It stems from an old proverb: “there is naught so queer as folk”, essentially meaning “people are strange”. The meaning of “queer” has shifted and narrowed over time to refer to sexuality, but kept its ties to this idiom, resulting in the TV show “queer as folk” and the generic phrase “queer folk”.

There is nothing especially pretentious or mythical about the word. It may just be your own assumptions/interpretations of it. Far more people have an issue with the word “queer” than they do “folk”. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, but you should also aim to shake the stigma from it, as it’s not what 99.9% of people mean when they use it.

It would depend exactly how big/substantial this ‘gathering’ is, but I could imagine that “Grove”, “Stand” or “Thicket” might be appropriate.

They aren’t exclusive to your definition, but could be applicable.

What about a “social climber”? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?

Oprah did a very controversial, very public show about mad cow disease, implying it was in America, and led to a big lawsuit.

There are multiple sources of info, but for some easy listening, checkout the podcast ‘Maintenance Phase’ which did a 2 part feature on it.

Is that actually what we’re seeing reflected in the graph? Mmm, I’m not convinced. But it’s definitely true that she did hurt the beef industry in America.

I think a key difference is that Apple had a very clear target demographic for the iPad in mind (lightweight laptop / heavy phone users), and then were prepared to see how it evolved on top of that premise.

With the Vision Pro, they haven’t been able to articulate their target userbase at all, and are pretty much relying on the early adopters to help define it for them.

Which isn’t to say it can’t find its place and be successful. But I don’t think it’s anything like Apple’s other product releases at all…

So, while this is a “general” question, it seems likely that most people will gravitate towards themes of porn and sexual violence when thinking about it. Let me discuss from that perspective.

To be clear, I am not an expert, but it is something I have thought a lot about in the context of my field in technology (noting how generative AI can be used to create very graphic images depicting non-consensual activities).

The short answer: we don’t concretely know for certain. There is an argument that giving people an “outlet” means they can satisfy an urge without endangering themselves in real life. There is also an argument that repeated exposure can dilute/dull the sense of social caution and normalise the fetishised behaviour.

I am very sympathetic to the former argument where it applies to acts between otherwise informed/consenting individuals. For example, a gay person in a foreign country with anti-gay laws; being able to explore their sexuality through the medium of ‘normal’ gay pornography seems entirely reasonable to me (but might seem disgusting by other cultural standards).

When it comes to non-consensual acts, I think there is a lot more room for speculation and concern. I would recommend reading this study as an example, which explored dangerous attitudes towards women that were shaped through pornography.

Some key takeaways:

1. It’s never as simple as saying “porn caused it”. There are a multitude of factors.
2. Regardless, there is a seemingly strong anecdotal connection between violent pornography and violent attitudes in real life.
3. It likely depends heavily on the individual and their own beliefs/perceptions/experiences before this development

And a final noteworthy line:

The view that pornography played a role in their clients’ harmful attitudes and/or behaviours was undisputed; what was harder for them to articulate was the strength of the contribution of pornography, given the complexities of the other contributing factors in their clients’ lives.

While it would be nice to imagine this, the reality is that anyone who is part of the Apple walled-garden isn’t going to suddenly abandon it because of hypothetical functionality they never had previously anyway. And anyone who has resisted Apple this long… Well, there were probably other reasons driving that long before this.

I can’t imagine this having any material impact on marketshare or profit. It will take harsher regulatory action for anything to happen.

According to the rules of the post, you are now confident, persuasive, and loved!

And the best thing of all… it doesn’t just have to be a fantasy. These are all qualities that can be learned, practiced, and refined over time. It’s not easy, but it can become a reality!

If you are taking an existing publication and just tweaking details (e.g.: character names, locations, dialogue), that’s not fanfic at all; at best that’s an adaptation. If you’re creating a parody (and provide proper citations/attributions to the originating work) it may be fair use. More likely, it’s still considered plagiarism if you can still recognisably see the concepts, structure and inspiration but do not have the author’s permission.

There is no exact percentage for plagiarism, and that is by design in most countries’ legal systems. It is about concepts and ideas, and whether a “reasonable person” could make the connection.

Proper fanfic is where you take existing characters and locations, but put them into an entirely new story / scene / context that never happened in the original work, so is considered “original” in that sense.

deleted by creator

Maybe a “specious claim” or “folk wisdom” or “empty rhetoric”?

The word I would normally gravitate to is a “truism”, however that’s not really used to describe something that is necessarily false… just something that sounds insightful, but doesn’t have any meaningful depth (e.g. “every cloud has a silver lining”).