Serious question: why not? I was under the impression their security and privacy were pretty much the best that's available to non-technical users.

"Macron has been somewhat limiting the damage" is one of those statements that's technically a good thing compared to the alternative, yet horrifying in its implications.

It's because pro-Israel people are used to having a veto they can use to shut down anything that goes against their narrative, so when that isn't working the only mental model they have is that the situation's been reversed.

Ah yes. Everyone who doesn't choose to blindly believe that the Democrats will break with their established character and suddenly start doing the right things is a fed. Of course. How silly of me.

Isn't that hobby-horsing? I'm pretty sure they have a dressage event.

I shouldn't ruin your joke with facts though.

Like the Cass Review, the Sullivan Review is politics-based-evidence-making.

It operates as "Contrived Authority" (@natacha.bsky.social), putting a stamp of 'academia' and 'science' onto a political project of removal of trans rights & erasure or denial of the existence of trans children.

*evil. Not stupid. They knew it was the obvious outcome but they also knew it would be easier for their friends to get away with flagrant illegality, so they were in favour.

Anarchy would be vastly preferable. Increasingly, this should be true even to those with very low opinions of anarchists.

Even now they won't admit their base wants ICE abolished, not splashed with QR codes. When they're murdering people in the streets. Even now they're blaming the left for this happening.

What makes you think they'll stop throwing queer people under the bus beyond wishcasting it?

If you're using "the police aren't as bad" as a defence now, you'll use it later too. Engage with the concept, coward.

I'll agree with *that*; I just think it's unhelpful to broaden the *term* paedophilia when there's not an alternative for that but *is* preexisting language for authoritarianism, hierarchical attitudes, &c.

I still don't think it's comparable to the other items. There are five things that are independently worrisome, and one (presented identically) which is only contextually so.

It really isn't… but it *is* built on principles that *also advantage* child-molesters. It's *built* on hierarchy, on preservation and defense of the powerful. That's true even when paedophilia isn't involved (though it creates conditions that often lead that to change).

Right. So I don't think it works particularly as a First Step because it'll face exactly as much resistance as wholesale reform would. It's a good idea on its own merits, just not particularly better as a partial strategy.

I mean, you presumably knew about the last one… but that one really shouldn't be on the list.