Epistemic status: Speculation. An unholy union of evo psych, introspection, random stuff I happen to observe & hear about, and thinking. Done on a highly charged topic. Caveat emptor!
oh boy
archive: https://archive.is/uOP4y
jesus christ
But… I mean, think of a bakery of all (straight) men.
Then think of the same bakery, but it’s all (straight) women.
Then imagine the same bakery, but it’s mixed sex.
Can you see what happens?
no, not really. bakeries you say?
Even if there’s no attraction going on in the last case, the fact that there could be dramatically changes the unspoken dynamics. It’s just not as stable as the other two.
Things like… if a man notices a female coworker struggling with a flour sifter, and he comes in one day with a device he purchased to help her out… it raises questions that just wouldn’t have arisen if the two coworkers had been the same sex.
oh. ok. flour sifters, man, yeah, those things are crazy.
wait… does this chud think bakeries are gendered?
nytpitchbot: first we had breadtube, now this
wingnutthought leader wants to make people aware of breadsexuals
I just can’t get over the “struggling with a flour sifter” bit. Like … what’s there to struggle with? What accessory would help a person locked in combat with a flour sifter? Another flour sifter, to intimidate the first with the knowledge that it can be replaced?
I’m not convinced this person has had any kind of social interaction beyond making purchases in years. I’m equally convinced this person has lived infinite lives in their head with every female service that made the mistake of smiling.
I recognize I’ve been very cis/hetero normative here. I liken this to removing friction from physics. There’s no such thing as actually frictionless physics in the real world (as far as I know)… but friction is derived from principles that are easier to see from the imagined frictionless case.
Okay so in order to explain how the world works you have to remove gay people because the principles are only visible if you remove gay people. Or if you have gay people this whole theory seems like a house of cards?
Imagine how efficient our romantic entanglements would be if we got rid of all the homosexuals
infinite lives in their head with every female service that made the mistake of smiling
The basilisk is real!
Men will literally write a 17 minute article before asking women ‘hey how can I become more attractive’
And I’m adamantly against pretending real things aren’t real. I think that’s actually more fundamentally toxic than is homophobia, transphobia, etc.
Euh, well at least all the red flags will attract tankies.
Makery: The bakery … for straight men! Now with scones in monster truck and shark testosterone flavors! GRAAARRR
btw, this is the top mind who previously asked “where’s the economic incentive for wokism coming from?”
he’s also the cofounder of CFAR, in case anyone ever tries to make out he isn’t a normative rationalist
First woks, now flour sifters? What is the man’s obsession with kitchen implements?!!!
Feel like the very beginning of this is not completely crazy (I’ve also thought in the past that straight people often perform “attractiveness” more for the approval of their same-sex friends) but it seems to kind of jump off the evo-psych deep end after that, lol
Also you can’t build a bunch of assumptions about “we should organize society this way” while ignoring the existence of LGBT people, and then go “yeah I know I ignored them but it simplified my analysis.” Like yeah it simplifies the analysis to ignore a bunch of stuff that actually exists in reality, but… then that means maybe your conclusions about how to structure society are wrong??
edit: also this quote is choice:
I don’t know if this really happens. But even if not, the fiction does a great job of highlighting the dynamic I’m thinking of.
