Absolutely it is not universal, but that's... kind of the problem.
Porn isn't that big of an issue either way. Left-wing movements can take a stance on whatever side of it. The problem is when issues like this end up being targeted at some portions of the left-wing spectrum but not to others and you end up with a split down the middle that one or both sides decide to make into a dealbreaking issue.
Hey, if you just happen to be a run of the mill traditional prudish conservative that would actually be mildly heartening. I genuinely don't care about those continuing to run that line.
Still not wrong about the underlying issue, though. And for the record, I don't think anti-porn so-called "abolitionists" are "my enemy". I think all left of center forces are my allies, personally. The problem is single issue wedges used as hostile propaganda do work, as seen very clearly in the case of trans issues.
I mean, ChatGPT broke the top 5 most visited sites earlier this year.
People do use chatbots, but there is a biiiig gap between popping in to a chatbot to... I don't know, help you remember the name of a movie, or sub in for Google Translate or check your spelling or whatever people are doing in there, and a very different one to push it as an agentic always-there ur-feature.
Chatbots are alright at chatbotting, but most of these other applications are way out of spec and just don't work or fit the user experience of the software they're being bolted on to.
I sometimes think the overzealous, always-online blanket rejection of GenAI stuff is doing a disservice by obscuring the things that have an use from all this forced garbage designed to tick a checkbox.
FWIW, I'll happily keep ignoring these features as long as I'm able to actually ignore them. It's a bit of a waste, but not a dealbreaker. The whole conversation, the irrational stances, the insane, transparent false hype and the quivering economy-ending bubble are all exhausting and incredibly depressing.
I, once again, did not say or imply that I am persecuted in any way.
I do think porn is free expression, of sexuality and otherwise, and should be protected about as much as any other form of free expression. Which is not universally and without limit, before you try that one.
And all of that is not the same as saying I "can't stand criticism" about it. Which I didn't say or think. I will actively, aggressively criticise actual porn, both as a media product and as an industry.
Once again, the strawmanning and talking points aren't doing much to disprove the notion that anti-porn activism will become the new TERF-like trojan horse wedge among ostensible leftist movements going forward. People don't like to talk about those, but they are bad and this is incoming.
There are definitely ways to send backwards compatible data when required and separately support additional features in a new iteration of an API. This wouldn't be in the top 10 backwards compatibility challenges MS has figured out.
But in any case, I don't care if they call it XInput2 or Game Input. I just need it to support all controller features in all games. It's a bit hard to tell whether Game Input will ever do that, but so far it seems more concerned with acting as a layer to explicitly support a bunch of different hardware, each with its own standards, than a XInput replacement for controllers. There doesn't seem to be a concept for a "Game Input controller" there at all, actually, just supported controllers you can listen for regardless of what they're sending through.
I guess over time if they stick with it and it does end up working as a Steam Input-style intermediary layer that just recognizes anything you'd just ship controllers that match whatever format with gyro support and Game Input-enabled games would just pick them up fine more or less universally, but that doesn't seem to be what it does right now, or at least not something that either games or manufacturers are relying upon.
Anyway, this was interesting and informative, but I think I'm good now. I definitely don't want to have a conversation formatted as an argument in which nobody is disagreeing with anybody else. Those are exhausting.
That's a cool argument you're having with a thing nobody said.
Educating children about sex in general is educating children about sex (and nobody here has argued against it or equated it with being anti-porn).
There is a rising trend in European lefitsm, and particularly in European feminism, that argues that all porn is inherently pernicious and ultimately should not exist.
Note those are two separate statements.
You definitely dabbled in the second of those statements when you claimed that "that [can't] be considered safe for anyone". Whether you meant to say what you said is in your head, but as presented that slope is both mighty slippery AND very consistent with some of the very anti sex-work trend I'm talking about. The false equivalence and misquote at the top of your response doesn't lead me to believe you're treating this "objectively", either.
Waaay better than the porn bans and online age verification schemes, honestly.
I question why this is just for "children who show mysoginistic behavior", though. Sex ed should be universal, and this should be a major part of sex ed.
I assume the fear here is parents complaining about their kids being talked about porn, which may end up being a larger underlying issue than the porn itself. I guess you just have to trust that education professionals handle the opportunity well and this doesn't become a stern talking to for problem kids, which is likely to do as much as stern talking tos have done historically.
"Young humans" sure. Not young humans, you absolutely do you.
There's a bit of an emerging trend in leftist European circles in particular that sees porn as inherently patriarchal and wrong and we're not ready for how much anti-porn is going to be the new terfism yet. This is going to suck a lot, and not in a good way.
There are boys in trousers in the picture, though. And no real "short" skirts.
I mean... you do you, but some of this may be an eye of the beholder situation.
Good to know. In fairness, I don't think you can get that much Coke in anything but plastic. They don't do 1L cans and there are thick plastic bottles starting at 500ml, so thin plastic may actually be better.
I do think there's a 1L glass bottle, but it's more of a special edition thing. I don't think it's easy to find in supermarkets and I havent' seen it anywhere else. And for any soft drink other than specifically Coca Cola it's mostly just plastic for anything above 500 mil.
Is there anybody on Lemmy that isn't a software engineer of some description? No? Anyone?
It... kinda sounds like judgement.
So what happens to... you know, Uber drivers, software engineers for social media and Amazon drivers? Because there's a biiig spectrum of work under capitalism, and it doesn't fit particularly neatly in "selling your body" or "helping people".
Look, nobody is saying that sex work can't be exploitative or even that it's not generally exploitative. The legal gray areas and general ickiness of the entire space is... a lot, and I think it needs specific regulation. But to take it as a uniquely patriarchal, capitalistic thing distinct from "normal" work requires not seeing it as proper labor, but as inherently... well, they do kind of abuse the word "abolition" very pointedly.
That has a long, nasty tradition with pretty unhealthy side effects, honestly.
In any case, that's the rhetorical trick I'm worried about. You let the right own sex work AND you let the stance on this split feminist/leftist spaces in half and you've manufactured a mix of TERFism and the concession of "free speech" as a fascist talking point. It's a political problem more than a policy problem, frankly.