I don't know the answer to that, TBH. The experts say it's bad. It's illegal...so I tell them they need to follow the law. I don't think a 10yo and 12yo should be picking and choosing which laws the follow or don't follow. Generally, when I don't know the answer, I defer to experts....I also just don't care enough to follow up. Life is just fine if they do normal kid stuff rather than goon to the worst the internet has to offer.

I think it's probably better for them to not have their developing brains saturated with porn designed to stimulate jaded 30-something sex addicts. For example, step-sibling, choking, anilingus, calling each other "mommy" and "daddy"...that kind of stuff...I'm old, so for me, I grabbed every porn I could find when I was underage, but it was typical 80s stuff: hot women with huge hair doing very conventional sex stuff. The most extreme thing I saw until the 2000s was fake tits. I don't think it harmed me at all. But again, the porn of the 80s was quite tame. The 70s porn was downright wholesome!...all natural.

While I may fully grasp the intent of that specific law, I think it's a reasonable restriction. Also, life is just easier when you demand your kids follow the law..."Sorry buddy, I'm not the one saying you can't look at those titties....it's the federal government! Blame Donald Trump...he could let you see them, but he doesn't want you to!"

The USA used to be a reliable protector for it's allies. Trump has changed that...in my mind, for the worse...but history will tell. Like I said...shit was horrible when the USA was looming?...OK, well, you'll soon see what life is like when the USA loses interest in your region. The CIA has done shitty things in the Middle East, but let's see how shitty they get once the USA doesn't really give a shit because we have enough oil and Trump doesn't respect alliances....especially since hypersonic missiles now cost the same as a luxury car.

I have 2 kids. We've had many conversations about sex. I've told them they're not allowed to watch porn or consume inappropriate content. However, I also educate them as to why they should wait until they're 18 and frankly, when they want to talk about sex, I make it a boring academic discussion about science and reproduction...so instead of "ooh nice titties"...the conversation goes to lactation and hormones produced and how babies rely on mother's milk during their early years. Sex isn't naughty or scary. When they ask me inappropriate questions, like "how often do you and mommy have sex?"...while it's tempting to remind them there's a lock on the door for a reason....I just politely tell them that's personal information and I don't want to share it. My strategy is to make sex clinical and educational, not naughty.

Both of my pre-teen kids have watched porn without our permission before and had questions. I told them they cannot do that again, but I went through and explained every detail. That naughty cumshot? I explained about the different organs in the male anatomy and the different fluids produced and their purpose and framed things from the perspective of people starting families...which is easier for them to understand. However, I didn't shame them. I'm honestly glad they saw it because then I don't have to explain to them what ejaculation is. Both of them feel very comfortable asking me questions and ask me a lot of them (my wife is less comfortable, but really appreciates how I answer it and how much sex ed trivia I remember).

So rather than let the internet and their friends be their sole source of information, I've set up an environment where they know they can trust me and ask me whatever and I'll never shame them. I prepare my children for the world we live in, not demand the world change so I don't have to teach them what sex is.

But to the point, sex is like traffic. We teach our kids to look both ways before they cross the street. We teach drivers to be mindful of pedestrians, especially children. We don't go around banning cars to nerf the world for our children.

Porn is irrelevant to feminism. People who oppose legal porn for non-religious reasons have issues with sex....no other reason. It's like drinking. I don't like to drink, some do. However, I don't go around claiming people who enjoy drinking legally are harming women because I am uncomfortable around drunk assholes. I just accept they're into something I find disgusting and not good for me, personally. Porn is a profession with a market. It's no more degrading than driving an uber or cleaning someone's toilet....but often more lucrative. However, as you've stated, there is no problem. It's a fucking job, or more likely, a side hustle. Some jobs suck, some are awesome. To me, sex performers are like any other performers...being a struggling musician seems like a worse life than showing your tits on OnlyFans, IMHO. However, it's a valid line of work providing a service than harms no one. Women who claim porn is sexist are trying to control others.

Porn is often pretty gross to many people. That's OK. It's not for you. Most of the hit songs on the radio are gross to me. Every major religion is gross to me. I don't go around telling everyone we need to ban annoying pop music or religion. I don't even shame people who are into it. I'm happy they find their joy so long as they don't harm me or try to make me partake in their gross behavior.

The massive problem with the Feminist movement is that it isn't official. Anyone can claim to be a feminist and we have a bad habit as a society of taking them seriously. In contrast, Catholicism has well defined doctrines. Someone can't go around applying their personal prejudices based on being a Catholic...they can't say "Fat chicks are gross and heretical to the Catholic Church"...you could ask any priest and they'll quickly tell you that person is full of shit and doesn't speak for them.

Unfortunately, because feminism is an idea, not a specific movement, there is no authority to say what is feminist and what isn't. So you're some awful misandrist who blames men for all your failings in life?...and I know a LOT of women like that. You can go around and call yourself a feminist. You can say you speak on behalf of feminists...and everything that irks your personal prejudices...like women more attractive than you monetizing their bodies and receiving adoration you will never receive is sexist and anti-women.

And my tribe, the liberals, have a VERY BAD habit of not questioning people that speak for them. So many are too afraid to be called sexist, so it's easier to just let Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, Gail Dines, Susan Brownmiller, etc rant and say absurd bullshit like "Porn is rape"..."All performers were coerced into performing (which is technically rape)"...and Brownmiller's famous "porn is practice for violence against women." None of these horrible people bothered to talk to the performers. Dworkin was ABSOLUTELY nuts and thought marriage was rape...all men are rapists...all bi/heterosexual women are anti-feminist traitors, etc.

Liberals let female incels define a major wing of feminism because they didn't have the common sense to question their obvious bullshit. Few would let Andrew Tate speak for the male gender....yet Andrea Dworkin's obviously stupid bullshit is taught in universities...not as being actually correct, just as being an alternate idea.

And their worst nightmare has come true. Porn is legal. Porn is VERY prevalent. EVERYONE enjoys porn. Guess what....violence against women is down...rape is down. Misogyny is down since everything they wrote. Why?...PORN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROBLEMS WOMEN FACE!!!!! The crimes against women had a lot more in common with crime, in general, which has stronger roots in socio-economic issues. Turns out the way to reduce rape is to same way to reduce robbery and murder...don't ban the porn, but increase economic opportunity....provide substance abuse treatment...lock up the mentally ill with criminal intent that can't function in society.

"Genocide is the deliberate, systematic destruction—in whole or in part—of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group". Israel is not targeting civilians, but terrorist organizations. The point of genocide is to target the people, not the combatants. Are they committing atrocities?...maybe, but that's not genocide. Words mean things. Also, that's not the correct use of the world "literal"

Is Israel the good guy?...in my mind, yes, but I am not confident of that and I am open that maybe I'm wrong.

However, what I am very confident about is that Iran is far worse. They do target civilians. They fund groups that target civilians. The only reason Iran isn't committing LITERAL genocide against the Israelis and probably most of the Sunnis is because they lack the ability, not because they're more ethical.

You're comparing nations against your ideals, not reality and their peers. Israel spend a fortune trying to precisely attack specific targets. Iran has no qualms about killing non-combatants. That's a major difference between a democracy and an authoritarian theocratic regime. Again, I'd rather be a civilian living in a nation attacked by Israel than Russia or Iran. No one WANTS to be attacked, obviously, but at least civilized nations make the effort to do the right thing. They fail often...and that's the horrors of war...but the uncivilized ones? Nope...Russia will happily bomb daycares, schools, and civilian powerplants to simply weaken the resolve of their opponents. If Iran has the ability to, they'd do the same. I have no doubt about that.

If you want to discuss things like adults, with actual facts, we can...if you want to be vague and inarticulate...well...go back to your bubble. I'd rather be living Guam or Puerto Rico than Ukraine or any country in the Soviet Union...what about you? Again, be an adult and read the original point instead of mindlessly regurgitating your propaganda. Has the US done bad things? Absolutely! Were they worse than the Soviet Union? NO! Russia? NO! Do we have to go back to before the 20th century?

Read about world history and you'll see the USA sucks...but far less than it's peers.

The USA wants your missiles to go to military targets, so we can either intercept them or handle the damage. We don't want them hitting daycares. So we want accuracy from our adversaries. If anything, it's easier to intercept. But we're not Russia. We'd rather see our soldiers die than babies.

You can say whatever you want in a vacuum, but you have to compare superpowers to superpowers. I'd much rather be a civilian in a nation attacked by Israel than Iran. At least with the USA and Israel, civilian casualties are a mistake. With Russia, it's part of their plan. They intentionally bomb civilian infrastructure targets. Iran endorses terrorism and killing of civilians and funds groups to do so...on a scale that civilized nations cannot match....so again...pull your head out of your ass.

Nations need to be judged compared to PEER nations, not in isolation.

FYI: Trump is a fever and all signs indicate it ends with him. He's a 79yo obese paranoid stress monkey with a well documented cocaine habit and a penchant for fast food who hates to exercise. How the fuck he is still alive is beyond me, but yeah...he's not long for this world and he's very ego-based, not movement based. There is no obvious successor. His kids lack his charisma and come off as spoiled rich brats and grooming anyone else as a successor would challenge his ego. So the USA will look very different soon, I am confident MAGA is not long for the world...but yeah, we're sucking bad now on many fronts.

However, even at our worst, we're still better than the Soviet Union, Russia, France, and Britain at their best. So...how do we compare to them?...the Ottoman empire?....not sure what other major powers there are. China is too upstart to be a true rival IMO...but even then...would you rather be Guam & Puerto Rico or Hong Kong?

Like my phone analogy before. It doesn't matter how we are to your ideals...it matters how we compare to the competition.

His audience loves that. He has a team of writers. The late show is a corporate product, not an artistic one. He's at the helm, but it's less of a reflection of his personal ideas and more what his producers think the audience wants. You don't like it? Well...it has a huge audience...and you're not one of them. It's like Sean Hannity, Ben Shapiro, Guttfeld, the Critical Drinker Twat, etc. Their shows fucking suck and are shittily written...but they have their audiences and they love it.

Guttfeld was unwatchable to me...not because I was upset...but I was just fucking bored. I would probably enjoy well written comedy from an adversarial viewpoint....even if I think you're a shitty person, if you make me laugh...I'll have a guilty pleasure good time. But no, conservative comedy just sucks...it's boring as shit...poorly written, unimaginative...there's a FUCKTON of things to make fun of liberals about and conservatives typically suck at it. The South Park guys were decent at it for awhile...but regardless, the point stands. Gutfeld has his audience. I'm not one of them...he doesn't care what I think and he will tailor his writing to what he thinks his audience wants.

If we discover that he's a huge Miami Vice fan and wants to rewrite the series, I am confident it won't look like his Fox News show.

By your logic, there would be no new electronic music. You don't need an LLM to generate EDM from algorithms based on what clubbers respond to. We had the technology 30 years ago and yet it's a thriving genre. Time will tell, but I imagine the 2 biggest and most famous fans of Tolkein can best an LLM slopping together a story. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they used the LLM to help them or to judge their work. That would be a smart use of technology. However, the human touch and vision will be clear an apparent vs LLM sloppy shit.

Really, is an LLM to a writer any different than a drum machine to a drummer? We still prefer live drummers, even for electronic genres, to drum machines at live shows...yeah, some studio gigs are no longer there, but there are a lot of drummers working, despite being obsolete by your logic for over 30 years.

Are you really that clueless? Comedy is a profession and a day job for people like him. He's a devout Catholic and family man and none of his material suggests that...why?...because he's a fucking professional. He's writing jokes for his audience, not himself. Colbert is a very intelligent man with a huge passion for Tolkein and that universe. Historically, writing styles are not consistent between genres. Look at Jordan Peele. Key and Peele was a good sketch show. I enjoyed it, but not in my top 5...not even sure if it's my top 10 of the last 20 years, but his horror films were amazing and NOTHING like his sketch shows.

Colbert is a professional. He writes with that perspective because he thinks its funny and he has an audience that appreciates that. Look at Colbert report...a very sharp satire that was nothing like what you described. It just made fun of the ridiculousness of your politics, rather than really expressing much of its own view.

Shitty writers do what they know. You may disagree with Colbert's politics, but he's not a shitty writer. He will adapt to the project.

I am not much of a Tolkein fan...it's fine...not my top choice, but I always enjoy the movies. He is a HUGE fan. My guess is that he will apply every bit of intellect he has to replicate Tolkein and give the most Tolkein-ian experience and it will look nothing like his old work.

My prediction is Stephen Colbert's Lord of the Ring will reflect his perception of what his audience wants and what the spirit of Tolkein is and would never know he wrote it based on his past comedy work. Just like how Jordan Peele's comedy doesn't reflect his horror writing.

Legit theory, but we've already setup a decent blockade and you're also assuming this company can actually deliver. It's one thing to announce, it's quite another to deliver at scale. 2 years from now?...yeah, I can see this being a huge headache. Fortunately for us, I don't think China can get these into Iran's hands if they wanted to.

Additionally, I am not confident that China wants to arm Iran publicly. How much money does Iran have? How much will this risk their Taiwan plans? If I were in charge there, I would focus on selling to the USA's allies, like the gulf states...get that sweet, sweet revenue without the scrutiny. Not good for Israel as those nations won't need to ally with them as much as they do today...but it's a great way to build a market, look good, and hold off on antagonizing the west for a nation that has publicly stated they want to invade Taiwan and seems determined to do so.

For a civilized country (so excluding Russia who doesn't care about anyone's life), you probably want your adversary to have accuracy. If they're attacking your naval base in San Diego, you want it going near the naval base, not wandering into the civilian territory and bombing schools. Soldiers know how to handle attacks and typically have protocols for dealing with damages, putting out fires, evacuating the injured, etc. Daycares probably don't.

Honestly, I am more frightened of this than nuclear war. Once a power launches nukes, things escalate and escalate hard. Idiots can't handle nukes. No shitty nation like Russia or Iran will arm allied revolutionaries with nukes.

Cheap drones and missiles? They can do a lot of damage, are difficult to protect from....and yeah, these are cheap enough to arm other nations with....cheap enough to smuggle, etc.

Nations keep careful stock of their hypersonic missiles. Private companies?....not so confident they won't get a few stolen or sell to some nation who will use them to arm terrorists.

All my life, everyone has complained about the elite militaries. You think Israel and Russia and the USA are dangerous? Wait until you see the houthies waging warfare with the same gear? Soon every clueless hippie complaining about war will be longing for the day when warfare was confined to more responsible parties. As liberal as I am, recent events have made me much more aware...you can complain about the USA "military industrial complex", CIA, etc.... all you like and your complaints may even make sense in a vacuum. But now that under Trump, the USA is stepping back, you'll appreciate just how responsible we were...as other nations fill the role and you see...yeah...we did shitty things....but NOTHING compared to Russia, Iran, N Korea....hell, I'll wager that even as France and Britain ascend, they'll make us look quite good. To me complaining about the USA's military is like hearing someone complain about their iPhone when they've never used any other phone platform. If you're complaining about how Samsung does something better?...OK, legit complaint. If you're complaining that phones without cases break when you drop them on concrete from 5'?...well, you're a moron...unless an iPhone competitor somehow solves that problem...it's not an iPhone problem, it's a phone problem. Similarly...the USA did shitty things?...yeah....but nothing compared to any superpower in recorded history. Compared to our rivals, I think the USA looks quite saintly, especially our modern ones (the Soviet Union and Russia)

Fortnite is a great game. I've had a lot of fun playing it with my kids. Given that you can play it and have fun for free....not sure why you'd complain about skins. That funds the development and building new maps. The maps are typically well thought out. The game performs really well across a lot of hardware. It's not my favorite game, but it's very good at what it does. It's a fun, family-friendly battle royale shooter that's free to fully play and caters to a younger audience.

If you're pissed at them, I wonder what you play that's so much better?...that runs on a Switch and iPad as well as the major consoles and PCs. Online Battle Royale is not my top choice of games to play, but if that's what you're in the mood for, I can't imagine a company doing much better than what epic has done.