Anonymous A started this discussion 1 hour ago#138,638
I would never watch those competitions. They’re gay as fuck. I do find the sociology fascinating. Guys are taking 800 mg of whatever, develop disordered eating, shrink their balls, and die at 30-40. All to win an award for posing on a stage in a speedo.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later[^][v]#1,465,941
Ultimately, humans are a social species and that means status matters more than anything. Look up south korean winter jacket rankings. The endless quest for status is in our DNA. Even your post is an attempt to look cool by shitting on other people I mean you didn't need to make this post. You could have thought it and then moved on.
> Ultimately, humans are a social species and that means status matters more than anything. Look up south korean winter jacket rankings. The endless quest for status is in our DNA. Even your post is an attempt to look cool by shitting on other people I mean you didn't need to make this post. You could have thought it and then moved on.
I wouldn’t say look cool. It’s an observation. I’ve worked hard in sports or at work. I have never sacrificed body and soul for a premature death - I partly admire the commitment. “I’m willing to die to become Mr. Olympia.” I can’t fathom it.
Live&Lemon replied with this 1 hour ago, 2 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,465,947
@previous (A)
Bodybuilding can be a good thing, if it’s not taken to an extreme where people are sacrificing other aspects of their health and/or taking performance enhancing drugs, testosterone, synthetic hormones, etc. At the extreme end, it’s just a masculine version of the same body dysmorphia that’s stereotyped with teenage girls starving themselves.
Live&Lemon triple-posted this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,465,950
It can also be sometimes, somebody who maybe didn’t come from a very wealthy background became a body builder but found it faster to rely on steroids and then they have certain opportunities to capitalize on their looks, modeling, brand deals, commercials for athletic wear, whatever it is, and they become addicted to that and it’s not necessarily even about their own image of themself. Which is kind of sad actually, but it happens in things other than bodybuilding where sudden success can become self destructive.
> Bodybuilding can be a good thing, if it’s not taken to an extreme where people are sacrificing other aspects of their health and/or taking performance enhancing drugs, testosterone, synthetic hormones, etc. At the extreme end, it’s just a masculine version of the same body dysmorphia that’s stereotyped with teenage girls starving themselves.
In talking specifically about those who compete or pursue the lifestyle, one that involves steroids and rapid gains. Not a fit gym rat taking creatine.
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 hour ago, 3 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,465,959
The concept of dominance, originally called "pecking order", was described in birds by Thorleif Schjelderup-Ebbe in 1921 under the German terms Hackordnung or Hackliste and introduced into English in 1927. In his 1924 German-language article, he noted that "defense and aggression in the hen is accomplished with the beak". This emphasis on pecking led many subsequent studies on fowl behaviour to use it as a primary observation; however, it has been noted that roosters tend to leap and use their claws in conflicts.
Live&Lemon double-posted this 49 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,465,962
I’ve never looked deeply into it, but I’ve heard apparently it’s an interesting mathematical problem, how birds make collective decisions in spite of not having a leader.
Live&Lemon triple-posted this 45 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,465,964
Of course some birds are more dominant than others, but it’s not like the same thing as a pack of wolves or humans where they’re one unit and there’s one definite leader. They can also exit one group and enter another group, the groups aren’t fixed.
Anonymous B replied with this 30 minutes ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,973
@previous (Live&Lemon)
I'm saying you're flat out wrong about birds not having a social hierarchy. The way you're defining dominance is your own personal arbitrary definition and not what's used by professionals
Live&Lemon replied with this 27 minutes ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,977
@previous (B)
You’re misunderstanding my point. Birds are fundamentally different from mammals, there’s no individual bird that’s a leader. Different birds have different personalities and some birds are more aggressive than others, that’s not the way I’m using the word hierarchy. I’m using hierarchy as a way to describe systems of control.
Live&Lemon replied with this 24 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,980
@previous (B)
You’re confusing two very different concepts. If you have a tribe, that tribe has a leader who makes decisions. For example, think about a government, Trump is the leader of the United States, there’s one individual person at the top, and everything else folds out beneath that. Mammals generally work that way, whether you have a group of chimpanzees, or a group of humans, or a group of wolves, you have a unit of individuals and that unit has a single leader with other members beneath them. That’s not how birds work.
> You’re confusing two very different concepts. If you have a tribe, that tribe has a leader who makes decisions. For example, think about a government, Trump is the leader of the United States, there’s one individual person at the top, and everything else folds out beneath that. Mammals generally work that way, whether you have a group of chimpanzees, or a group of humans, or a group of wolves, you have a unit of individuals and that unit has a single leader with other members beneath them. That’s not how birds work.
Live&Lemon replied with this 23 minutes ago, 16 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,982
Yes, some birds are more dominant than other birds because some birds are stronger or healthier than other birds, that’s true. That’s not the same thing though. That’s not what I’m talking about.
Live&Lemon double-posted this 22 minutes ago, 59 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,983
@1,465,981 (E)
That’s the thing, one bird doesn’t decide where all the other birds go. When you see birds fly in a V shape, it’s not because one bird necessarily leads the others, it’s because it has aerodynamic efficiency.
Anonymous B replied with this 22 minutes ago, 19 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,984
@1,465,980 (Live&Lemon)
I'm not confused about anything. I fully understand your point and I'm simply telling you the words you're using have definitions that aren't in line with your current understanding of them. I know a bird isn't a human but that doesn't mean birds don't display a form of social hierarchy
Anonymous B replied with this 17 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,988
@1,465,985 (Live&Lemon)
And how would you define a leader? In any case that's irrelevant because the only point being discussed is whether or not birds display hierarchy and they do. Like it's an objective fact
Anonymous B replied with this 12 minutes ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,990
@previous (Live&Lemon)
I know you're just trolling at this point because you can never accept you're wrong about anything but let's just take a little look at the definition of a social hierarchy. This is from Princeton's site I believe:
social hierarchy is defined as an ongoing pattern of rank-order asymmetries in individuals' influence, deference, and access to scarce resources. Now if a rooster pecks the fuck out of another rooster until that rooster fucks off and understands the food belongs to the stronger rooster, that's a hierarchy, buddy.
> Ultimately, humans are a social species and that means status matters more than anything.
If I replied and said that birds don’t have a concept of social hierarchy in response to that, do you think I’m talking about how birds don’t have a concept of social status or do you think I’m saying that all birds treat each other equally and fairly? It’s obvious what I meant from context.
Live&Lemon replied with this 6 minutes ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,465,998
My point is that being social doesn’t mean that you have to put yourself over others, and the fact that a species is social doesn’t mean that species has a rigid social hierarchy where all members are fighting to lead the group. That’s not how birds work, and you’re using a technicality that in a different context social hierarchy can refer to the existence of any kind of unfairness whatsoever, which is completely stupid because that’s not what I’m talking about.
Anonymous B replied with this 3 minutes ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,466,002
@previous (Live&Lemon)
You're obsessed with leaders. If I kick your ass but have zero interest in leading you, I'm still higher up on the social ladder.