3 ms·

I would appreciate any positive thoughts you have in regards to the context of the article contents :)

dalke 11y ago
It seems that I was not direct enough. Several people I know and respect are or were nudists/naturists, including one who lives in a clothing optional community. I live in Sweden and have been socially naked in the company sauna with co-workers, in private saunas with friends, in public saunas, and skinny dipping with friends in summer. I have also been in the conference sauna for PyCon Finland, with about 50 other attendees. While I do not practice it, I support the German Freikörperkultur. The article implicitly discriminates against those who practice or support clothing optional practices. Eg, "So what is my strategy now that I know I am not wearing any clothes? To start wearing clothes of course!" - why not stay naked? Therefore, you should read my previous comment as a complaint. I see no reason to contribute positive comments to something whose basic analogy is one I disagree with.
- titusblair 11y ago
  The article has nothing to do with clothing but with the fact that someone was deceived into thinking they were wearing clothes when in fact they were not. If you take it within the context of the story you should be able to see it in a new light :)
  - dalke 11y ago
    As I wrote "That's seems like needlessly negative views towards an admittedly small portion of the population, when the point is mostly to just start doing real things, and nothing to do with actual clothes." The context of the story is that one should wear clothes in real life. Otherwise the underlying analogy doesn't make sense. Also, regarding "Not sure why it’s called going viral, it should be going exponential, lol!". The assumption is that the dynamics of how they spread is similar to model of population growth for viruses, bacteria, etc. These follow a logistic function - a sigmoid or 's' curve. Early on the growth appears exponential, but at some point it flattens out. After all, there are only about 7 billion people in the world, which sets a hard upper limit.

dalke 11y ago

It seems that I was not direct enough. Several people I know and respect are or were nudists/naturists, including one who lives in a clothing optional community. I live in Sweden and have been socially naked in the company sauna with co-workers, in private saunas with friends, in public saunas, and skinny dipping with friends in summer. I have also been in the conference sauna for PyCon Finland, with about 50 other attendees. While I do not practice it, I support the German Freikörperkultur. The article implicitly discriminates against those who practice or support clothing optional practices. Eg, "So what is my strategy now that I know I am not wearing any clothes? To start wearing clothes of course!" - why not stay naked? Therefore, you should read my previous comment as a complaint. I see no reason to contribute positive comments to something whose basic analogy is one I disagree with.

titusblair 11y ago
The article has nothing to do with clothing but with the fact that someone was deceived into thinking they were wearing clothes when in fact they were not. If you take it within the context of the story you should be able to see it in a new light :)
- dalke 11y ago
  As I wrote "That's seems like needlessly negative views towards an admittedly small portion of the population, when the point is mostly to just start doing real things, and nothing to do with actual clothes." The context of the story is that one should wear clothes in real life. Otherwise the underlying analogy doesn't make sense. Also, regarding "Not sure why it’s called going viral, it should be going exponential, lol!". The assumption is that the dynamics of how they spread is similar to model of population growth for viruses, bacteria, etc. These follow a logistic function - a sigmoid or 's' curve. Early on the growth appears exponential, but at some point it flattens out. After all, there are only about 7 billion people in the world, which sets a hard upper limit.