I’m not necessarily saying that the old ways were better, just that it’s interesting how much can change in one lifetime. I wonder what we consider harmless today that will be taboo in two decades.
My guess is social media is next.
How can this even be true? As a wise man once said, I type big booba in google and get million result.
I vote in every election. But in this instance my vote didn't matter in a very literal sense. Depending on what laws they pass next year I might not be able to access necessary medical care or even safely live in the state anymore. I don't plan on stopping voting, as I consider it my civic duty, but with political shenanigans like this I don't blame younger generations for feeling like their vote doesn't count.
I'd argue that gerrymandered votes matter more in primary elections for the dominant party. Primaries tend to be thinly attended, so a concerted effort by, say, Republicans in a heavily Democratic district would have a far better chance of ousting the Democratic incumbent in the primary than in the general.
Only if you do a bad job of it.
> Gerrymandering means a small number of districts with a large advantage for party A and a large number of districts with a small advantage for party B.
No, it doesn't.
Suppose you had a 5-district, 50-50 population state, with the population distributed homogenously enough that without weird district lines you would get 5 competitive, near 50-50 seats. An effective partisan gerrymander might make one 70-30 seat for the disfavored party and four 55-45 seats for the favored party, every seat being less competitive than without a gerrymander.
Sure, if you assume something that never happens, then I would be wrong.
In practice all states have D cities and R rural areas. To increase the number of R districts they create a bunch of districts that are mostly rural along with enough of the cities that instead of a small number of solidly R rural districts they have a larger number of mixed districts that lean R.
(And D's do the inverse).
This is happening all across the country, and it reeks of a political and ruling class who is unwilling to cede power to fresh faces.
Some extremes that were early in the game, sure, but there's probably tens of thousands of people who posted/did things they didn't want to do to make ends meet and pay the rent.
Unlike the first profession, this time it's images and videos permanently saved to an always available and easily scraped/abused fairly well replicated database, and I can imagine that people get more desperate as the money fails to flow in, which I fully expect onlyfans is exploiting.
I'm not sure it's an economy that should exist. The traditional porn market was bad enough, but onlyfans seems 100x worse to me since it's basically the Uberification of sexwork or whatever you like to call it.
It's a really fucked up system through and through.
soon we'll just have LLaMA2-Onlyfans-Chat-Generic-V1.0 and if you'd like a premium version and have enough logs, LLaMa2-Onlyfans-Chat-<YourUserName>-v1.0 -- just let us know which time you were you and which time it was someone else, so we can make a premium product.
Not to mention being able to just make potential images with SD LoRA's -- which you dont have to be the creator to make.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/235280/americans-say-pornograph...
Liberals (and in particular, young men) are the biggest movers, but across the board, all demographics have shown increases.
Only one political party is making this a legal issue (and therefore, putting it in mainstream debate) in the first place.
The prudishness manifested differently. I recall a lot more nudity and at least as many sex scenes in movies I watched as a kid (under 18).
Highlander
Lethal Weapon
Robocop
Life of Brian
Even OG Batman had some nudity and referenced sex in it as a PG-13.
Exposed breasts and sex scenes were pretty common. Full frontal nudity was even relatively common. And sometimes wouldn't even garner an R rating.
There’s a TV channel for old shows/movies here. Clothed nipples are obscured. A sci-fi movie, the plaque on the NASA satellite with nude human figures was obscured. Who will protect the aliens?
Tipper Gore and Jerry Falwell lost the battle, but they won the war.
With that context, yeah, we are more prudish about movies and such today. That said, it's easier to distribute and sell NC-17+ materials today than it ever has been.
To put it another way; if you really loved freedom, you wouldn’t be “granting” freedom to wear leggings in return for our own to call you a creep.
He’s granting them the “freedom” from shame, and in return they won’t shame him by calling him a creep. If he has to become a creep, he won’t change himself he’ll try to change others by calling them names too.
Natural meat, assuming the stuff from bioreactors works out. People already coo over livestock escaping to freedom in time to avoid the slaughterhouse.
Booze, if someone can invent a different social lubricant without ethanol's impact on things like driving and making bad decisions.
Apparently diamonds are non-stick; if so, Teflon cookware will probably be replaced with ginormous synthetic diamond surfaces.
Possibly BDSM: given the moral panic about porn when I was growing up was about porn encouraging misogynistic abuse, I'm surprised that Fifty Shades of Grey was ever popular (as are the people I know who are into BDSM), though from what I heard from second hand book sellers… perhaps it was a book people bought more than they read.
Some random subset of food additives is a safe bet. And for moral panics, synthetic materials, so lets say… rare earth magnets because everyone thinks they clog up your chakras or something.
David Nutt's working on that (GABALabs). Not sure if it'll pan out. I tried Sentia and maybe it works maybe it doesn't, but I do know it's undrinkable.
You're that implying exposing children to porn is considered harmless today. Considered harmless by whom exactly?
This isn't about being taboo, this is about parents that don't want to be responsible and let their kids watch porn, it's already illegal to expose children to that. But nobody wants to take responsibility, not the ISP, not the parents, not the online porn companies themselves, nobody.
So in an environment where something illegal is perpretrated, if nobody wants to take responsibility then it's up to the legislator to FORCE someone to take responsibility. It turns out it's the digital pimps this time...
No, they clearly explicitly stated that exposing children to porn when considered harmless when they were 13, but is now hot topic in the media today.