>>5813717

>Conservatives tend to have more magnified responses to disgusting images, but scientists don’t know exactly why, Montague said.

>The responses could be a callback to the deep, adverse reactions primitive ancestors needed to avoid contamination and disease. To prevent unsavory consequences, (((they had to learn to separate the canteen from the latrine.)))

Kek! i.e. Libs have more trouble distinguishing between the two.

Saddening. However, seems about right in light of the horrendous number of victim and abuse pics in the breads lately, capped from websites that offer them up as shining examples of "beauty" and "art", etc. with comment sections that frankly run the spectrum of perverse.

>>5813877

>magnified response

It simply means they have a stronger negative reaction to disgusting images. If you show pics of a dude licking a toilet bowl rim, conservative will internally recoil at the thought of doing such a thing and all the germs and filth and disease you could get from it. By inference, Libs would have less of a negative reaction or no negative reaction at all.

Broadly speaking.

It is possible to numb yourself to what is right and what is wrong, to exchange good for evil and evil for good.

1 Timothy 4:2

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; (((having their conscience seared with a hot iron;)))

>>5814045

>If I were Q, I'd probably have figured out how to weaponize this phenomenon against them.

No doubt.

>>5814168

> I push it aside in my mind and keep pushing forward.

Perfectly reasonable. Homicide detectives I'm sure come across some very disturbing sights. It is possible to be a witness without being consumed by what you are witnessing and without becoming the type who would perpetrate such gruesome acts. God bless the ones who work in the worst conditions in service to things that are good and righteous.