this post was submitted on 05 May 2025

375 points (98.7% liked)

Greentext

6893 readers

1459 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

375

Anon watches Game of Thrones (infosec.pub)

submitted 3 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 125 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Anon's sister sounds hilarious.

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 107 points 3 months ago

Depending on their relationship that's either super uncomfortable or funny af. And to Anon's question on what to respond "ok daddy" is a pretty good candidate imo.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

So only she can have the funny ideas?

[–] NewDark@lemmings.world 109 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like the implication that this nerd immediately whipped out his phone to post to 4chan when she said this.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like the implication that it actually happened.

[–] Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I like the implication that it's straight

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

sus implications of curved banana

[–] Zozano@aussie.zone 53 points 3 months ago

"Too late" And then play it off as a joke but not really.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 31 points 3 months ago

Poor poor baby anon gonna have Hapsburger looks

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Ah, greentext screen grabs, you are an endless supply of disconcerting Internet entertainment.

[–] peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Woops wrong greentext

[+] Gullible@sh.itjust.works -39 points 3 months ago (4 children)

It’s biologically ingrained into us to avoid incest. Revulsion for the act is built directly into our brains due to the severity of the act. I can’t even joke about incest without a pit forming in my belly and my shoulders slumping. Anon was the more neurotypical of the two.

[–] j4k3@lemmy.world 78 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not even a little bit. That is only present cultural norms and is entirely arbitrary. Incest is historically common and even considered preferential and a right in the past.

[+] Gullible@sh.itjust.works -26 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Take it up with three separate professors at my uni and several scholarly sources. Though I warn you, they are either dead or capable of screaming far louder and more eloquently than you. Here’s a Wikipedia article

[–] stiephelando@discuss.tchncs.de 44 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That article doesn't support your argument. The effect isn't based on relation but on being raised together before the age of 6.

[+] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com -16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah, but that is still "biologically ingrained to avoid incest", since being raised separately and then reintroduced as adults is an edge case. The effect is biological even if what it's directly testing for isn't genetics.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, your arguments about cultural and learned behavior not biologically ingrained Behavior.

[+] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com -9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

From the above linked article:

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relations. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only 14 were between children from the same peer group. Of those 14, none had been reared together during the first six years of life.

And lots of other examples across different cultures that would be consistent with this being an instinctual reaction of humans, rather than a cultural thing that is taught.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago (2 children)

How on Earth do you think that reflects a biological imperative? If anything doesn't it suggest the opposite? A biological connection resulting in an aversion to coupling would mean the absence of a biological connection should not result in aversion. Yet your example showed that the biological connection was not a factor at all.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I think you're talking past each other. What they're saying is that we have a biologically based aversion to mating with those we have been raised with, and that this aversion has arisen due to evolutionary pressure to avoid incest.

Of course, our body has no way of telling whether someone is a close relative or not, and evolution doesn't "care" why we change our behaviour, as long as the new behaviour gives a higher chance of propagating our genes. Because of the historically high overlap of "people you grew up with" and "people you share a lot of genes with", creating a biological aversion towards mating with those you grew up with serves as a good proxy for creating an aversion to incest (which is pretty much impossible to recognise without gene testing).

Their point is that it's not "taught" behaviour in the sense of being culturally dependent, like we are taught that "everyone should have equal rights", and "being naked in public is not ok". Both of those are cases where there is a massive variation between cultures and through history, indicating that they are things we are taught, rather than being biologically ingrained.

[–] Natanael 1 points 3 months ago

Are instincts not biological?

[–] ICastFist@programming.dev 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That quoted paragraph is a pretty clear indication that the "instinctual reaction" only happens with people you've lived with up to the age 6, which isn't exclusive to people you're related by blood. Hell, the following wiki paragraph makes that clear:

In Shim-pua marriages, a girl would be adopted into a family as the future wife of a son, often an infant at that time. These marriages often failed, as would be expected according to the Westermarck hypothesis.

So, if you don't grow up with your siblings during those formative years, or see them only on occasion, it is expected to be attracted to them, as per that hypothesis. It's also important to note that marriages aren't a simple matter of choosing whoever you like most, there are social and economic considerations to be accounted for.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

You're talking past each other: Chicken is saying that we have a biologically ingrained aversion to mating with those we lived closely with up to the age of 6, and is suggesting that this is a result of evolutionary pressure making it preferable to avoid having kids with your nearest relatives.

Their point is that this is not "taught" behaviour in the sense that it is imprinted from culture (such as "what hairstyle is attractive" or "what music is pleasant"), but appears to be biologically grounded.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

The aversion often didn't work for royalty, since they weren't raised with their siblings.

[–] scbasteve7@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

/>hypothesis

/>Therefore not proven

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 31 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It’s ingrained to avoid attraction to siblings we grow up alongside, though anecdotally there have been many cases of siblings who grew up apart discovering they were siblings after meeting as strangers and feeling mutual attraction, so the biological instinct may just have evolved around the most common case.

[–] lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 months ago

Oh, like that one Weird Al song!

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

We get it, your relatives are all uggos.