Haha a great way to show how shit the article would be
They were just roommates
Right because there’s no way they could be father and son, two brothers, other relations, best friends, or any other kind of platonic relationship that people have all the time in real life. But apparently that the researchers have never heard of. Maybe the researchers are clones.
Notice that there’s no source for that headline. But of course that wouldn’t matter; nobody ever has a bias or exaggerates headlines in order to make them stand out and attract attention. That would be irresponsible and unethical. /S
Everyone assumed they were heterosexual lovers, why should it be assumed that it was platonic after it’s discovered they were both male?
It’s always the same pattern:
- Assumption is made
- New data makes the assumption queer
- Initial assumption is questioned
Yeah sure, maybe it was some girl and boy who didn’t even know each other, but I somehow doubt that a comment questioning a straight relationship would even have a single upvote
Statistics? <10% of the population identifies as LGBTQ+ today, if your only evidence is two dudes hugging then not gay lovers is much more likely to be correct.
You mean that after thousands of years of repression, with still today strong religious antagonism, and annihilation of culturally significant LGBTQ elements in colonized countries, the LGBTQ community is low? Yeah, no shit.
None of those factors were present back when the Vesivius errupted in 79BC though, so our contemporary low % is perfectly irrelevant
(What happens when trying to feign prejudice for acceptance)
“Could”. Whee.
