Reddit mad at his brother

submitted by Tarrock from (media.communities.win)

all 40 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (34 children)

We need more people like him with 0 tolerance for gay ass bullshit.

[–]ActuallyNot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (33 children)

Did you know homophobia is related to suppressed homosexuality? - source

If you just let yourself be yourself, you'll have a lot less hate, MightyMorphinFaggot.

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Except deep rooted hatred and disgust is not a phobia.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Right now, somewhere in the world some guy is packing another guys fudge. Yet it makes no difference to me whether he does or not he packs the dudes fudge.

Yet for some reason you feel threatened by it, even though the only people who could possibly be harmed by this are the people doing it. I'd say you do have an irrational fear, or phobia of homosexuality

I mean I felt disgust reading about the British Health Minister who ate animal anus and genitals, but I never got an obsessive urge to stop people from doing this or hated him for it.

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

If gays would shut the fuck up about how they're gay then I would not care.

I don't walk around saying "as a straight man" and trying everything under the sun to be noticed by literally everyone.

Attention seeking useless cunts.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If gays would shut the fuck up about how they're gay then I would not care.

I don't walk around saying "as a straight man" and trying everything under the sun to be noticed by literally everyone.

I can understand this, I do think gays can be really annoying. I can't say they are anywhere near the top of my shit list though. I guess its the intensity of your sentiment rather than the sentiment itself that I don't quite understand. The gays are pretty laid back compared to some of the trans nazis. They are always all up in everyone elses shit

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

I'm scottish.

I swear for breakfast.

[–]ShekelPa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They may be laid back according to your personal worldview and interactions you have had with them. But they are not hive minded, some are respectable, and others are downright predators who use their immunity to spread their dogma.

[–]Alienhunter 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Gay sex is the primary cause of natural disasters.

[–]cutenoobies 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

no your ma is.

[–]ShekelPa 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

The harm as we now see is the faggot agenda has now come for the children with many faggots openly chanting how they want to come after them.

There is no irrationality in hating faggots, we all know they reproduce through molestation. Remember when their faggot disease, monkey pox was a thing? It spread through sodomy. Why did the world suddenly bury this rhetoric? Because it is becoming increasingly clear how it was being spread, combined with the fact that children and pets of faggot couples were "somehow" getting it.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is no irrationality in hating faggots, we all know they reproduce through molestation.

But they are not hive minded, some are respectable, and others are downright predators who use their immunity to spread their dogma.

These are two ideas are not perfectly consistent here. It's not rational to hate them all carte blanche if some of them are respectable. It's rational to hate molesters of any sexual orientation, and people who would force their ideology on you, which seems to be your real objection here rather than the homosexuality itself. But you are talking about a relationship of correlation, rather than causation, seeing as there are gays who are not molesters, and molesters who are not gay

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

You see something, you're aroused, you don't want to know that you're aroused, you push it away in disgust.

Most people are not bothered.

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Most people are bothered. Most people also want to look like they're a nice person so they won't say anything.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No mate.

Pretty much just repressed gays.

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So everyone is a repressed gay?

So when a faggot says they hate "cis" people they are just repressed straight people?

lmao

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So everyone is a repressed gay?

You think everyone who saw Brokeback Mountain was disgusted?

No, mate. It's a small minority of people who need to go on a journey of self-discovery and the disgust will dissolve.

So when a faggot says they hate "cis" people they are just repressed straight people?

I'm not sure I've heard anyone say that. And certainly there has not been a mass shooting involving a gay person going into a straight club and killing people for not being gay.

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Disgust is. Phobia are fear or disgust.

[–]MightyMorphinFaggot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not scared of gays. They just shouldn't exist.

Being a homo is a mental disorder.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Mm

[–]Canbot 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

That sounds like jewish propaganda. There is no way that actually being disgusted by homosexual behavior is somehow a paradoxical reaction. (((They))) took the typical baseless claim of "hur der you are over compensating" and tried to give it credibility. It is well documented that most men have a natural disgust reaction when seeing two men kissing. Those who pretend not to be "homophobic" are just acquiesing to social pressure.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is no way that actually being disgusted by homosexual behavior is somehow a paradoxical reaction.

I included a link to the paper. If you have a scholarly refutation, write it up and send it to the journal of abnormal psychology.

It is well documented that most men have a natural disgust reaction when seeing two men kissing.

Suspect that's bullshit.

It doesn't bother me, but I'm not aroused by it, so I don't have to pretend to myself that it's disgusting.

But over and over again anti-gay campaigners get caught with their gay lovers.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

(((Scholarly))) 🤣

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The lead author on that paper is called Henry Adams.

The name Adams originates in the England/Scotland region.

[–]jet199 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

That paper is dodgy.

It makes a few untested assumptions.

They assume men have zero control when they get erections. If you compare teen boys to men clearly they develop some control.

What they might be seeing is that openly homophobic men have less control over their responses in general.

It could be that a lot of the guys classed as non homophobic are just lying, very good at hiding their true feeling and because of that also have better control of their sexual response.

The disgust response is less easy to hide and most straight men have it to gay sex. https://www.psypost.org/2017/06/straight-mens-physiological-stress-response-seeing-two-men-kissing-seeing-maggots-49217

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

That paper is dodgy.

It's got over 800 600 citations. Why don't you find some of those papers that also claim that it's dodgy?

You just saying without any academic support makes me suspect that you're probably wrong.

What they might be seeing is that openly homophobic men have less control over their responses in general.

Like getting an erection when watching naked men?

You don't need control to not do that if you're het. It's not arousing.

It could be that a lot of the guys classed as non homophobic are just lying, very good at hiding their true feeling and because of that also have better control of their sexual response.

Long bow. I've never heard that control over getting erect is related to lying. Do you have any support for that claim?

The disgust response is less easy to hide and most straight men have it to gay sex.

Most "straight" men in Utah. FFS. That's your idea of a representative sample of people with a healthy sexual psychology?

The reality is that most people are comfortable viewing public displays of affection of any type:

We also found that participants were generally comfortable with viewing all PDA scenarios, but participants were most comfortable viewing heterosexual PDA and least comfortable viewing transgender PDA. Finally, we found that multiple measures of homophobic attitudes predicted reactions to PDA featuring sexual minorities.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It's got over 800 citations.

With respect, so do many Wikipedia entries which are not exactly the picture of accuracy.

[–]ActuallyNot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The paper has over 600 citations in the scholarly literature. (800 is incorrect. I was going from memory, and made a mistake)

The number of citations that a paper gets is often used as a proxy for the papers impact. It means that academics have read it and used or tried to reproduce the results. Usually some of those citations will be refutations, and you do get cases where an author will cite their own papers a lot.

And while 600 citations is a hell of a lot, (the top science journal in the world averages a little over 40 citations per paper published), and it does speak for the profile of the paper, I mention the citations not especially to say that the findings are accepted, but to say that if the paper should be refuted you should be able to find some refutations.

Wikipedia citations aren't peer reviewed by world experts in the field.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I appreciate this may be a statistical likelihood and agree that peer reviewed studies are of course no comparison to a wiki article, but my point is that a citation is merely a reference point to other material that may be related or used as a source of information.

It might be that you discuss a mountain and cite the source that the mountain exists, and another source that the mountain is 1236ft high. These citations do not add weight to a study looking to see the correlation between high altitudes and likelihood of there being a dragon living on it.

Ultimately the validity of the content, testing groups, parameters and potential impact of the outcome matters, not simply citations.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Right. So you said the paper is dodgy.

It's got 690-odd citations. Why don't you find some of those papers that also claim that it's dodgy?

You just saying without any academic support makes me suspect that you're probably wrong.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I'm simply saying that a citation count is not an adequate guage to impress. 690 liberal lunatics could cite it for all I know. Academic support might also be funded or sponsored support. How can we know?

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm simly saying, if the paper is dodgy, show me a refutation.

Hell, show me half a dozen.

Academic support might also be funded or sponsored support.

Authors publish their institution. And they're supposed to declare any conflicts of interest.

[–]ShekelPa 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fucking retard. It is related to you fuckers shoving your gay ass religion down every facet of society.

[–]EternalSunset 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

kek

[–]BISH 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A brilliant premise.

I wish I knew someone living in Colorado Springs, so I could call them..

[–]IndianaJones 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

based brother

[–]jet199 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Fear addicts

[–]Fecici_Nutclap 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This isn't reddit and we are not soytards, let's not pretend this exchange is real