One of the big arguments against faster than light travel is that it will break causality. Even if true, I don’t see how that matters. So what? What’s so sacred about causality? Humans certainly don’t pay any attention to it, now.
Example one billion whatever-we’re-up-to:
“There are so many people in this administration that have some weird, like, intense homoerotic feelings toward men while also being incredibly homophobic and not just homophobic but, like, hate mongering, fear mongering about the LGBT community. Let me be clear. I don’t think the homoeroticism is the weird part. The weird part is that they pretend that that’s not what it’s about. And so, Pete Hegseth was, like, the example of this, like the manly-manly rugged macho man, and I don’t know if you know who Tom of Finland is. Tom of Finland — this is gay male porn that was drawn by a man, and, like, Pete Hegseth is the embodiment of that. So I feel like they must be looking at that as, like, their example of what men look like….”
This idiot – Democratic Congresswoman Becca Balint (D-VT) – has causality reversed.
As someone familiar with the subject, I’m happy to tell you that “manly-manly rugged macho man” came first. It’s flat out erotic in that evolutionary way of “healthy == sexy”.
See the sales of Hot Fireman calendars. Yes, I’ve bought one. No, gay men are not the target audience; the signing party was almost all women.
I also own a Tom of Finland coffee table book so I’m quite familiar with his art. It was manly-manly at the time; parts of it (e.g. jodhpurs) have not aged well. It was (still is, I suppose) targeted at gay men, but it is homoerocitizing something that already existed: the manly-manly look.
Causality is already broken in any number of people’s minds and it doesn’t seem to do any harm (other than make them look like the idiots they are). Who cares if it actually breaks? Would anyone even notice?
Marked Up 