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.

If you are limiting your statement to people you personally know, then it’s not responding to the statement in the image, so why would we assume that was your intended interpretation? If you are stating that you can imagine a person like I described exists, but no real person could possibly match that description, you are talking nonsense. If you are merely stating your personal ignorance of other people, then congratulations, weird flex but educate yourself.

Since you don’t know, it would be bothersome to normal people if someone says something about the world (as they interpret that statement, as mentioned) that is untrue, or if they perceive someone to be making efforts to detract from good-faith conversation. Perhaps that alleviates your uncertainty about the reason.

I interpreted “children” in your comment to mean minors, as the idea of anyone with parents being an inappropriate target for whatever “pedosmearing” would be a very weird interpretation. So which is it?

Equating the desired fear of the former to the present fear of the gay (in some people). I also infer the desired fear of gay sons should be equal to present fear of the former or, better yet, none.

What? I don’t see where children are mentioned other than implied as victims of pedophilia. “Sons” does not imply children.

You can’t imagine a person who would excuse getting someone so drunk they no longer refuse sex as “boys will be boys” behavior or similar nonsense, but would express actual disapproval of their child entering a same-sex relationship? It doesn’t just mean “convicted of assaulting a young white woman at gunpoint”.

Taking ball-room a bit literally there, innit?

Honest question: is that not just being complicit in their cover up? If they say nothing happened and nobody is allowed in to verify anything, then you say nothing has been verified yet so you’ll assume nothing has happened, it’s that not just doing exactly what they want? How are you supposed to prevent atrocities if all they have to do is deny and refuse outside observation for you to remain inactive?

If you’re unable to explain something as basic as reading (and you clearly didn’t bother practicing it either), I’m not sure if explanations are really the right thing for you, but I guess I’ll try anyway: Even if those were her only motives (which I’d already have to stretch pretty far to accept), that would not refute the comment you replied to, nor would it support any other inferences one might make from your opposition. Thus, I questioned what meaning you had actually intended to contribute to the conversation, since I assumed that you were trying to communicate some coherent point and not just be a waste of space and energy. If this attempt at insulting me was all you could muster in response though, I don’t have high hopes of every hearing that point, and I should probably rethink that assumption.

You might think so, but the best option is actually to put traffic lights out in the fields (which might actually be close enough to plausible to convince somebody with bad maps).

Yeah, I had a similar situation in my 20s, younger kid (6-10?), on a road trip in another country. Nothing that would be individually extreme enough to feel intervention was necessary or that overtly established something else going on the rest of the time, but the vibes were off-the-charts bad and I assumed that, if anything, it had to be even worse away from public scrutiny. The kid was really trying, and honestly was taking it better than I was, just as a bystander, though maybe some of it flew past her. I wasn’t in a state to take over driving after that, and it actually kinda messed me up for a few days. I don’t think it was a situation I’d have the skill to mediate if I did gather myself enough to jump into it, let alone whether any sort of bystander intervention would have a net positive impact. Still don’t know what I would or could do if something like that happened again.

Yes, murder in all cases. Not like I fully analyzed my word choice at the time, but I think I did have some intent behind calling it that so I’ll see if I piece that back together: I think my overall stance was pretty well established at that point, so not risking confusion there. For “journalist-killing” vs “-murdering”, my guess is that the former just rolled off the [mental] tongue better, and I would’ve been more concerned about ambiguous attribution, for which both are basically equal, than morality, so just went with that. I believe “unaliving” supported the more casual off-tone of that question (“doing a little … on the side”) as part of my facetious approach towards the other comment, using that discongruity with the subject matter to emphasize the absurdity I was alleging in the other comment. The frog might be completely unrecognizable at this point though, so YMMV, but yeah, the intent of that word choice wasn’t to obscure the nature of that [potential] violence or avoid censorship or other automated tools, I do stand behind considering it kidnapping and murder.

What, getting your cause in the news because you got arrested for supporting it, while also showing the wrongdoers doing wrongs, doesn’t have a positive impact? Does getting in the news prevent a genocidal, journalist-killing regime from doing a little activist-unaliving on the side? Or is it that no one could possibly have motives less narcissistic and self-serving than our so-called “leaders”? What even are you saying?

Hey, if you’ve still got enough digits for blackjack, no problem

That page is troublingly silent on how the phases are actually connected. I would assume each smaller outlet gets one of the phase legs plus neutral and ground, but why can’t it just say that?

Eh, I think master is used (AFAIK) unproblematicly in other contexts like a master key, recording master, and master pattern. Converting it to “main” seems like a change or loss of meaning, but the problem may be that there is not really a consistent meaning across electronics usage to start with. I think “secondary” has some connotation of filling the same purpose or type as the primary, which doesn’t really fit for m/s usage. Master/sheep is my most similar option that keeps the “m/s”, but it feels awkward enough to draw attention to what it replaces. Could just do master (or main) and sub, where “sub” could mean substitute, subordinate, subscriber, [submissive,] etc. as needed.