SoleInvictus @ SoleInvictus @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

478

Joined

2 yr. ago

About 25 years ago, I was a retail manager and took great pleasure in having these assholes towed. We had the towing company on speed dial, they loved us. I wasn't disabled then but it's just a shitty thing to do so it ticked me off.

Today I just alerted store management, who was pretty pissed off about them. I approved. As much as I'd have loved to do what you suggested, I only had a few minutes before I had to leave.

I'm not the cart guy, I just shop there.

It's interesting, reading this comment and your others here, how you have to make things up so you can pass useless judgment on other people. That's also mildly infuriating - you're just shitting on people while saying nothing of value.

You might want to think about why you do that. I can understand saying things people might not want to hear but should, but the only thing that would change if all your comments here just disappeared is everything would be more pleasant.

First off, I want to take a moment to recognize why I love Lemmy compared to places like Reddit or Facebook, where your alternate media equivalent would likely have told me to get fucked and made some choice comments about my mother. Instead, we're having what is, at least speaking for myself, an intellectually stimulating conversation. It got me to really read a study outside of my discipline. Love it!

Respectfully, I think you may have misunderstood the paper. What you stated is true, but it's not the only things the investigators sought to examine. Their intent to look at reaction formation secondary to parental effectsis mentioned right in the abstract. Regardless, with enough quality data, observations secondary to the primary intent of the paper can be made, upon the results of which I'm basing my assertion.

So the point I'm making, that there may be validity behind the assertion that straight identifying homophobes may have repressed homosexual desire, is addressed right in the first study. They used a MANOVA both with and without controls for gender and parent conservative beliefs, so of course there's a vomit stream of results. Looking at table 1, there's a statistically significant correlation (p < .01) between participant homophobia and low explicit orientation, i.e., identifying as straight. Shocking, I know but hey, at least their gay participants don't hate themselves!

But check out the results in study 1, which sought to assess the effects of parental autonomy support, participants' implicit and explicit sexual orientation, and self-reported homophobia on the discrepancy between automatic and explicit measures of sexual orientation. In the "participant's self-reported homophobia" paragraph, simple main effects split by self-reported sexual orientation suggested (I'm a scientist, I'll rarely say "proved") that individuals who identified low in explicit sexual orientation, i.e., straight, but had higher implicit gay orientation, i.e., maybe more a friend of Dorothy than they profess, related to higher homophobia, β= .56, t(32)= 3.79, p>.001. In the words of one of my old students, that's totes significant. n=89, which is a little low but not awful.

Same in study two, which looked at parents attitudes of homosexuality on participant sexual orientation and homophobia. Back in the results, with more MANOVA chowder, again under "participant's self-reported homophobia", simple main effects suggested that higher implicit orientation, i.e., more potential repressed "flame on", related to increased self-reported homophobia when explicit sexual orientation was low, i.e., "straight" as an arrow, β=.43, t(104)=4.79, p<.001. again, the goats of statistical significance give it a totes. n=181, I like this more.

And same in study three, same results section, same correlation. Simple main effects were split by high and low explicit sexual orientation and show that when participants identified as straight, higher implicit orientation positively correlated to self-reported homophobia, β=.43, t(62)=-1.38, p<.001. n=189, yay.

Section four? Same multivariate correlation between explicit and implicit orientation and self-reported homophobia, β=.67, t(132)=10.54, p<.001, n=181.

I think the issue you're running into when you're looking at the summary tables for each study is that it's only illustrates a bivariate analysis while a MANOVA analyses multiple variables, making a two-dimensional representation of results kind of sprawling. You'll either have a metric fuck ton of tables or, more commonly, the results are just in the text, which is what we're seeing here. For example, the correlation just between implicit orientation and homophobia includes EVERYONE, straight, gay, and everything in-between. Anyone who isn't repressed should have explicit and implicit scores that are pretty similar, so that's going to muddy the waters, getting you no statistically significant correlation because that high implicit scores means different things for different groups but they're all being considered together there.

Now, the study has some weaknesses. The sample size for each study isn't real low, but it's not very high either. Another issue is the relative homogeneity of each group. These guys were largely snagging college students from one or two colleges, which is a great way to grab a bunch of people at once, but is not always representative of the population. Lastly, psychology is squishy, so there's always the question of if the methods of assessment result in accurate data, in other words, whether the tests were bullshit or not. To this study's credit, it uses a variety of previously tested assessment methods. But it does absolutely suggest, with statistical significance, that participants who identified as straight but may have been a little gayer than they thought have a correlation with a higher occurrence of homophobia.

Whew. This is a lot, sorry!

You're right, I didn't catch your mention of confirmation bias, I only saw where you said there's no evidence that the most "anti-gay" people were closeted.

I provided an article that lists several vociferously anti-gay people that indeed had homosexual tendencies to explain why people might think that way (which is indeed evidence of at least the possibility of a correlative, if not causative, link), plus a study that systematically suggests that those observations actually may have an element of causation. Of course that link promptly broke. Thanks APAnet. I tried to link directly but realized it's paywalled if you or your institution doesn't have a subscription. Edit: I forgot about sci-hub! Here's a link.

Here's a real functioning link to a decent article explaining the study, including a video of one investigator lconfirming the assertion in the first few seconds. My favorite, though, is the lead author's quote:

"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves." -Netta Weinstein

The study didn't quantify an effect size for the degree of homophobia relating to homosexuality, i.e., are the biggest homophobes those with the greatest closeted homosexual tendencies? That would be interesting.

So while it's absolutely ridiculous to state that all homophobes are hidden homosexuals, it's not unreasonable to assert that being a closeted homosexual is one driver of homophobicity, therefore any homophobe may actually be homosexual to some degree with a greater likelihood than the probability of any particular person in the population being homosexual.

...for a long time people have said, without evidence, that the most anti-gay people are closeted, self-hating gay people themselves.

I would say this is due to the fairly steady stream of news articles detailing anti-LGBTQ politicians and figureheads that are caught having homosexual relations. Plus the study that suggests homophobia is rooted in denied homosexuality.

Hah! I figured you were joking. He actually makes a decent income from selling and managing his accounts. It IS telling that he'd rather sell insurance than be a cop. If I had to choose between the two, I'd sell all my possessions and live in the forest.

Damn, that's a great write up. Thanks!

It's true. I know one good cop, my cousin. He joined because he wanted to help protect people. He lasted two years before quitting due to the corruption and hypocrisy. He's now an insurance salesman.

I can't believe you've honestly thought through this idea that protestors who caused admittedly significant property damage and disruption are worse than protestors who intended to overthrow the government.

I find paraphrasing arguments helps you see if they make sense. Think about making that argument in court. "Sure the defendant intended to sabotage the election, but these other guys trashed a car and occupied a park! That's definitely worse!"

My boss constantly rode my ass about my coming into the office. I'm a consultant and work on site for various clients. I do a lot of driving that is not reimbursed in any way by my company so, whenever I have a break, I prefer to work from home. But no, my boss has set the expectation that any time I have no on site client work, I needed to be at the company office, a 45-90 minute commute each way (depending on traffic).

If I need to drive into an office every day, I'm going to get paid the most I can for it. She took away one of the main perks of my job, so I had no reason to stick around. So I found a new job that pays 50% more and I'll be letting the company know in my exit interview that's the primary driver for finding new employment. Oh, and the best part? I work from home at least one day a week. My previous employer can get fucked.

It's good for me because I'm piss poor at programming. In my defense, I'm not a programmer or even programmer adjacent. I do see how it wouldn't be useful to a pro. It also has occasionally given me garbage advice that an expert would spot right away while I had to figure out in my own that it was 'hallucinating' again. There's nothing better for learning than troubleshooting, though!

Your comment doesn't make any sense as a response to my comment, so I think you responded to the wrong person.

These guys are so smooth brained, they could provide modern science with cutting edge low-friction technology. I'm a microbiologist and my coworkers are an MPH and a pharmacist. These guys are construction contractors but sit in the next office area over. We overhear them talk politics and "bro science" on the regular. We've overhead genius talking points including:

• insulin makes your blood sugar increase
• saturated fat is good for you and lowers your cholesterol
• a zero-point energy machine exists but the developer was killed by Bill Gates
• COVID doesn't exist
• Joe Rogan should run for president 🤮

Look everyone, it's someone who has nothing intelligent, useful, or interesting to say, yet they still felt like joining in, so instead provided about the most useless, smooth-brained criticism possible.

Gotta love it when someone tries to rip on someone but instead just shows everyone they're a low-effort moron. 5/5 self own.

I just overheard some morons at my workplace complaining how all the "goddamn lib cities" are the reason the Republicans don't have a stranglehold and that votes should be based on how much land you own, not per person. These morons are from Missouri. I'm sorry you have to deal with them.

What scares me is they look impotent to anyone who is able to think critically or at all, really, but these theatrics are actually effective for their low IQ base. Whenever their latest bullshit plan doesn't work, they just blame some communist conspiracy, which further riles the idiots up.

Critical thinking means reading an article with one point that agrees with your stance and seven points that contradict it and realizing it doesn't actually support your argument.

Critical thinking means you question what you read, hear, think, write, and say. If you were capable of critical thought, you'd have read your previous comment and realized it doesn't actually address my comment at all. It just makes an unrelated point. But you're not capable of even primary school level feats of cognition yet you still vote, and people like you are why American democracy is circling the drain. You just. Don't. Think.

Man, don't I know it. The 2023 Prime is out with a 39-44 mile range, which would cover about half my total daily commute, plus my employer has free charging. Someday...

I'd happily trade it all for robust public transportation, though.

But they are, uncharacteristically, being nice about it.

I think it's indicative of Disney's character that this worries me more than anything else.

Hey look, a straw man!