>>136636
>Are you just repeating what I said?
As a matter of fact, is you who repeated what I had said in >>136563.
>Not seeing a problem.
1 Beans. 2 Exaggerated proportions, boob focus. 3 Beans.
1---- 2 Suggestive imagery, naked. 3---
1 Beans, suggestive imagery.
1 Beans
>I would consider the first two provocative, sure.
1. Beans, suggestive imagery.
1. Beans, suggestive imagery
1. Beans, suggestive imagery.
>Nothingburgers.
>3
1.Beans, suggestive imagery, fetishising milk
1. ----
>4
1. Exaggerated proportions.
1. a soyjak
>5
1. suggestive imagery
1. beans, exagerrated proportions
>6
1. beans 2. beans 3. suggestive imagery, naked, washing. 4. beans, suggestive imagery
1. --- 2 ---
1. suggestive imagery, naked 2, 3. beans (probably), not interested in backtracking. 4 - suggestive imagery, naked
>sharty kulchaurr classic.
You lot have to make up your mind whether to endorse that or reject it. If I can live the rest of the life without seeing those golems they fetishise that would be nice.
> but I've seen far viler shit over there.
You mean to say that a sfw board that is already closer to the kindergarten in its choice of content has failed to outdo one of the stinkiest deepest cesspools on the web? Thank you for sharing. Shocked.
>Your point is we've always been horny fluffers? Sure.
Whether it is reasonable for a user who (I assume) is not on staff to speak for the rest, so for now I'll treat this as if you were talking solely about yourself.
Either way, that's not what I was saying. What I've been getting at is this nostalgia """oldfags""" (again, less than two years is laughable, yet somehow the adhd generation has already forgotten the details) have for a brief moment when the catalog looked immaculate, is based upon a false memory syndrome. It was never worse. You may keep pretending it was better but web archives won't lie. And I don't believe that going more puritan than even in those 'better days' in a desperate attempt to somehow bring back god-knows-who, who will indubitably set things right and bring about the next golden age is going to accomplish much good here. Would be glad to be proven wrong but based on the past experiences in various communities am fairly certain. Rules alone don't change things for the better. It is upon the users to do so.
> by the effect they've had on the more sensitive users herein, driving them out.
Again, may I see some case studies proving this to be the case. Where are you getting this from?
>images stand out far more than text and produce a more visceral reaction, causing greater discomfort
"If (You) don't like something then post what (You) want to see." That was a nice motto to go by. Too bad it's gone now and what there is instead is a zoomer furfag equivalent of white guilt and a cargo cult attempting to summon back the "good people".
> it was clear
To whom?
> the verbatim interpretation was inaccurate.
Why cannot they make an accurate interpretation? Are they stupid?
>Your idea of some sort of "protest"?
Sure.