[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] goat2017 [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It would be pretty interesting to take Calhoun's concept of the behavioral sink and apply it to Spengler's idea of civilization cycles. The two concepts line up fairly well and it would give Spengler's ideas a scientific underpinning and Calhoun's a wide civilization-level scope of relevance.

0
2

[–] Dungeon_Cremaster 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

There is some truth to it but civilization is not exclusively the poison some of us want to think. Rats are wild creatures whereas we are not. We are tamed partly because the city put its hex of modernity on us.

Yes, that is also a reason why Dindu and Jose behave even worse in the tarmac jungle. They are, in a sense, caged animals.

The trick is how to balance it out. Yes, living in a tower building in the prjects with non Whites will surely eat your soul.

However, Europe has lots of beautiful, smaller towns that simply have not fully grasped how to cope with [post]modernity. If you have a nice community with nature next door and lots of kin, a small city is a good place to live and raise a family for many.

Some families will always opt for living by themselves, maybe even off the grid, which is also good.

However, we cannot "pull the plug"- it is a utopian fallacy.

@oxytocin and porn Maybe, I'm not convinced entirely. Yes, those who whack off as a hobby probably are a bit derranged and might have their hormones out of balance.

So of course, I commend everybody for giving up on pornography. Praising the stuff as liberating and art or whatnot is just trashy but the altright shouldn't focus too much on it. We might come across as boring prudes. It's difficult to sell this to youngsters while not sounding like grandpa.

Again, if someone's really hooked then quitting might be the best decision for him. Probably the healthiest thing propaganda wise would be to simply shame people more for not being in a nice relationship. Focus on praising the familiy and the rest shall fall into place. It's always better to be FOR something than against something.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] zarthos1 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

0
1

[–] Rb8623 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Your thoughts just really struck a nerve with me. I have read a lot of reports and even books on the brain and porn and I don't know why I never made this connection before. You're absolutely right!

[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
4

[–] ErrorHasNoRights 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The biggest reason I voted for Trump is because he pledged to take a vary hardline position against pornography.

Did he really?

2
0

[–] comma8 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

It's not the pornogs fault that degenerate addicts can't enjoy it responsibly.

0
0

[–] thealtright 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Stop watching (((porn))).

0
0

[–] VRX 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Just a question. What is the chemical difference between masturbating everyday and having sex everyday?

0
2

[–] goat2017 [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is an area that is still actively being researched, and it could take some time because it is a complicated problem.

From what is understood, the purpose of oxytocin is to basically form emotional bonds with partners. It isn't just sexual either, it plays a role in development of children that seems to be helping to form parent-child bonds as well. It reduces aggression in men, likely because one of the main roles of male aggression is competition between other men over sexual partners.

So what happens when there is no partner to bond to ? You're just sitting there with your dick in your hand looking at an inanimate object (your screen). I'm sure there are some neurochemical differences, I'm sure on some level the brain 'knows' there isn't another person there. But it seems as if the psychological impact is drastically different. You're not successfully pair-bonding with another person and so the feeling you're having is completely hollow.

It's an interesting question, I don't know if anyone has a concrete answer other than 'there are differences we don't fully understand yet, but they're there'.

2
-2

[–] Jaegerjaques 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

How do you know they put it in the water. Did you measure it? The paper makes no mention of it.

0
0

[–] goat2017 [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sorry if my writing wasn't clear. I stated they are NOT putting it in the water. Sometimes when there are concerns about administering 'mind control drugs' some more conspiracy-minded people rush to the idea that the government or some other entity is putting the drug in our water supply (think alex jones 'they're turning the frogs gay').

My argument is that this isn't even necessary. The particular chemical mentioned in the paper is something people are basically drugging themselves with en-masse.

0
0

[–] Jaegerjaques 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I'm apalled by my complete lack of reading comprehension. I wasn't even drunk. Thanks for being patient with me.