Autism diagnosis does not really focus on social interactions. Difficulties in social interaction are a side effect but it is not how they diagnose the condition.
Most (like 90% or more) autistic people are low functioning. But they are completely invisible to people like you. When you hear the word you think of the border line cases that fall under the label "high functioning autism".
But the author is not limiting himself to just these borderline cases.
For the record no real feminist would publish this horseshit. It is one thing to advocate for better conditions for sex workers. It is another thing entirely to pimp young girls on the internet, and to even equate the two while pretending to be a feminist is just despicable.
The argument holds no water and it is pretty disgusting of this uber-for-porn pimp to pretend he is doing good.
Porn is like weed. If you want to consume it ethically you need to verify your sources. These cam sites have their own serious exploitation issues that are completely being ignored.
If you go on reddit you can find many threads discussing cam girls who are suspected to either be underage or be literal sex slaves.
There are actual ethical porn producers of various flavours (also featured on HN quite a few times). Onlyfans is not one of them.
Yes in some ideal environment a sex worker and a pimp could have a mutually beneficial relationship. But that is not why pimping is looked down upon. And you made no honest attempt to address the issues that exist in practice.
They are literal pimps doing literal pimp work: recruiting young girls, connecting them with clients, and taking a cut of the profit, while keeping control of the whole business.
It is not my fault you are offended.
I would have no problem if these sex workers setup their own site and did their own business directly with their clients. No pimp would be involved then. There would be no recruiting, which is also where I see a big problem. And nobody would be taking a cut.
Looks like the porn industry is bankrolling a PR campaign to legitimize their business.
It is particularly amusing to see them pretend they are feminists when in truth practically all feminists hate porn.
And I also find amusing the implication that onlyfans is a win for sex workers. Yeah, maybe for the typical porn star it is a better deal, but on the other hand they are also corrupting a lot of young girls that would otherwise have never gone into porn.
I have the same exact problem! I wanted to delete my account, just in case, but I cannot login.
I haven't used Paypal in over 10 years.
Their "service" is really not needed anymore.
I calculated fuel savings if I owned an EV. I did it for Germany. The fuel savings are basically negligible (it was about 200 Euros per year). This is due to high electricity prices.
In the US at least you can say, I will pay $15k more upfront, but then I will get it back in fuel savings.
But in Europe people drive far less and electricity is significantly more expensive.
It's a psychology thing. People feel less if they are sharing a road with somebody who is sitting way higher than them.
Also big cars feel (and probably are) safer (for the occupants).
So now there is a sort of race to for SUV adoption.
You are right that you also have to include taxes, but you also have to account for the fact that taxes are dependent on income and coverage is always guaranteed.
So it is not the same as paying for a service. It is something else.
The "online" part is the inherent problem because suddenly every user has access to 10,000 other users, which creates problems for both sides.
When you have people meeting irl, they are meeting far less new people at a given time so they put more effort into each interaction, making dating more pleasant.
>I think the main problem is that the prime selection criterion for most women is not looks.
Says who? The men who do best with women are the most physically attractive. No other demographic does better. You can have $10M in the bank and still not elicit the same kind of attraction as the stereotypical tall, dark and handsome white man.
You can make persuasive arguments that might not appeal to the scientifically literate rationalist, but will appeal to the somebody who is just using very crude heuristics and might have ended up believing in a conspiracy theory.
For example regarding climate change: you can construct an argument around the ridiculous idea that scientists are somehow taking on the worldwide fossil fuel industries, and the most powerful and ruthless countries on earth, including the US, Russia, China and Saudi Arabia, and they are doing this because by inventing a lie about the earth warming up. The very lopsided power dynamics in this scenario expose the conspiracy theory for the farce that it is.
I see scientists who put themselves in the public sphere behaving like this mostly. They double down on the science, when people are questioning the whole institution rather than whether or not some particular science is correct.