this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2023
454 points (96.1% liked)
Greentext
3862 readers
1695 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Right because there's no way they could be father and son, two brothers, other relations, best friends, or any other kind of platonic relationship that people have all the time in real life. But apparently that the researchers have never heard of. Maybe the researchers are clones.
Notice that there's no source for that headline. But of course that wouldn't matter; nobody ever has a bias or exaggerates headlines in order to make them stand out and attract attention. That would be irresponsible and unethical. /S
Everyone assumed they were heterosexual lovers, why should it be assumed that it was platonic after it's discovered they were both male?
It's always the same pattern:
Yeah sure, maybe it was some girl and boy who didn't even know each other, but I somehow doubt that a comment questioning a straight relationship would even have a single upvote
Statistics? <10% of the population identifies as LGBTQ+ today, if your only evidence is two dudes hugging then not gay lovers is much more likely to be correct.
You mean that after thousands of years of repression, with still today strong religious antagonism, and annihilation of culturally significant LGBTQ elements in colonized countries, the LGBTQ community is low? Yeah, no shit.
None of those factors were present back when the Vesivius errupted in 79BC though, so our contemporary low % is perfectly irrelevant
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to think that over 50% of the population was attracted to the same sex at any point in history, your comment is pure speculation based on hand wavy nonsense. The only data we can actually point to is current day statistics, which, even in demographics where LGBTQ is normalized, is way under 50%.
Do you really think natural human attraction can be "annihilated" by religion and colonization? That's ridiculous and frankly offensive to LGBTQ folks who were born that way.
How could they be father and son, the bones are approximately the same age!
They were roommates, obviously.
The gay agenda strikes again!
/s