistle to make being transgender seem like an ideological value rather than an innate state of being. This is bc of the "ism" suffix connoting ideology (capitalism,communism,etc)
isms do not denote ideology. Autism? Astigmatism? I’m not gonna change my language because a bunch of dogmatic morons try to co-opt it to promote hate.
those dogmatic morons are who you will appear to be to the trans community if you continue to say it
Sure, if thats the case then i’d prefer to avoid it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
it can be used for condition as well as doctrine but its simply true that the vast majority of the usage of the term "transgenderism" is by terfs and its rarely used within the community itself. ISM is used for condition, ideology, and active action but it doesnt mean all 3 simultaneously.
There are enough people with PHDs that have said moronic shit while holding up their degree that it's really not much of a trump card lmao
This made me literally laugh out loud.
A pandemic denier claimed to "work in the medical field". They were maintenance at a hospital. An anti-vaxxer forgot to switch from their r science mod account. Or maybe they didn't forget. Who knows. That subreddit is compromised anyways. It's become a front for reactionaries. They post seemingly legitimate science content so they can flood the comments with truther replies.
Serious scientists, once they move out of their specific field, are pretty bad at interpreting data as well, especially if it goes against their preconceived notions because they believe themselves to be better educated than others. You see this all the time with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Jordan Peterson, Ben Carson and the like. A physicist or a computer engineer probably has little to say on the validity of a study on animal behavior and how it relates to human ethics.
Jordan Peterson never was a scientist though (not that psychology isn't a science, but he never approached even his own field scientifically) but I get your point
Not being a scientist has never stopped Jorpy from [claiming to be a scientist.](https://old.reddit.com/r/enoughpetersonspam/comments/16xw9pa/fyi_another_spot_where_peterson_claims_to_be_a/)
Plus a lot of what he talks about is vaguely philosophy-adjacent rather than psychology.
*consider the lobster*
hey hey hey, we don't him either, we take knowledge production seriously!! --Signed someone who us getting their doctoral degree in something Philosophy adjacent (media studies).
Not to demean philosophy (or media studies), of course. “Vaguely philosophy-adjacent” as in…not philosophy, but kind of sounds like it.
it's more I don't have the energy to write a few paragraphs to detail to disciplinary distinctions while still drawing from many of the same theorists and thinkers lol
He has a PhD in psychology, that requires a good chunk of research and knowledge of science in theory and practice. Clinical psychologists are not practicing researchers, but their training is equivalent to any scientists so I think it's quibbling to say he was never a scientist
I don't want to retract any of his achievements but I have no respect for a scientist that would retrofit the data and cherry pick until he could push his idiotic views. It's the psychological equivalent of a climate scientist denying climate change. But yeah you have a point.
Pretty much all studies ever face the same idiotic criticisms: sample size, correlation is not causation, and “the scientists don’t think this is definitive proof either.” AKA explaining basic parts of the scientific method
That’s very often warranted when it comes to studies filtered through and sensationalised by popular journalism though. And the average reader on /r/science is just the average Reddit-user, which is to say the general public but skewing fairly hard towards young and male. Of course criticising e.g. sample size can be idiotic if the sample size is actually good, but users of the sub in general have extremely low scientific literacy. You really do kinda need to have someone explain the relevant part of the basics of reading and evaluating a study in pretty much every thread in order for the users to get a decent perspective on the strength of the specific study and what it’s actually implying.
"LOL they only surveyed 2000 people this can't be real" Like lol bruh
I've seen a lot of people that take a single study as evidence handed down from God, too, rather than understanding that most individual studies just move the needle a little bit in one direction or the other
The absolute worst I've ever seen was a Hacker News post where people couldn't accept that a controversial speed reading technique was effectively a placebo. > The article’s conclusion doesn’t seem to match the data they collected. They found that most people (52%) do read faster with bionic reading, the effect is generally quite small, but large for some minority of users - at least one user read 293 WPM faster with Bionic Reading! > The authors then average results (good and bad) across all users, resulting in a number close to zero, and conclude Bionic Reading doesn’t work for anyone, even calling it a placebo effect at the end. > The problem is, all brains are not the same. It doesn’t have to work equally well for everyone to be valuable. I want to hurl a brick through my window just re-reading that. I could do the same thing and be like, "this study is misleading. If you look at the original data, reading while upside down and underwater actually makes 14% of people read faster!" The study even refuted the literal, exact point that commenter is trying to make at the end, if only they actually read it (this was part of the article since the very beginning): > Since posting this experiment, I've received a lot of side comments along the lines of, "Well, of course I don't expect Bionic Reading to work for most people, but for [my subpopulation], it really works." If that were the case, ( . . . )
You should see that sub when a study comes out showing women are treated unfairly
There was one the other day about how women are better suited than men for space travel, and the Um Akshully levels were off the charts.
Everyone thinks that they are better at accounting for confounding factors than people who make it their job. Yea, sure, random reddit commenter, the people involved in peer reviewed research forgot to account for the first thing that came to your mind in your "what about x?" comment.
>Everyone thinks that they are better at accounting for confounding factors than people who make it their job. It's actually really easy even for a high-schooler to find tons of possible confounding factors, if you refuse to read the method section and just never engage with which ones were already accounted for and how.
Legit am article posted their about game addiction increasing And one of the top comments were "did it account for gaming being used as a coping mechanism" That was legit one of the first sentences in the article. These people don't even read it, just see the title and start commenting lol
Also, I'm sure a lot of heroin addicts claim that heroin is their coping mechanism. Doesn't make them not an addict.
Have they considered that I think every female astronaut is an undeserving bitch?
I remember getting told by someone once that women were "better suited" to be fighter pilots (and presumably also astronauts) because their bodies can withstand more G-force. Then he went on in the next breath to complain about female fighter pilots also being *worse* for it because of some other reason that was basically "women aren't socialized to be killers" or something. Like...neither are men???
lol what do they think military training involves? do they think guys come out the womb ready to kill?
😂😂
I’d wager that an extremely large portion of commenters on Reddit aren’t here to learn anything at all. They just wanna argue stuff they know absolutely nothing on at all.
I started blocking accounts that reply to me with the sole intention of arguing at me without actually reading my replies rather than having a conversation. I’m learning that those types are fewer than I thought they’re just super active as it hasn’t taken too long to start having a more pleasant experience on the site. Whenever I expand a collapsed blocked comment to see what it says 99% of the time they’re being an ass to someone else.
The block feature was super controversial but that doesn't mean it doesn't have some upsides. The 90-9-1 principle means 10% of users are active commenters. A small percentage of that are the lunatics. It doesn't take much to filter them out. I'm quite certain a large part of the opposition to the block feature was said crazies. A forum that is well moderated either by mods or at user discretion is no place for the shit stirrers. They thrive in anarchy. That's why they love libertarian ideology.
And sometimes the argument guys block you if you don't fall for their gotchas which means the trash does indeed take itself out sometimes.
I didn't actually read your comment, I just want to let you know you are wrong.
Honestly, I'm not really informed about or interested in what you are discussing, but it definitely sounds wrong. Too many words and probably a communist lib
I don’t know enough about this to refute it but that’s never stopped me before
i opened a few articles at random, one about cannabis smokers/users being more prone to severe COVID, one about exercise being good for mental health and job satisfaction or something, one about teenage drinking being bad to be permissive about. all were secondguessed/gainsayed by many of the commenters.
[удалено]
> For some reason people increasingly think their personal anecdotes are as powerful and valuable as well structured Fun fact, one of the rules in comment ins /r/science is "no anecdotes"
[удалено]
It's not quite impossible, it just requires a very large and dedicated mod team. /r/askhistorians does it succesfully, but admittedly they are the only ones on the site and they will readily admit that Reddit is in most ways just an awful portal for the kind of content the sub seeks to provide.
People have always been prone to favoring experiential conclusions, so I’d like to see data on it (har har). That said, It would make sense if we had a higher percentage than, say, 2010, due to the amount of distrust in even science these days.
> cannabis smokers/users This feels like common sense I fear? Smoking anything is not good for your lungs.
There's a specific type of stoner redditor that likes to act like weed is the healthiest thing you can consume and that it can cure any illness and shit. They hate being faced with literally any downside to their habit
And don't you dare pointing out to them that smoking all day every day is an addiction. We recognize daily cigarette smokers as addicts, or daily drinkers, but wake 'n bake gets a pass from these types.
Yeah just because weed isn't chemically addictive in the same way alcohol or nicotine is doesn't mean you can't develop a weed addiction
Minor corrections: It is similar to nicotine and dissimilar to alcohol in the way it affects the body. The human body produces its own alcohol while metabolising protein so it is a substance that can create a physical dependency when introduced from an outside source and withdrawal might be lethal. A lot of GABAergic substances are like that, benzodiazepines for example, or opiates or GHB. Nicotine, while extremely addictive, does not create a physical dependency and neither does THC. You can detox from both without medical supervision, it's going to **suck** but you will be fine. And as a sidenote, while nicotine is a stimulant, it does not render users unable to drive. THC absolutely does and I don't know why people film themselves smoking a blunt behind the wheel. That is highly irresponsible. I smoke weed myself and I know how much it affects my reaction time even when playing video games. This is not a safe condition to be in on a highway!
Smoking yeah, but if by users we include people who just use edibles, that would be unexpected and worthy of further study. And while smoking is bad for respiratory illnesses, there were those studies showing Chinese factory workers who smoked cigarettes getting less exposure to COVID overall. So I think it's sort of complicated which is why the studies are useful.
Man those specific articles 100% should be read by redditors too haha
What is "gainsayed"? Like, I get that redditors aren't going to admit they do something unhealthy, and are going to get defense about it, so the second guessing I understand. I'm just saying I'm too stupid to pull from context that definition.
So the reason it's paired with "second guessing" is because to gainsay someone is to openly deny or argue with them about their point or premise. Second guessing in this case is them doubting or asking questions, so gainsaying is to more openly disagree.
Ok, that makes sense. And it tracks with both what he said and what I have experienced. Thank you.
You can be a conservative scientist, or like science as long as you just ignore anyone else but those.in your field and let your biases confirm everything else.
Isn't this the truth. Engineering fields have a lot of this. Many of my colleagues have solid scientific backgrounds but only ever apply it to work.
That is called engineer's syndrome. A lot of scientists, but engineers specifically, have the delusion that because their field is highly specialized and requires a lot of knowledge, it means that all other fields are just easy in comparison which they can easily tackle with their big brains. Not necessarily related to conservativism, but when such an engineer is also a conservative, you can already imagine how much they like to consider their opinion on other subjects to be the absolute truth.
Isn't it just Dunning-Kruger effect for engineers?
Kind of but not really. Dunning-Kruger is knowing very little about a topic but thinking you know everything about it. Engineers syndrome is being very knowledgeable in one very hard topic and because of that you think you can figure out any topic without a lot of research
It might be a default sub? But yeah I was looking up some research about homosexuality there, and Dammn there was surprisingly a lot of homophobia in the comments
easy, these people are pro-science as long as it agrees with them
Tell the folks at r/science that the scientific community generally accepts that sex and gender are two different things and watch them lose their fucking minds.
r/science is akin to r/history, in that it is full of bad garbage
r/askscience and r/askhistorians are both high quality subs, though!
/r/askscience is okay, but askhistorians is fantastic. askscience just doesn’t have level of moderation that’s needed to ensure that every answer is high quality. That’s mostly a problem of finding enough expert volunteers, so I don’t blame the mods for it at all, but it doesn’t really come close to the extreme quality of askhistorians imho.
The problem with r/AskScience is anyone can answer a question, without credentials or sources - it's not r/AskScientists - so you just get le redditsplanation of some viral meme factoids or half-remembered high-school science class without the context, or the higher-level caveats of the simplistic version that's taught to children. The best thing about r/AskHistorians is that hardly anyone is allowed to answer.
>The best thing about r/AskHistorians is that hardly anyone is allowed to answer. /r/askhistorians doesn't actually require any credentials for answering questions either, just that you're well-read on the current academic literature on the subject, can provide sources if asked and that your answer has an (for Reddit) incredibly high standard. It's nearly but not quite a pedantic point, because almost only educated historians and those in related fields will be able to meet those three criteria, but the best read and most academically minded of interested laymen or hobbyist historians do also read the academic literature and are sometimes able to provide answers about their specialties.
they only like it if it's supports their world view
1. Default subreddit 2. Anti-science cultists are organized in their attempts to brigade any subs they hate 3. And more importantly want to co-opt. For these reasons, the /r/science mods tend to be...overzealous though justified, in their moderation at times. I'm sure Flat Earths would love to have a subreddit called 'Science' and spout off their nonsense anti-science cult apocalyptic bullshit without any repercussion.
Always a show when there's a study about weed lol
They're always swarming the comments section on that sub. Ironically, one of the most reactionary and anti-scientific zeitgeists on this entire website.
They're usually there to make the science fit their world view.
My theory is that for a long time, these folks saw science as a way of confirming their societal biases and projecting a sense of authority in an argument. Something like "my worldview is proven by science, therefore you are not allowed to disagree!". It doesn't help that for a long time there were some pretty racist/sexist/homophobic theories and beliefs that were seen as scientific but are now thankfully discredited. So these people were used to having the upper hand in an argument regarding "touchy" subjects only to find all that science that supported their beliefs labeled outdated and obsolete. That is why they insist they are "pro science" even when engaging in science denial because what they really are in favor of is outdated science that painted straight white men as superior and attempt to hide this belief by insisting that new science is somehow manipulated by elites with nefarious intentions and thus "propaganda" and i think you exactly where this is going.
They are hoping that an abstract will pop up that they can misrepresent in their arguments
[I wrote this 11 years ago but I guess it's still true](https://www.reddit.com/r/circlebroke/comments/14ibbb/rscience_hates_science/)
/r/science is to science what /r/funny is to funny. Editorialzed articles with a sample size of 7 getting to the front page because it's something a lot of people agree with, and the average comment section full of armchair dudebros explaining why everyone else is wrong about everything. Any sub with a super generic name will be populated by the lowest common denominators if this site.
"Homosexuality is bad because it's not natural" "Homosexuality is bad because it's natural, just like baby-eating" You can never win with these guys.
Or the other way: "Homosexuality is bad because it's not natural" * "well it is natural because animals do it too" * "That's a naturalistic fallacy, just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good"
Bloody hell I've heard that exact argument from an acquaintance. Who has a PHD. And really should know better.
I don't even bother trying anymore. Why argue with them? Society is past treating their grievences with any amount of legitimacy. Correct response: "Oh, you're a homophobe? Gross. Bigots are the worst." And then walk away/block.
I think people are getting their signals crossed on what “natural” means in this context. These people think that humans have a fundamentally different nature from animals, so they’re talking about what they think is natural for humans. What animals do is irrelevant and as many people correctly pointed out, animal behavior in general is not a good model for human behavior. This is an interesting scientific finding, but it’s not a great moral argument and if they found the opposite it wouldn’t change anything about the moral arguments in defense of homosexuality, either. What animals do simply shouldn’t matter when talking about what humans should or shouldn’t do.
> \- Gay sex is bad because it's not natural. > >
>
> \- Whether it's natural or not is not the point.
Sometimes I think they just hate gay people...
^^^^^^^^^/s
^^^^^^^^^I
^^^^^^^^^know
^^^^^^^^^they
^^^^^^^^^do
That scraping you hear is goalposts moving.
Yeesh almost mistook it for their whining
More flairs: > [Please stop assuming my phobie. I hope we get laws for that soon so we can sue people like you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9l7d3b/?context=3) > [Semiotically irrelevant and inaccurate.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9j9dpz/) > [Mounting isn't always sexual. I think that can be a show of dominance.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9je1cj/)
>Mounting isn't always sexual. I think that can be a show of dominance. Exactly what I tell my bro every time I mount them (we are married for tax benefits)
Lol, that actually sounds like a hilarious way to either be in denial or the closet. "I'm not gay, I just express my dominance."
Greco-Roman views on sexuality be like
>[Please stop assuming my phobie. I hope we get laws for that soon so we can sue people like you.](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9l7d3b/?context=3) What could be more of a karen move than wanting to sue someone because they called you phobic?
I’ve got a coworker who has fallen down the Twitter radicalization hole and he tried to make the same arguments about homosexuality. I can’t believe we are still arguing about this in 2024 but here we are.
This is frustrating because as a practicing homosexual, I am actually curious where being gay comes from. Like, there hasn't really been a [consensus ](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/there-is-no-gay-gene-there-is-no-straight-gene-sexuality-is-just-complex-study-confirms)among scientists, so there is room for discussion here. It's just that anytime this topic comes up it's like a bullhorn for the bigots to come prancing in.
Absolutely. Understanding sexuality and attraction is important and could prove incredibly useful in understanding human behavior in general, and the bigots are making it very difficult. But ultimately, as far as they are concerned it's irrelevant whether sexuality is biological or learned, natural or unnatural. They are starting with the conclusion that homosexuality is wrong and will twist any finding to fit that view. If it's natural then it's animalistic. If it's biological then it's a sickness or abnormality. If it's chosen then it's a sin. No matter what, to them, you're wrong.
*Very* well said. It's just a sad fact of reality for queer people that there's going to be bigots in our lives.
I'll never get it. Being homosexual doesn't have any negative impact on anyone. It literally doesn't do anything. Eating babies literally kills another human being. Raping someone also hurts the victim. Shit like that, things that animals do and are "natural", which we shouldn't be doing. Having sex with someone who isn't of the opposite gender? How is this ever an issue? There is however something, that only we humans do, that's 100% harmful, bad and toxic: starting religions and being part of a religion. *That's* problematic.
Simply put. “Being mad at a gay couple marrying is like being mad someone is eating a donut because YOURE on a diet”.
Heterosexual men being overly horny to the point they harm women: it's nature, we can't do anything about it Gay people existing: well yeah sometimes we shouldn't follow nature otherwise we may as well accept rape and murder
Yeh but, it's icky. And also my imaginary sky daddy also thinks it's icky so yeh, stop being gay, it hurts my feelings.
I think the same goes for trans people. They are so afraid of looking at a women and think “wow she’s hot. She give me the tummy tickle” and then they find out they used to ba a man. The phobia is wild.
I once heard a theory that suggested homophobia sometimes develops in response to fears of de-population. Also, in some societies, the economic and social success of a household depended on having *lots* of kids and grandkids. In a time with no social safety nets, children not only were used to increase household wealth (either by working for their parents or funneling money into the house by working elsewhere), but were investments in the parent’s future, as well. When you’re too old and infirm to take care of yourself, you have an army of adults kids and grandkids to look after you. So, from that cultural framework, being gay could be seen as an affront to the family. It would basically be taken as a sign that you don’t care if your family starves and becomes poor so long as you find your pleasure. But that’s a few guesses, and these ideas aren’t to be universally applied to all cultures and communities without further inquiry. The truth is that sexual and gender dynamics are complex and there are few cross-cultural universals. For instance, in some cultures, a man is only considered gay is he is penetrated by another man. If it’s the other way around, then he’s still considered straight. In that case, being gay versus straight is an issue of power dynamics and cultural beliefs around what is or isn’t masculine. The cross-cultural analysis of sex and gender is a pretty interesting topic!
So the root cause of homophobia is fear?
Depopulation guy has it right: people only care about gayness when they think "their kind" is on the decline. Could be a race thing, could just be basic familiar narcissism. When they think their kind is on top? Ruling shit? Owning all the things? Suddenly: be as gay as you want.
If anything the argument for why this evolved in humanity has to do with bonobo diplomacy/aggression reduction (enhancing social bonds in the group is a net benefit, even if those bonds don't result in offspring) and a eusocial K-selection strategy (gay uncles and lesbian aunts might not have kids of their own, but can put more resources towards raising related offspring than the parents could do alone). Frankly, things that aren't evolutionarily beneficial in some way don't stick around for long. The only reason any controversy exists around this at all is because some dudes get mad at the thought that another dude might try to flirt with them and assume they'll be mistreated in the process.
I’ve been waiting to see r/science here, idk how often they are featured on here, but reading comment sections on that sub has been a horrible experience.
That sub really brings out the worst lot sometimes. The occasional trans-related articles are infuriating.
I wholeheartedly agree. Articles relating to women, trans people or minorities cemented me not browsing that sub anymore.
I'm pretty sure I saw two male pigeons go at it today
> You mean every other post then. This subreddit has been a *** agenda churning machine post-2016 On Psychology Today posts, yes. Also lmao "***" what a ***** ****** ***** ******* he needs to ************* ***** ******** immediately
> it's not like homosexual dogs would ever have a romantic spaghetti dinner together where one of them eats a strand of spaghetti but then it's the same strand. It's too bad that's way too long for a flair.
I swear to gods people! Stop applying human cultural standard to animals!
Does this operate in reverse
Depends on the animal. The only animal whose standard we should be applying to our own is frogs.
That must be why the deep state is turning frogs gay. It all makes sense now.
>Animals killing their weakest child happens a lot too. That's... quite the leap to make for a comparison.
Ah yes, the whole gay sex is tantamount to murder argument.
Not just murder, eating babies. If they are going to use hyperbole, might as well go nuts with it.
>As a younger man I read an article that speculated over 70% of Giraffes not only engage is same sex sexual encounter ~ but do so with surprising frequency. No wonder Geoffrey let things at toys r us slide.
it was always my understanding that homosexual behaviour was widely observed - but that observation of homosexual preference was limited to humans and sheep an understanding i generally reserve for meta-discussion since actually throwing my hat into that dumpster fire means losing a hat and gaining nothing but contempt
anecdotal evidence is worth nothing, but I grew up with a dog who would only mate with male dogs. We would joke about our gay dog, because it was the 00's and "lol gay" was the one joke allowed that decade.
"Acting like animals is maybe not the best we should hope for." But... humans -are- animals. We always act like animals because we are animals.
stop animal-morphizing humans!!! /s
"It's interesting how many people immediately think to use rape, murder, infanticide, and cannibalism as a counter to someone who says homosexual behaviors is naturally occuring. Makes you wonder why so many of you rushed to associate homosexual behavior with violent behavior." end it
I miss when we didn’t have internet😞
Homophobia: famously not a thing before the internet.
I detect your sarcasm haha
Clearly you never grew up gay in a conservative community where the internet was the only place you ever heard any words of LGBT acceptance.
Homophobes existed long before unfortunately.
This is such a stupid comment, ngl
Why
Implying homophobia didn't exist before it/wasn't visible
I’m not implying anything bro
You are replying to a thread of people being homophobic, saying "I miss the times before the internet". This comment very very clearly states that you believe homophobia was not as bad before the internet.
Sure, buddy :) Other people already called you out too.
You’re suggesting I didn’t know about homophobia before the internet? Bro I was called gay all the time by my mannerisms when I was kid. If you had a little reading comprehension I was just suggesting we didn’t have to deal with all this drama before the internet and it was actually not that exhausting
Yet other people got the same meaning and called you out lol
Cause they are stupid like you hahah
Sure buddy. Can't acknowledge you had terrible wording. You cone off as a child, so I won't engage any more. Bye:)
Nah you just don't know how to read
You can always sign off.
That doesn’t stop the wrong people from having by the internet.
I had some lesbian parakeets once
Snapshots: 1. *This Post* - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061306/https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1dm12r0/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/1dm12r0/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 2. This is making homophobia even more infuriating. It is actually natural - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061608/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9k37o8/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9k37o8/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 3. Animals killing their weakest child happens a lot too. It's interesting how some animal behaviors we use to support our own while others we don't include because obviously we're not that. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061709/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9kij1m/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9kij1m/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 4. Territorial and dominance hierarchy behavior. I doubt there is romantic or partnership behavior behind it. Stop anthropomorphizing creatures who lack higher cognitive function. Humans are so horny bro. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622061830/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9lq0h2/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9lq0h2/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 5. just look at the comments here and you see exactly how that happened - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622062436/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jfpgd/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jfpgd/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 6. Doesn’t surprise me at all. Sex studies of humans are most often focused on MF pairs and also most often focused on penile-vaginal sex to a degree that they exclude MF pairs who engage in sex that does not include penile-vaginal sex. - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622062939/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jr2hw/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/l9jr2hw/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") 7. https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/ - [archive.org](https://web.archive.org/web/20240622063322/https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/) [archive.today\*](https://archive.today/?run=1&url=https://old.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1dkmpwf/animal_homosexual_behaviour_underreported_by/ "URL failed to archive; click to resubmit it!") *I am just a simple bot, __not__ a moderator of this subreddit* | *[bot subreddit](/r/SnapshillBot)* | *[contact the maintainers](/message/compose?to=/r/SnapshillBot)*
Is thetr pure exclusive homosexuality in animals or bisexuality ?
Both! Bisexuality iirc is fairly common in bonobos, a species of primate.
And they have the nerve to call me degenerate, because I have the greater ambition of creating a gigantic harem like I'm a Chinese Emperor x Pokemon. It's just nature, baby
We allready knew animals do gay. They dont have anyone pretending its wrong on their ass. 'pun' intended.
Know whats another funny thing, is nobody gay says woke anymore, and it pretty much only exists in the minds of homopheelers. ( Thats my fun new word for THE WEAK.) Scared of gays, Hatin gays; same damn thing. is the lamest, weakest, most pathetic thing Ive ever had the displeasure to have to observe in someone whom thinks ' oh im sooo manly ' * puke* Roll onto your back and pee weakling; dont being hate onto good people. Mind your damn buisiness. Im usually a nice lady. but i have some triggers, or whatever . idgaf.
I hate this anti-anthropomorphization thing as if we aren't also animals. Assuming that nothing goes on in non-human brains is worse than thinking they may be in any way similar to us.
I imagine unless your research is observing homosexual behavior, you dont report it
For starters, idgaf what orientation you are nor do I dislike anyone for doing whatever they feel like doing, but I am a little confused here if anyone can shed some light. Personally, I absolutely agree with the first response that homosexuality existing in nature shouldn’t be the way something is acceptable. Animals are generally stuck in survival mode and as far as I know usually lack the capacity to comprehend much past “live another day”. Knowing this, we can safely assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality can be boiled down to two things (both or one at a time), dominance and/or maintaining a bloodline. Because of this survival mode, horrible things happen like birds dropping weaker babies out of the nest and listening to them cry underneath until they ultimately die. Isn’t it a little bit clunky to accept one thing’s natural existence as solidification of one’s beliefs outside of the original action’s intent, yet only do so when that thing is acceptable to you/your race ethically? Is this an unpopular take?
All these types are argument are heavily semantic and arise from the fact that the noun *nature* and its adjective has notoriously many, many different related meanings. Merriam-Webster lists 15 different definitions (28 if you include all the subtypes) for *natural* here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural Not all of them are relevant here (for example the musical meaning ♮) but many different ones are being used in that link and causing lots of needless arguments.
Not really, you are technically correct in that argument is occasionally used in threads, the real argument is that conservatives are never arguing in good faith. They will say that gay sex is bad because "it is not natural" and than one comment later claim that it being natural does not have any relations to whether it should be accepted. They are not arguing about semantics. They just hate LGBTI+ people and will use anything to make their lives worse.
"but it's natural to be gay" is such a weak-ass naturalistic fallacy that I cringe every time someone trots it out... ^(even though I myself once wrote an entire paper along those lines back in college😅) 'natural' doesn't mean 'good' or 'right' or 'ethical' or 'useful' or 'worthwhile' or 'valuable' or really much of *anything* really - neither does 'artificial' mean 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'unethical' or 'useless' or 'worthless' or you get the picture. Just because animals do it doesn't mean it's okay for humans to do it, that's a ridiculous argument and should simply be shut down outright, it's not even worth discussing. Forget "is it *natural* to be gay," and let's get down to brass tacks: is it *ethical* to be gay? That's the only question that truly matters. If you can't answer that question without pointing to fucking giraffes or monkeys, then gtfo
The argument over whether it's "natural" to be gay comes as a response to the favored conservative argument that being gay is unnatural and against God's will and thus should be banned. It's not an argument made in a vacuum. You're right, the crux of the discussion should be on morality, but when a major argument against it calls it unnatural, it stands to reason that an argument debunking that claim would aim to show that it's naturally occurring as well.
No what I'm saying is - their argument "it is wrong to be gay because it is unnatural" begs the question, "is it wrong to be unnatural?" Right? That's implicit in their argument. So instead of saying "it doesn't matter whether it's natural," you're saying, "it *does* matter whether it's natural and..." then continue to argue that it *is* natural - but in doing so you've already accepted their false premise, "it is wrong to be unnatural." When you engage with that argument without questioning the premise, you legitimize it. It stands to reason that right and wrong have nothing to do with natural and unnatural, or natural and artificial, that's very plainly true if you put a few minutes thought into it - so why should you pretend otherwise, *especially* when dealing with such a fundamental question as "is it okay to be gay?"
Ah I gotcha. But yeah, like the other guy said, it's not really about having a real conversation or inadvertently confirming the premise of their argument, since they're not arguing in good faith. These are people who will simultaneously say that being gay is unnatural and then immediately say that just because something is natural doesn't mean we should do it, as evidenced by the linked post.
yeah I think I just have different goals in this hypothetical argument than other commenters here apparently
The legitimacy of the argument never mattered in the first place to homophobes. Being pedantic (and correct) matters far less than having a pithy answer and walking away.
to you maybe 😂 I've never been much of a pithy-answer-and-walk-away kind of guy.
Has no one really ever seen a male dog try to hump another male dog?