reading "screw consent" which is like largely interesting? but a ton of the examples are like totally not with my intuitions and he acts like theyre just immediately obvious. perhaps i would be more open if i was more familiar with the literature hes contributing to?

but the other thing is like its very very deep within the logics of law and state legitimacy, and that's really hard to track with.

also the section on animals and children is not good at all im sorry. like for animals its just like wow this is contractary right guys - like yeah no shit at least propose ways to look at it. the focus is super human centered and its so boring

and dont even get me started on the children part. bruh wtf. they just appeal to the same bullshit "lawl dud well if sex is wrong because they dont consent then we cant force them to eat broccoli or go to school! how ridiculous of a conclusion! like wait wtf lol you were so close

im def not saying consent is perfect or a good tool to use, but your examples do not illustrate that properly wtf