7 ms·

What the fuck is wrong with people.

superbatfish 10y ago
Downvoted for ...language, I guess? I dunno, when faced with a somewhat troubling and frankly just bizarre concept like described in the OP's article, I think a recaction of "WTF" isn't exactly off-base...
- lifeisstillgood 10y ago
  Your Grandparent post is above water, and your complaining about it is downboted I guess because you were complaining about it not because of disagreement over content of the first post. and I agree with you. WTF.
- csydas 10y ago
  More than likely because your comment, while a reasonable reaction, isn't really a comment that facilitates discussion, which is not preferred and seen as white noise. Most people are fine with profanity in reasonable amounts but it should have more content. Reactions alone tend to not give a lot of room for discussion on the topic so much as the reaction itself, inquiring and understanding the commenter's position instead of the article.
  - superbatfish 10y ago
    Sure, I was even a little worried that it would be perceived that way immediately after I posted it. (Although my concerns weren't articulated to myself as well as your point.) But at the time that I left my comment, this thread had very few votes and only 2 comments. It looked like it was just about to fall off the bottom of the front page. I figured a simple "dude, wtf" comment for the (very) few of us who were participating in this thread at the time would be interpreted as: "If you don't know what to make of this, but you know you don't like it, I'm with you." As it turns out, at least some of downvoting was due to some people's serious misunderstanding of the original article. See for example, aaron695's misguided comment below about "gay sex". Anyway, sorry for the meta-meta discussion.
- aaron695 10y ago
  Gay sex is "troubling" to many people by default (See most societies) and a "frankly just bizarre concept", how on earth does it help evolution? But educated adults try to move on past that, rather than just calling people evil and add to the discussion. More so, this is another Satanists/Rock and Roll converting our kids issue, that big media will now pick up on, le sigh.
  - superbatfish 10y ago
    >More so, this is another Satanists/Rock and Roll converting our kids issue No offense, but your post makes it sound like might have missed the point of the article. This isn't about "converting" kids to anything. (In fact, thankfully, the kids in this case seem totally oblivious to the role they're playing here.) The issue is that a few jerkwads are sneakily tricking kids into saying -- or sometimes acting out -- things that titillate the jerkwads' sexual fantasies. It's troubling because someone is using kids as unwitting pawns in a sex game. If we agree on the point of the article, then comparing it to "gay sex" -- which exploits no one, let alone children -- is, frankly, offensive.
    - aaron695 10y ago
      My statement 100% stands. You called it a "frankly just bizarre concept" which is about the sexual fantasy itself. Using children is not bizarre, but a well known issue. Once again, this is a 'please' think of the children' where people are attacking a sexual minority, over a issue that doesn't exist because they don't like it (if the minority exists, it sounds more like a flat earther thing to me, most people in it for fun / trolling)

Downvoted for ...language, I guess? I dunno, when faced with a somewhat troubling and frankly just bizarre concept like described in the OP's article, I think a recaction of "WTF" isn't exactly off-base...

lifeisstillgood 10y ago
Your Grandparent post is above water, and your complaining about it is downboted I guess because you were complaining about it not because of disagreement over content of the first post. and I agree with you. WTF.
csydas 10y ago
More than likely because your comment, while a reasonable reaction, isn't really a comment that facilitates discussion, which is not preferred and seen as white noise. Most people are fine with profanity in reasonable amounts but it should have more content. Reactions alone tend to not give a lot of room for discussion on the topic so much as the reaction itself, inquiring and understanding the commenter's position instead of the article.
- superbatfish 10y ago
  Sure, I was even a little worried that it would be perceived that way immediately after I posted it. (Although my concerns weren't articulated to myself as well as your point.) But at the time that I left my comment, this thread had very few votes and only 2 comments. It looked like it was just about to fall off the bottom of the front page. I figured a simple "dude, wtf" comment for the (very) few of us who were participating in this thread at the time would be interpreted as: "If you don't know what to make of this, but you know you don't like it, I'm with you." As it turns out, at least some of downvoting was due to some people's serious misunderstanding of the original article. See for example, aaron695's misguided comment below about "gay sex". Anyway, sorry for the meta-meta discussion.
aaron695 10y ago
Gay sex is "troubling" to many people by default (See most societies) and a "frankly just bizarre concept", how on earth does it help evolution? But educated adults try to move on past that, rather than just calling people evil and add to the discussion. More so, this is another Satanists/Rock and Roll converting our kids issue, that big media will now pick up on, le sigh.
- superbatfish 10y ago
  >More so, this is another Satanists/Rock and Roll converting our kids issue No offense, but your post makes it sound like might have missed the point of the article. This isn't about "converting" kids to anything. (In fact, thankfully, the kids in this case seem totally oblivious to the role they're playing here.) The issue is that a few jerkwads are sneakily tricking kids into saying -- or sometimes acting out -- things that titillate the jerkwads' sexual fantasies. It's troubling because someone is using kids as unwitting pawns in a sex game. If we agree on the point of the article, then comparing it to "gay sex" -- which exploits no one, let alone children -- is, frankly, offensive.
  - aaron695 10y ago
    My statement 100% stands. You called it a "frankly just bizarre concept" which is about the sexual fantasy itself. Using children is not bizarre, but a well known issue. Once again, this is a 'please' think of the children' where people are attacking a sexual minority, over a issue that doesn't exist because they don't like it (if the minority exists, it sounds more like a flat earther thing to me, most people in it for fun / trolling)