I don’t see why any level, even knowing “furry” would find these particular designs “objectionable” and worthy of rejecting. They aren’t even vaguely fetishized.

There’s some self selecting bias there, going to a ‘furry convention’ is a rather steeper level of engagement than just, say, looking at a webcomic featuring art like this mascot here.

Those more hard core sexual furries scare off casual furries as well as folks a bit timid about being associated with the most… Forthcoming portion of the fandom.

It’s rough on some as they want to engage without sexual interest in the aesthetic, but as a result get grouped in with those with a sexual interest. They want to identify as something, and furry is closest, but they aren’t into the sexual facet and struggle with that broad association.

I know someone who is into the general aesthetic of SFW “furry” stuff but is a bit weird about it because one of two things happens if she shares some content she likes:

• People turn away because they think she’s into that stuff sexually
• People get way too into engaging with her because they think she’s into that stuff sexually.

Feels like there needs to be some better nuance between “I like furry style SFW art” and “I’m all into furry in the the way people guess”. Not that there’s anything wrong with the latter, but it’s certainly something you should have to explicitly opt into rather than an assumption based on liking or doing a drawing or like wearing an animal ear headband or non-plug tail or something similarly innocuous.

A candidate that expressed nuanced understanding of economic principles would have been less likely to win the election.

A candidate that instead promises answers that intuitively sound right. If imports are expensive, then obviously the big business owners will build domestic and give us more money. If you get rid of immigrants, then the business owners will have to pay more for citizen workers. Simple answers that are easier for people to believe in.

Attempts to explain nuance? That ranges from nerds overcomplicating things and/or those darned liberal elites trying to truck them.

This cuts both ways. In 2020 Biden won not due to a more sophisticated understanding of things, but simply because things were bad, and the other guy therefore was the obvious choice. So to overcome an incumbent, you just have to have people believe stuff is bad, and provide some believable explanation that you could fix it.

I don’t know what the final turnout figures will be, but if it is a lower turnout, I can think of a few:

• 2020 was the easiest year to mail in a ballot ever, and it got harder again as states reinstated various difficulties with mail in ballots.
• So many people didn’t have to go into work in 2020, they had more flexibility to vote however they needed to do it.

Yeah but the point was about what turnout was. We know who won but it’s a bit early to discuss relative turnout compared to 2020. It is likely lower, but the specifics will be a while.

For example, the Ragu ‘Simply’ is only your “other ingredients”. The only sugar in that sauce is innate to the Tomatoes used in the puree.

Sugars exist in all sorts of foods and when it’s incidental to the fruit and/or vegetable content it’s mostly fine.

But it does matter a great deal. The sugars innately in most fruits usually have a low glycemic index, so generally aren’t really that bad for you.

So presenting granulated sugar to represent the innate sugars in a tomato is misleading.

The Ragu one has 0g added sugar, so for that one it’s just the tomato sugar, so it’s misleading.

The time is coming for the most involved “go fuck yourself” ever.