[Jugglewhoa]

Does everything need to be boiled down to a consent argument now? When an artist uses his imagination to make a political cartoon about a senator is that a violation of the senators consent? Is this any different than an artist depicting a person in a way they see fit?

Your comment would suggest any use of imagination to make a thing that doesn't get written approval by all parties even thought of is also a consent issue: if you fantasize about a crush you are violating them, and any type of parody whatsoever is too.

>Sit this one out. It's not a discussion for you.

While being incredibly condescending, you neglected to ask for consent to think about this person's ability to participate in the conversation, maybe this isn't a discussion for you either.

[Zanni]

If you can't distinguish between using a public figure's likeness for a political cartoon vs. AI porn (or between a private fantasy and a public post), then maybe you should sit this one out too.

Revenge porn is bad. Imaginary revenge porn is just as bad.

[Jugglewhoa]

It's quite alarmist to suggest altered images the most popular woman in the world are classified as "revenge porn."

People in popular culture have been used by artists to their liking since the beginning of art. Don't compare this to someone posting naked pictures of an ex who has a completely private life and doesn't spend their entire being trying to be in front of every camera possible, usually in outfits that make it quite easy for the imagination to extrapolate into the pornographic.