leetamus

That nuts, thanks for the context.

According to Wikipedia the overwhelming majority of Americans support gay marriage. It actually references the 90’s as the turning point which seems to support my original comment.

wiki

What issue or what article?

Peruse my comments. Huge let down. But thanks for your support.

I guess prepare to be let down?

Sorry dude. I read the article and see the only cites of conservatives losing it are a couple social media comments from random noname people with no clear political view.

I don’t follow foreign politics so I have no clue what you’re trying to say, but in my country the older thinkers give zero fucks about people being gay.

Either way, do you think this article sincerely found conservatives freaking out about gay animals because I do not see that in this article. It does the world no favours manifesting polarization without substance.

And by conservatives you mean two random twitter accounts that, at least in the article screens, do not mention their political view at all, one random youtube commenter with no mention of political views, and one conservative sports website which is kind of a weird crossover.

Let’s keep it real here, that article is trying suuuuper hard to be edgy with nothing much to cling to. Conservatives stopped talking about gay people in the 90’s.

Effectively making it illegal to create likenesses of people. She’s talking about an edited photo unless I’m mistaken? She wants to make it illegal to create a video of someone in a pornographic state. I assume that’s because porn specifically is a hard limit for her. But why can’t that hard limit be something else down the road like making images of people doing illegal things? Or just things you’re not comfortable with?

Making edits of people is nothing new. The only difference is the ease of access to quality edits which, in my opinion, only serves to discredit photo and video as evidence of fact and I’m totally ok with that already.

This seems like a slippery slope.