I think your last paragraph is really the crux of it. Technically, I’d agree with the statement “service [vs ‘support’?] animals should be reserved for those who need them”, except that I don’t think anyone can really define what “need” and “service” mean (or even “animal” and “reserved” really); I don’t think I’d agree with anyone who is actually using that statement in their line of arguments either. Competing needs can be a hard, or even impossible, problem to practically solve, but trying to find a global answer or rule for who gets precedence isn’t gonna be much help, which also makes it hard to regulate/legislate fairly.

Interesting article, and one I am sympathetic to, but the inclusion of “Western” (and democratic, to a lesser extent) alongside educated, industrialized, and rich when transitioning from talking about a “lack of sanitation” to “adequate sewage disposal” was kinda… jarring?

Other cultures may not have the same type of porcelain thrones we use, but I think the EIR parts still have effective plumbing, even without being WD. Or do they just not have any of the same issues and pressures around public toilets?

Thought this was literally a video of a loading circle for a while, and figured “Well, I guess the OP technically hit the liminal nail on the head” when I got jumpscared by the blobbrain loading in.

That’d have to be at close range though, to create some sort of a temporary seal, right (as far as my physics intuition says)? Otherwise it should behave roughly similar to water in an open environment, where it would have to be the speed of the jet hitting you that does the raw damage.

Doing proper maintenance is more applicable to someone who owns or is responsible for firearms. I think the rule for the casual finder would be adding something like “assume moving any part of the gun may cause something inside to explode”.

I’m definitely not honest with myself, though usually in unrelated matters, so perhaps I need handholding here. Taking the statement in reverse, non-lesbian porn is unenjoyable because either

-A. It doesn’t show women recieving oral sex, or

-B. It doesn’t center on female pleasure.

Is that more substantial than just a preference in content? Is being in the minority of video viewership and recieving minority market attention the embedded misogyny? Or is it more about the participants/subjects than the viewers, as the other poster suggested? What connection am I missing?

I don’t think I disagree with the point you’re making on misogyny, but I’m having a hard time following the argument. To my understanding, the original claim about “bodies existing for sexual gratification” frequently applies to men in male-male content as well (including as being viewed by women, to complete the mirror image). So the thing that makes it misogyny, as opposed to general misanthropy or class exploitation, is that female-female content is included under the “straight” label while male-male isn’t?

Taking those stats on video viewership though would seem to support a claim that a site is assuming a male viewer, and using the “straight” label as applied to the (male) viewer would select any content containing their desired sex (women), both male-female and female-female. That assumption of male viewer and self-applied label would also support seeing male-male but not female-female under the “gay” label (though with male-female missing, perhaps explained with something about self-insert or observer vs recipient, but maybe that goes toward your point). Having a misleading UI and making not-unprobable assumptions about viewers feels less problematic though?

I’m trying not to take a position that would vilify pornography or those involved by default, but maybe I’m holding onto that too strongly or letting too much of my own bias in. Am I missing the point entirely or just seeing it the wrong way?

You are saying these ladies are doing cellular nucleus fusion with cervixes in their spines? Next you’re gonna tell me that they’ve got a sphincter in the esophagus and areolas in the eyeballs.

I assumed it was just the numbers on the image, not the level of ADHD. As in “a person with ADHD who matches with number 5 on the imagination scale in the OP”.

An “error” could be like it did a grammar wrong or used the wrong definition when interpreting, or something like an unsanitized input injection. When we’re talking about an LLM trying to convince the user of completely fabricated information, “hallucination” conveys that idea much more precisely, and IMO differentiating the phenomenon from a regular mis-coded software bug is significant.