|
I would definitely post accidental space spy after hfd I thought my ADHD would allow a daily schedule. Maybe I'll try anyways.
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Whoever posts Trixie, I'll post The Accidental Space Spy
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:08
|
|
|
I'll post Lies, Sisters and Wives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:12
|
|
|
That just leaves Brain Chip and we can post all of them at once, making everything very confusing to follow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
Should we post the one where thorsby attempts to derive homosexuality from first principles
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
post them all at once, one page at a time, in the same post
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:14
|
|
|
Hold on you guys there's only 160 pages or so of HfD left, let's finish that before posting more stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
By popular demand posted:Hold on you guys there's only 160 pages or so of HfD left, let's finish that before posting more stuff Counterpoint: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:20
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Counterpoint: lmfao
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Empty Sandwich posted:brief hup note: a few years ago, a friend of mine on the fb misremembered the macro on this picture, "recreated" it herself, started a tag group, and accidentally started a capybara meme microtrend Wait. Your friend invented the capybara "hup" thing? Am I reading that right? Huge if true.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:I know I use "I love" a lot with thorsby comics, but I love that Anette stopped herself from saying ghosts to save herself from hearing from Lostclock I thought it was to avoid the obvious "Caspar the (un)friendly ghost" joke
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:45
|
|
|
¿hup?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:Wait. Your friend invented the capybara "hup" thing? Am I reading that right? Huge if true. I imagine it sounds insane, but yeah. just someone I know through weird-meme Facebook. I'll double check with her to make sure I'm not misremembering
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
Lostclock’s fear should have been ghosts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:52
|
|
|
Why would he be afraid of something that doesn't exist?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:56
|
|
|
Lostclock would have harsh words for anyone stupid enough to be scared of ghosts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
We don't really know how helpful gay stone age uncles were
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 19:04
|
|
|
maybe his fear coudl be believing in ghosts, the anger is just bluster to cover for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Lostclock's worst fear should have been that ghosts exist. So Gropius would have to make them exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Makai no Ossan (read right to left)   
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
Nothing personnel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
Zulily Zoetrope posted:Grandma Duck is Donald's grandmother and variably either Scrooge's sister or aunt-in-law, depending on the author's whims. She is the Duck family matriarch and even Scrooge respects her authority. Barks-Rosa canon says aunt-in-law making him Donald's uncle, so that is what most current authors follow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 20:40
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Counterpoint: 'correct' doing a lot of lifting here
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 21:15
|
|
|
projecthalaxy posted:Counterpoint: loving hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 21:24
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:loving hell John Lee posted:'correct' doing a lot of lifting here You might enjoy this small preview of coming attractions!  We love Thorsby and his wacky biotruths don't we folks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 21:36
|
|
|
I kinda do, it gives the vibe of a guy whos opinion on gay people is perfectly neutral but is curious about how such a thing could come to exist and tries to figure it out. Since he has very little cultural connection to the scientific bigotry of America and Britain he doesn't really see why anyone would have a problem with someone trying to figure out how it's possible for non-reproductive genetics to carry on through a population which has assumedly no social bigotry against the idea of homosexuality nor any interest in reproductive control, both positive or negative (cave men/stone age).
Mafic Rhyolite has a new favorite as of 22:11 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 22:09
|
|
|
The problem is obviously that humans are formed through environment and experience as well as genetics and probably most humans would be bisexual to some degree and maybe not super attached to ideas of gender orientation in absence of culture or social standards entirely, but he's a subject of liberalism as are we all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I can get being wary of “Here’s my theory of how homosexuality would have evolved”, since 99% of evopsych stuff like that is just a way to try to repackage right wing prejudice, but Thorsby’s thing is the 1% that’s actually made in good-faith and doesn’t have any homophobia or anything. As bad as the premise sounds if you read it I don’t think it actually reflects badly on him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 22:19
|
|
|
As a real-life gay (well, bi) uncle, I hereby wave my fairy wand and give you all permission to like Thorsby again
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 22:23
|
|
|
drat horror queefs posted:As a real-life gay (well, bi) uncle, I hereby wave my fairy wand and give you all permission to like Thorsby again real-life bi uncle is a pretty good username not as good as drat horror queefs, to be sure
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 22:29
|
|
|
I've said before that the funniest thing about Thorsby's biotruth digressions is that they're obviously *wrong* but it's not entirely trivial to explain *why*.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Jesus christ people, here's a truth for you: whatever come out of a fictional character's mouth isn't necessarily a reflection of the writer's opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 23:51
|
|
|
yah it seems benign and completely wrong which is an impressive combination when talking about why gayMr Havafap posted:Jesus christ people, here's a truth for you: whatever come out of a fictional character's mouth isn't necessarily a reflection of the writer's opinion. lol you're not familiar with this one, that's ok Peanut Butler has a new favorite as of 23:54 on Jan 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 23:52
|
|
|
For the record, I'm not saying he's wrong or he's right, i know far too little about both genetics and being gay to do so I just think its interesting that he decided to take the same lens he usually turns to the Barbleflax Beast of Wordlecon 3 to the world of human sexuality. It's a bold move
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2022 23:55
|
|
|
IMO he (we agree Thorsby is a 60 plus year old professor type with a super long beard) is riffing on the grandmother hypothesis. An equally engaging just-so theory that is just as unprovable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Mr Havafap posted:IMO he (we agree Thorsby is a 60 plus year old professor type with a super long beard) is riffing on the grandmother hypothesis. Oh lol, that makes it a lot more understandable, I assumed it was a random goof explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
Tendales posted:I've said before that the funniest thing about Thorsby's biotruth digressions is that they're obviously *wrong* but it's not entirely trivial to explain *why*. I could do that! I am both a non-reproductive gay uncle and I have a PhD in genetics. What other people have said is true: this looks like the rare case of a biotruths guy approaching the subject in actual good faith. Bizarre to learn such a thing is possible really. So thorsbys analysis is actually pretty spot on if you were trying to consider homosexuality as a single-gene trait. It works just as well if you abstract the concept to any altruistic kin-selection single gene trait. Which is why those are basically never found in nature. The many reasons thorsby is wrong include: Sexuality is trivially not a single-gene trait. Behavior traits are notoriously polygenic. That means the adaptive value of the trait has to be considered based on its actual contribution to survival and reproduction, which we can speculate about but would need to be actually empirically tested. Even if it was single-gene, the assumption that homosexuals are necessarily childless, especially in a premodern context, is way off, which throws his whole simplistic probability analysis out the window on its own. This is probably the main problem with his analysis, since homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom is quite widespread, but exclusive homosexuality to the point that it impacts reproduction is rarer. In humans, social effects complicates analysis, but we can look at the history of human homosexuality and you do tend to see much more bisexuality as well as homosexuals that still have children. Childless gold-star gays like myself appears to be a relative historical rarity. He also ignores non-reproductive roles of sex. Close relative Bonobo chimps famously use bisexual sex as a social cohesion tool, and only do it for reproduction about 25% of the time. It seems more likely that homosexual behavior in humans is retained as an adaptive helpful social trait than that it's a maladaptive trait retained for kin selection or sexual antagonism purposes. That's just one gay geneticists opinion of course but thorsby missed the idea completely. Meanwhile, thorsbys "correct theory" is actually much closer to plausible. You guys were laughing at his drawing of the pregnant woman "unknowingly doing something" to the foetus, but he's probably on to something. Exposure to sex hormones in the womb, both those originating from the foetus and those originating from the mother, are basically THE determinant of sexuality and sexual identity. Once you're out of the womb, you're basically done and there's gently caress all evidence that anything society can do can change you. But at least some of the effect is likely to come from the mother, because there's the birth order effect where if a male child gestates in a womb that has housed a male child before, he's up to 50% more likely to be gay. It's a pretty well replicated effect and it works for test tube babies too so it's definitely coming from the mother. By the way, the modern way to look for genetic influences on complex traits is to do a GWAS, and the biggest ever study on human homosexuality came out in 2019. They identified variations in 5 genes related to sex hormone regulation that account for 8-25% of the variation of human same-sexuality. That's big numbers for a GWAS. That number is also probably an underestimate because it relies on self-reported same sex behavior. There's no way you're getting a genetic effect that large on a trait that's been around so long without it having some adaptive value, in my opinion anyway. Tldr: thorsbys single-gene model is wrong as gently caress but there are definitely both genes that make you gay, and maternal womb effects that make you gay, and it's pretty likely that the trait is adaptive even if it would be tricky/impossible to be certain of exactly why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
You know anything about the prevalence of various alleles of those genes in the population? I know that there's some work on genes associated with autistic traits that claims they're a little too common to be selected against, and I wonder if there's a similar analysis here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
y'all are gonna hate thorsbys "the bell curve but with elves and hobbits factored in"
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 01:13 |
|
|
Fagtastic posted:The many reasons thorsby is wrong include:
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2022 00:57
|
|
