[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 7 points 1 day ago

Genuinely I appreciate the advice, as an autistic person (and federal agent of course) it’s not often enough I get to actually have clear feedback on how I could have done an interaction better rat-salute

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

I have a bunch of those too! I still have a big ass box of cards too which I haven’t touched in years.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 8 points 1 day ago

Sure I’m currently high enough I’ll try to explain my thoughts through all of that, although most of it is “I’m kinda dumb”

Why I speak like that, I’m not really sure and it’s not something I love about myself but usually how the posts come out here is how the thoughts are going inside, I mask more in other places, here I tend to write how I think.

Why I thought it wouldn’t cause a struggle session, I think I vastly overestimated the degree to which volcel police was a bit, I thought it was just something we were doing because weirdo right wingers were “incels” and someone someday decided that “volcel” was funny.

I don’t generally think of Hexbear as more puritanical than the rest of the Anglo world I think it’s on the more sexually liberated end of things, which is why when in the past I’ve seen things that go against that I go “Oh wait this exists here too.”

So aside from what I thought was a small minority of users I kinda thought I was gonna be preaching to the choir?

I thought discussion of these ideas as right wingers propaganda by a PhD student researching that topic was something people here might appreciate, and then as I was writing the post I got in a weird mode and let the annoying argumentative side out I guess?

I still stand by most of what I’ve said although I could’ve been less of an asshole about some of it. As far as poisoning the well, the point of the video was that these beliefs come from right wing propaganda, so that’s a problem inherent to talking about this, that’s not just me being an asshole in the comments.

In retrospect should I have known this would’ve caused an argument though? 100%

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 6 points 1 day ago

First off, I’ve been here since the sub was banned and the lifeboat Discord, I’ve changed accounts a few times for opsec.

To be quite honest I didn’t expect this to become such a struggle session. This wasn’t even supposed to be particularly a callout post of this site, it was more a comment on US culture broadly and the comment about the volcel police was supposed to be a site relevant joke.

I shouldn’t have said the thing about “weird prudes,” that was rude, my point was just that this idea that these ideas have even crop up in leftist, pro-sw, pro-lgbt spaces like Hexbear.

I certainly see how it comes off as backhanded attack on the site’s culture, and I’m sorry, that was not my intention.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don’t trust capitalist biomedical-industry aligned “studies” that directly cut against the lived experience of me and everyone I know. I know that vaccine gave my son autism.

I love anecdotal evidence! i-love-not-thinking

Actually that would be more valid than your claim, because some biomedical research is funded and operated by the biomedical industry, whereas research on the effects of pornography aren’t funded by the porn industry like, at all.

These are studies done by universities, which generally have a relatively conservative environment, and definitions agreed on by major health organizations including the WHO. The PhD student researching media ethics and writing her dissertation on the effects of pornography is not a secret stooge of the porn industry, and she’s far more knowledgeable on this topic than you are.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 15 points 1 day ago

I won’t disagree that there are people who have an unhealthy relationship with porn that negatively impacts their lives.

But that is not what makes an addiction, and a lot of that unhealthy relationship is caused by the stigmatization of porn in the first place.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 14 points 2 days ago

The largest institution of porn in our fascist society has fascist categories

That doesn’t really say anything about porn inherently, just that we live in a fascist society.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 9 points 2 days ago

Here’s an article from Psychology Today not exactly a deep dive but gives a good summary

1. Porn makes a bad societyWrong. Data shows that sexual crimes are lower in areas where there is greater access to porn.

2. Porn creates objectificationWrong. Objectification is focusing on a body part and making it an object of sexual gratification without considering the whole human being. Research in sexual fantasies shows that men and women, even those who do not watch porn, objectify. In fact, it seems that objectification is a part of sexual desire and sexual arousal. The Diet Coke advert where the male model takes his t-shirt off for the delight of women staring at him in lust is a good example of objectification that appears to be acceptable. Some people may objectify more than others but it is largely a normal human thing to do. However, when men objectify, it can be perceived as being more threatening, understandably, because of the number of men being sexually violent to women. Indeed, some men can cross the line between fun objectification and making women feel intimidated. Another interesting study shows that people watching porn focus on the porn performers’ faces rather than genitals because the most arousing part is to see the performers enjoying themselves, indicating that there is an emotional component to watching porn. Men and women have sexual fantasies on an emotional level

3. Porn creates relationship problems

Wrong. Porn is the easy and convenient way to make an exit to avoid the problems in the relationship but it doesn’t create relationship problems. Other things create relationship problems, like sexual shame, high morals, contempt, anger, power struggles, low self-esteem, distorted beliefs about sex and relationships, insecurities, only to name a few.

4. Porn creates erectile dysfunction (TLDR: It’s shame and performance anxiety causing erectile dysfunction, and those men tend to turn to porn because they don’t have performance anxiety alone)

Wrong: This is a very popular view promoted by anti-porn campaigns that is fiercely inaccurate and unscientific. They even came up with an acronym to make it more believable: PIED: Porn Induced Erectile Dysfunction. Several scientific studies have debunked that myth. In fact, being shamed for watching porn is more likely to cause erection problems than the porn itself. The science of sexology has also confirmed that porn does not cause any sexual or mental health problems. The men who have erection problems and other sexual problems often turn to porn because it is the easiest area of enjoying one’s sexuality without the anxiety of "performance," so it is more enjoyable. Demonising porn won’t fix the sexual problems, it might even make it worse. The best way to resolve sexual problems is with sex-positive psychosexual therapy.

5. Porn “porn-ifies” the brain and rewires it negatively, so the brain needs to be rebootedWrong. This is another popular opinion that has no basis in sciences at all. I’m going to burst your bubble again: The brain is not a computer and there is no reboot button. Instead, the brain continuously develops. Once we watch something that titillates us, it tends to stay in the brain and we tend to return to it because it is pleasurable and fun. The same process happens if we watch something that repulses us; we tend to stop watching it and we never return to it (which disproves another inaccurate view that porn habits escalate to illegal territories). The brain keeps developing with any experiences that we have. If we keep having anxiety-filled experiences having sex with someone and anxiety-free watching porn, porn will continue to be more attractive. Stopping watching porn and stopping masturbating for 90 days isn’t going to reboot your brain. In fact, it’s going to increase your sexual shame and your anxiety. And it won’t teach you how to have anxiety-free sex with partners in the way that really turns you on, which is the crux of the problem, actually.

6. Watching porn leads to sexual offending and sexual violence towards women

Wrong. This is probably the most fear-mongering propaganda against porn. In fact, proper research consistently proves the opposite. Watching porn and masturbating is not pathological and does not indicate psychological problems. Several scientific research studies show that people watching porn do not have more misogynistic views towards women compared to those not watching porn. Some fascinating and surprising research even showed that men watching porn have a tendency to have more egalitarian views towards women.

7. Porn is addictive

Wrong. This is another well-known myth based on moralistic opinions rather than science. "Pornography addiction" is being consistently rejected from all medical and psychological bodies as there is no clinical evidence of addictive properties to porn. The World Health Organisation (WHO) agreed on diagnostic criteria for compulsive sexual behaviours (ICD-11), led by scientific data, and has explicitly rejected the idea of "sex addiction" and "porn addiction."

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 17 points 2 days ago

This and honestly I think the existence of dating apps is sexually repressive in and of itself.

Many people today are uncomfortable with the concept of flirting with a stranger at a bar. And I don’t just mean “Man you just can’t sexually harass a woman like you used to!”

Both men and women have now become accustomed to the idea that it’s only appropriate to flirt in the environment of dating app where flirting is inherently agreed on up front. It is only appropriate to do romance under the thumb of the corporations. Anything else would be a social faux pas, you wouldn’t want to potentially make someone uncomfortable would you? Best to stay in the meeting space designated to you b Capital.

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 10 points 2 days ago

This is overwhelmingly not what the experts believe

[-] ClimateStalin@hexbear.net 33 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Unfortunately, the previous owner did not disclose that thousands of Lifetime Deals (LTDs) had been sold through platforms like StackSocial.

We discovered this only months later—when a large portion of our resources were strained by these LTD accounts and high support volume from users, who through part of the database, provided no sustaining income to help us improve and maintain the service

Sounds like something for your lawyers to discuss with the previous owners, rather than start breaking contracts you were already in.

According to VPNSecure’s owners, their acquisition netted them “the tech, the brand, and the infrastructure/technology—but none of the company, contracts, payments, or obligations from the previous owners.”

Well isn’t that convenient for you! I love to buy all the benefits of something without any of its associated downsides!

VPNSecure is offering affected users discounted new subscriptions for either $1.87 for a month (instead of $9.95), $19 for a year (instead of $79.92), or $55 for three years (instead of $107.64). The deals are available until May 31, per the email.

At yes, $55 for 3 years is totally the same as being already paid off for the rest of my life. Spending $1000 over the remainder of my life is no different to spending $0, and I’m sure your customers will see it that way.

Everyone who approved this should have their own personal wealth taken to be given as refunds to the customers.

Also, if a company cancels a lifetime agreement they should be required to pay you back significantly more than you paid them in the first place. Like if it was $500 for the lifetime deal it should cost like $1000 to cancel and refund it. A straight refund does not make things even when I signed on for a very good deal, a straight refund means I’m getting screwed over.

Also also, maybe I’m wrong about the cost of running a VPN service, but I feel like $55 for 3 years has to be above the break-even point for most users, and if you’ve really discovered a bunch of lifetime subscriptions causing you to hemorrhage money, you should only be charging them the amount that will stem that bleeding. Like $.50 a month or whatever the actual cost per user is.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

ClimateStalin

joined 4 weeks ago