If I remember correctly, the controversy was not over changing her model, but in changing a victory pose that highlighted that part of her model. So they nerfed how much she showed off her butt, basically.

Let me explain the angle that I am coming at this from:

I am trans. I am not specifically non-binary, but I appreciate all types of trans and non-binary representation in media, and want to support it. I appreciate it because it shows that the creator is willing to stand up for my people, and because it helps to normalize our existence to the audience of the media. Both of those reasons depend on how explicit the representation is, because both depend on the average viewer of the media being aware of the character being trans and/or non-binary.

To me, this does not seem like explicit non-binary representation at all. Kit could be considered to be whatever gender the user wants, maybe even subconsciously. I don’t think Mozilla’s intention is for it to be subtle non-binary representation, either, I think that their intention is for users to be able to view Kit however they want - which would be a binary gender in most cases. They leave the door open for non-binary users to see Kit as non-binary too, which is better than being openly hostile, but in the current environment trans and non-binary people need actual allies to push back against the rampant hostility they face. So I don’t see this as a reason to specifically support Firefox. They’re just doing the bare minimum by not being openly hostile.

To contrast with that, take the mascot of Honkai: Star Rail, Pom-Pom. The developer, MiHoYo, is located in China, so they are legally barred from showing explicit LGBTQ+ representation. However, they go right up to that line and even arguably over it on many occasions, going basically as far as they can without saying it explicitly. Pom-Pom is no exception. All of the characters in the game refer to Pom-Pom with they/them pronouns specifically, including characters who know Pom-Pom very well. That goes far beyond what Mozilla did with Kit, because the implication that Pom-Pom is enby is quite clear and consistent. Mozilla never once used they/them pronouns to refer to Kit from what I have seen, and Mozilla could say outright that Kit is non-binary if they wanted to, so them not doing so is a choice.

Ah, I had not found that page from my research. That seems to explicitly represent the intention that Kit can be whatever gender people want Kit to be.

A correction to make from the research I did:

Mozilla did not say that Kit is non-binary or uses they/them pronouns. Nor did they use they/them pronouns for Kit in official material. They pointedly avoided using pronouns for Kit at all, to keep it ambiguous. It seems like their intention is for the user to see Kit as whatever gender they want Kit to be.

If the recreational use improves your mood, isn’t that a medical purpose too?

Is the line you draw based on the intent of the user or the intent of the provider?

Like, for instance, if someone with ADHD uses caffeine to help them focus better, is that medication? Or, if someone tries a hallucinogen with the intention of opening their mind, is that medication?

A couple more potential examples: Is a trans man using testosterone they purchased on the black market to treat their dysphoria medicating? Is an athlete using the same substance to enhance their performance medicating?

I can certainly vouch for amphetamines*.

*in controlled amounts for people with ADHD

My condolences

I call them the Noughties

When I say Democrats here what I mean is the party leaders and the politicians who align with them (that is, the vast majority of them). There can be individuals who run as Democrats who don’t align with the party, but the party leadership is actively against them. For instance, Zohran Mamdani’s run was opposed by Democrat party leadership. He’s more of an independent than a true Democrat.

Because Democrats are complicit in everything that Republicans do. Democrats exist to create the appearance of opposition, while in reality both parties serve the interests of the wealthy. Uncovering the wealthy class’s depraved deeds does not serve those interests, which is why neither party really wants that.

I think that it is probably good. On the other hand, I don’t think that you necessarily need to build something specifically for that purpose because the internet was basically built from the ground up with anonymity in mind. Some of the internet has moved away from that, but there’s still plenty of capability for people to be anonymous if they want to be.

I suppose that’s probably a way of calling them a baby?

This checks out with some of the casts I’ve seen of Korean Starcraft players.

Yeah, actually, that brings up a good point. If poll taxes are unconstitutional and you have to pay to get your ID card, then ID requirements for voting should also be unconstitutional.

There are many people who hold the views of both Christianity and trying to be good, but they don’t realize that their Christian views misdirect their efforts to be good (sometimes towards active harm instead).

If God is omnipotent like they believe, then it should not be possible to harm God and therefore it should not be possible to sin against God. Any harm that befalls God would be purely voluntary on his part.

If their account of God is correct, he’s definitely not a good person, choosing to punish all future generations for something that didn’t really harm him at all.

To play devil’s advocate real quick, that system has no teeth in actually stopping kids from signing up to services. I remember lying about my birthday for Neopets to register an account - and later I couldn’t remember what I said it was originally. So if we assume that services should be responsible for keeping kids out of adult spaces, then some form of verification is necessary.

In reality, I don’t think I agree with that assumption. I lean toward things being free and open - including potentially letting kids access adult spaces. There are certainly dangers in that but I don’t think that segregation and surveillance are the best way to address those dangers. If anything, segregating kids into “for kids” parts of the internet puts them at much more risk of abuse because the abusers can go there to find a target-rich environment with few adult onlookers to expose them.

Hey, I’ve seen this one before.

Last time it was crypto instead of AI, but other than that it’s just the same shit again.

I wish for him to learn some better judgement.