Comment by scottlocklin
5 years ago
>How can "would score high" and "accepting of divergences from their beliefs" not be disjoint?
Simple: the scale, as I keep saying, is total bullshit. Someone's opinion on nudism or sexual dimorphism doesn't influence their day to day behavior or tendency to throw people out of helicopters in the way the author of the scale thinks they do. Hell; the Nazis were pro-nudist and an awful lot of them were screechingly gay (and all of them accepting of their screechingly gay comrades) ... in the 1920s and 30s, when that sort of thing was a lot less popular.
(a) which question has anything to do with sexual dimorphism?
(b) someone who is always clothed in company themselves but doesn't mind if others are sky-clad in private gatherings (such as a classical liberal, an economic conservative, or a normal republican) would answer +4 to:
Given that I believe private nudity is legal in the US[1], why should anyone respond otherwise, unless unaccepting of divergence from their beliefs?
(As for Nazis, what references do you have? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badge#... shows the stereotypical pink triangles. For nudity, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freikörperkultur is a general german thing, not particularly Nazi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives#SA_le... was 1934.)
[1] based on my twentieth century experiences in US hot tubs and springs.
Q. how many californians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. (rot13) Abar, pnyvsbeavnaf fperj va ubg ghof.
Ernst Röhm was the 2nd most important nazi before the night of the long knives and was an out homosexual[0]. The gayness of the nazis was a source of jokes and criticisms from the beginning. The pro-homosexual bias of fascists are so obvious, there are even books, generally by religious people, which assert, with considerable evidence, that fascism was entirely a homosexual phenomenon. This sort of thing doesn't fit the preposterous bias of the book you quote, which again is simply a list of the prejudices of the authors; more or less, the prejudices of late 20th century shitlibbery, against traditional christian people.
As for nazi nudity: go watch the movie "Olympiad." Or ... hell, just look at photos of the era[1]. A good fraction of them were neopagans as well; they probably invented the phrase "sky-clad."
>Given that I believe private nudity is legal in the US, why should anyone respond otherwise, unless unaccepting of divergence from their beliefs?
Are you joking? There are lots of things which are legal but which people might not be all together comfortable with. For example: gambling, smoking, eating live shellfish, having unprotected sex with 100s of people, going to Church on Sundays (I guarantee you there are people who see something wrong with this), remaining a virgin until you're married (ditto), getting falling down drunk, eating only vegetables: the list is endless. Nudism certainly falls into the category of something all kinds of people might not be all together comfortable with; both authoritarian and non-authoritarian; and in this case both American right wing and left wing people. Do you think Susan Fowler would have been happy if Uber had done its corporate retreats and a nudist camp? Don't tell me it's "inappropriate" -because if "there is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps" -how can it possibly be inappropriate to hang out with your colleagues with your junk hanging out?
[0]https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/holocaust-remembrance-day/.pr...
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturism_in_Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digambara
> "The Digambara literature can be traced only to the first millennium CE..."
Irya is pretty hardcore straight edge.
I'm not joking. For instance, gambling[1] is something I don't do, but I would +4 the hypothetical question:
Indeed, my wife and I used to eat at the casino, because their kitchen was open late. If I had more reservations, say related to addiction potential[2], maybe I'd only +1 it, but I wouldn't give it a high negative score, which would be necessary to score an overall high RWA.
I don't smoke[3] either but (enclosed public smoking being illegal here) I would also agree with the hypothetical:
I also won't join them, but don't mind if traditional christian people meet and do traditional christian things together[4], so I would also agree with the hypothetical:
All these things diverge from my beliefs, but I accept others have their own beliefs[6]. Why should I not?
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor."
Na du deting to du xeta, fo mang kapawu to. (...to your shipmate)
[1] beyond the undiversifiable risks any capitalist runs
[2] ID is required in our casinos, so I wouldn't be surprised if problem gamblers were 86ed.
[3] except on those rare occasions when either my pyromania gets out of hand or my campfire skills are weak
[4] although St Benedict makes it sounds like traditional christian people are a bunch of super-commies who gave up personal as well as private property. Consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananias_and_Sapphira#Story_sum...
[5] My local one, from the seventh century, has chapels for both St Barbara and St George, two of my favourite christian saints.
[6] "il faut de tout pour faire un monde" (the world is diverse) Desh fosho kowlting fo du da belek.
Bonus clip (casino): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swvzItnFtCw
2 replies →