chicken

Whether the porn has good or bad politics won’t actually change whether or not they believe we need to be kept away from children

I don't know how much it would actually effect it either way but it definitely determines whether whatever narrative and characterization is present implies it. If it's furry porn it is way less likely to have the typical hentai theme of woman + penis = uncontrollable sexual aggression for instance.

That's all fair, and I can see how right wing porn memes contribute to that kind of problem. Trans women need more non-pornographic representation and not be automatically treated as fetish objects. Still, I think it's relevant that this is about something someone was saying about furry porn, which as a whole has pro-LGBT politics.

Why are you assuming the depiction would be dehumanizing? Just how constrained do you want porn artists and their viewers to be? Bigoted and hateful porn exists, but so does porn with a progressive message, and the distinction is not which groups of people have been depicted.

If you want to focus on the word and move the euphemism treadmill along because it's become associated with offensive stereotypes, that's understandable, but you're probably not getting any closer by calling people r*dditors just for saying it. As porn tags go I think 'futanari' is overall on its way out, for instance you won't find it on the tag lists of e621 posts because the word is aliased to other tags and not used directly.

This whole thread is weird to me because being approached in public by people wanting to talk almost never happens. Not that I'm complaining exactly, it's confusing and concerning when it does, but it's hard to imagine it as such a normal thing that it has become a commonplace annoyance.

An ebike doesn't pose nearly the risk to the public as a car does, it's much closer to being as dangerous as a non-powered bicycle, which is not very. If people fall for the argument that ebikes need plates, plates for normal bikes probably aren't too far off. I don't think it's ever going to be the case that overall public safety is meaningfully worse because cops can't easily track down rogue cyclists as easily as cars, but it's easy to imagine cops having a real time map of cyclist locations being a threat to civil liberties.

A better way of doing it could be classifying them as motorcycles if they are built to go very far above the maximum speed possible on your own power, incentivizing most that are sold to be slow enough that the safety considerations are more or less equivalent. That would remove any small decrease in safety without building up more surveillance infrastructure.

Weird way to pitch government mandated identity checks to use the internet. I guess that will really show those billionaires.

I think maybe there's more layers to it though, to me what stands out first about this is the perversity and wrongness of a bloodstain from a homicide being framed and regarded as art at all.

I think it's a warning that if you are a man it is gay to touch the pineapple

There's also the privacy angle. There should be legal ways to get around without being tracked by license plate readers.

Who needs budgets when you have terrible anxiety about spending money

Cory misrepresents the arguments (well basically hides them) in order to not have to face any material criticism and turns them into “you just don’t like these people” which frames the criticism as emotional and not rational.

Well, isn't it? IMO some of the most popular arguments against generative AI are founded in misinformation and/or don't have strong rational defenses, even though there are better arguments further down the list, but that doesn't stop anyone because in the court of public opinion rhetoric and emotion trumps rational argument. This becomes really obvious when you try to publicly confront the failings of these arguments, in most cases the discussion will devolve into personal attacks immediately as people interpret argument as support of the enemy. If Cory Doctorow is being a little weaselly and failing to lay out an ethical position with full forthrightness, that's probably because doing so is a recipe for making everyone angry at you, regardless of your views, and since he's a public figure attempting to persuade people who mostly agree with him anyway and aren't trying to think too hard it would be a stupid choice.

It would be great if we had a culture where it was safe to lay out and consider ethical ideas on their merits without holding anything back, but we just don't, and it's unfair to demand that from people who have to answer to the public because every single one of them would get crushed if they actually did it.

Because I don't trust you and shouldn't have to.