memes

10428 readers

3082 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civil

No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politics

This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent reposts

Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No bots

No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/Ads

No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

!tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
!lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
!linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
!comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world

The_Picard_Maneuver@startrek.website

613

Age range (lemmy.zip)

submitted 10 months ago by balderdash9@lemmy.zip to c/memes@lemmy.world

182 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Icaria@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think it's reasonable to look at this sort of thing with suspicion

I think it's reasonable to mind your own fucking business. The judging and flimsy excuses to meddle are guaranteed to cause relationship issues for others.

You act when there's evidence of abuse, not 'predictors'. This is fucking twitter/reddit moon-logic where every day 5000 supposed serial killers are identified based entirely upon whether they kicked a dog or left the toilet seat up.

Think about the likely reasons someone would seek that kind of thing

This is a stupid assumption in itself. Most people don't have a wealth of relationship options to choose from. If you're desperate enough to denigrate yourself using tinder, you're desperate enough to cast as wide a net as possible and settle for anyone not actively smoking meth.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Take a deep breath, my guy.

You act when there's evidence of abuse, not 'predictors'. This is fucking twitter/reddit moon-logic where every day 5000 supposed serial killers are identified based entirely upon whether they kicked a dog or left the toilet seat up.

Yeah - the National Institute of Health's National Library of Medicine is a junk source, but here's the actual data. Spoiler: it's a predictor. I think it's time you calmed down and started acting based on evidence rather than rage and moon logic.

You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?

If you're desperate enough to denigrate yourself using tinder, you're desperate enough to cast as wide a net as possible and settle for anyone not actively smoking meth.

I thought we were dismissing moon logic and deferring to evidence. One in eight people in my country use online dating without controlling for anything - age, relationship status, nothing. Forbes Health state that 52% of American adults that have never been married use online dating, and Statistica report 57.44 million users of online dating in the US in 2022. On the other hand, the NIH report 2.5m Americans have used meth in the past year. Reeeally scraping the bottom of the barrel with over half the available dating pool, eh?

Are these feels based on your personal experience? You might be able to do better than meth addicts if you calmed down a little. There are plenty of free meditation resources online - it can't hurt to give 'em a try!

[–] Icaria@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement... nope, there wasn't a point hidden in there anywhere, just poorly-contextualised quoting of statistics, like how you gloss over the very poor success rates on dating apps/sites, and an opening strawman.

Just a very overwrought u mad troll. Okay, cool, can't believe I interrupted my movie for a ploy straight out of 2010.

You also seem to be confusing looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening - why?

Because there isn't a difference. The moment someone falls on the wrong side of a taboo, they're considered fair game. You're just doing the work of rationalising it.

[–] WaxedWookie@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

I read this over a couple of times looking for your thesis statement... nope, there wasn't a point hidden in there anywhere

Did you get as far as the first two sentences from the study? I'll give them here.

Adolescent girls with older male main partners are at greater risk for adverse sexual health outcomes than other adolescent girls. One explanation for this finding is that low relationship power occurs with partner age difference

I've brought credible, relevant studies and stats, you continue to defer to feels. "nuh-uh - I am rubber you are glue" isn't going to cut it. That's the feels covered, now tell me why you'd type the way you did it you weren't blinded by rage.

There's no difference between looking upon something with suspicion and actively intervening? This is just stupid on the face of it - tantamount to "There's no difference between investigating someone and executing them."

Is your treatment of reasonable suspicion (informed by credible studies) as active intervention, and insistence that you can only date the handful of crackheads in your age group the result of a persecution complex linked with relevant experience?