Alex Leaf @Alexleaf

Yes. Men who are obsessed with a bunch of meaningless casual sex usually aren’t actually obsessed with sex. It’s almost always driven by insecurity and the need for some external checkpoint of validation from women or from their bros. I’ve also seen cases where the man is just terrified of depth and running from himself. But it’s almost never because he’s some true connoisseur of sex. Both are disappointing to me, because either one should be a signal to strengthen oneself. Both are weakness. But alas, they build entire systems around pretending it’s the ultimate peak male experience… when really it just exposes a man with no direction and no real command over himself.

Hunter Ash @ArtemisConsort

4 days ago

It seems obvious to me that a ton of male anxiety about not having sex is actually about some combination of status anxiety and desire to be loved and not, like, the mechanical act of sex for its own sake.

86 160 5K 282K 936

@dtanmanb @cx_clips Fucking LOL! All this emotional little reply of yours did is reinforce the reality that you're an effeminate under-developed little boy. Go puff your chest somewhere else loser.

@_TraderLuke @cx_clips No. There is no excuse for his actions. He could have recorded a video while leaving the house to de-escalate if that's what he wanted, but instead he instigated her and streamed the video for the world to see. Guy is a fucking loser and should be shamed for his behavior.

@brianatheroux @elderpumpkin999 Yeah, this is some weird made up bullshit by a basement dweller whose obsessed with us.

@tutordano @xwanyex So, you are admitting that you are a bigot? I'm confused, given that you are the one who outright dismissed "another point of view" because "God".

@tutordano What? I'm against spanking. Why on Earth would you think I'd be okay with women-beating???

Friendly reminder that spanking is associated with worse cognitive and behavioral outcomes in children, and that the effect sizes do not meaningfully differ from the effects of physical abuse (PMID: 27055181). This was a huge meta-analysis that looked specifically at spanking, defined as hitting a child on the buttocks or extremities with an open hand, across 75 studies and over 160,000 children. Spanking was associated with more aggression, antisocial behavior, externalizing problems, internalizing problems, mental health problems, and worse parent-child relationships. It was also associated with lower moral internalization, lower cognitive ability, lower self-esteem, and a higher risk of the child later being physically abused. In the subset of studies that directly compared spanking with physical abuse, both predicted harmful outcomes in the same direction, and spanking showed about 65% of the effect size of physical abuse. The authors also found that the results did not meaningfully change based on study design, measurement method, country, or child age group. You can discipline children without physically hurting them.

M.A. Franklin @FoundationDads

2 weeks ago

You actually do need to spank your kids. God showing grace in particular situations where parents have abdicated their responsibility is no excuse to abdicate yourself, nor to ignore his wisdom and commands. And as soon as someone conflates "hitting" with spanking, as people

76 3 61 28K 3

If your position is “the Word of God trumps scientific data,” then any type of discussion will be impossible because we are working from two fundamentally different epistemic frameworks. To the other part (“most men over 50 were spanked and aren’t violent”)... this doesn’t rebut anything I said. The claim was never that spanking makes every child violent. The claim is that spanking, defined narrowly as open-hand swatting, is associated with a higher risk of worse behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and relational outcomes on average.

The studies I cited are indexed on Pubmed. Obviously an advocacy group is going to put research on their page that supports their ideology. That's completely irrelevant to the veracity of the research itself. I'm not going to try and "use science" to prove or disprove anything. That's ideology. I much prefer to look at the body of evidence available on a topic or research question and form conclusions based on my evaluation of that research. And with raw milk, the evidence is more nuanced than people on both sides of the debate pretend. The asthma and allergy data are consistent enough to discuss, especially when multiple studies show similar patterns and boiled or pasteurized milk does not show the same association. And we have real-world examples showing that raw milk is not one thing, with meaningful differences between carefully produced, tested, hygienically handled raw milk and random unregulated milk from a dirty farm. Pasteurization reduces infectious risk, without a doubt, but it may also reduce bioactive properties and their associated health benefits. This doesn't mean everyone should drink raw milk, and I've been vocal about how we shouldn't promote raw milk consumption because there are no regulations on its production to help ensure safety. But when discussing actual scientific evidence, the conversation is far more nuanced than “raw milk bad, pasteurized milk good.”

@tylerblack32 For sure, but it doesnt automatically invalidate research, which I'm sure you agree with.

I didn’t claim “unassailable” benefits. I said raw milk likely has unique immune-related benefits in childhood based on observational evidence. Recall bias is a weak critique for the prospective PASTURE data, where infant milk intake and infections were tracked with weekly diaries. Selection bias and residual confounding are always possible in observational work, but it doesn’t magically explain away the consistency of the signal across multiple studies and mechanistic work giving biological plausibility.

I'll push back on two of them. 1) Raw milk is a superfood. I don't like the ambiguous label of "superfood", but raw milk likely has unique health benefits, particularly when consumed through childhood. 2) Sunlight is good for your eyes. This one is simply true.

Tyler Black, MD @tylerblack32

2 weeks ago

Twitter in 2026 is a cesspool of misinformation. The following all are untrue, not supported by the current evidence evidence, and counter to good health information. Any claim to the below is using weaker evidence than the opposite claim. ❌Vaccines harmful and ineffective

108 75 328 41K 30

@jlippincott There isn't any good reason to spank children. All it does is increase the likelihood of cognitive and developmental problems down the road. x.com/i/status/20597…

Alex Leaf @Alexleaf

2 weeks ago

Friendly reminder that spanking is associated with worse cognitive and behavioral outcomes in children, and that the effect sizes do not meaningfully differ from the effects of physical abuse (PMID: 27055181). This was a huge meta-analysis that looked specifically at spanking,

36 13 121 22K 40

@tylerblack32 I'll also add that Im happy to discuss any of the actual data with you, if interested. This isn't really a topic I care much about; more so, I find it interesting how ideologically motivated people get on both sides of the discussion.

Interesting. I wrote all this from scratch while doing research on milk in general and have never visited the website for that activist group, so thats a really strange coincidence if true. The two other references you mention are their own publications, so I'm not sure what the relevance is of this opinion article you mention (I also have no idea who Ton Baars is). Anyway, if your point is that some dude with a bias is involved in the research, then I find that to be a pretty weak line of reasoning. My point with this data is that it all points in a direction of benefit, with a plausible biological mechanism. I can acknowledge that data while simaltaneously holding my position that raw milk should not become mainstream.

@ButHisEmails @tylerblack32 None. Are double-blind RCTs your minimum standard for evidence?

@HiddenPinky @tylerblack32 Yes, but this response allowed such practices to continue because there was no incentive for being hygenic.

@AdrianKviolin I dont think anyone should ever stare at the sun. Completely unnecessary for the visual and circadian benefits of sunlight, and potentially harmful.

@ButHisEmails @tylerblack32 We do. Here's a prior post of mine where I discuss them. x.com/i/status/19873…

Alex Leaf @Alexleaf

7 months ago

I wrote about the literature on raw milk safety almost a year ago, which I will link to in a follow-up comment, but I think it is also worth looking at the potential benefits. First, to summarize my prior post, the major routes of milk contamination are environmental

12 4 35 14K 15

Sorry, I should have been more specific that I was referring to the data showing hygenically produced raw milk has lower pathogen counts than pasteurized. I would never promote raw milk on a mass scale because there needs to be a level of care with creating it that many people arent interested in doing. Also, just an interesting note about the study that you shared, the absolute risk of illness from raw milk is about 0.007%, or roughly 1 per 14,500 drinkers.