>>
|
967a74.jpg
Grey Snow Mountain
967a74
>>27577
>You're not only saying 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!' here (metaphorically, of course), you're saying 'THINK OF THE INVISIBLE CHILDREN!' It's not a stance I can respect or take seriously.
First, ok, you're summoning up the "think of the children" image, and all that's associated with it, and dumping that on me? That's either an ad hominem or a straw man of some sort. I never contended the people I'm concerned with are children, or anything like children.
>You are the one asserting that the chance of accidentally seeing a tiddy is damaging the site's community and growth. Where are your sources and numbers on that?
I've been saying "gratuitous sexuality or violence", not "seeing a tiddy". Personally, I think a tit or a limp dick, or in the case of violence a bit of blood - what's generally referred to as "softcore" - stands low enough chance of causing dismay that it's permittable. Detailed depections of sexual activity, or detailed depictions of distinct organs being torn out of someone, for violence, are what I'm talking about. There are other possible extremities, too, of course, but my guideline would be to put out the same sort of stuff that an art gallery would - the site is effectively a kind of art gallery, after all. I don't contend that extreme material should be removed or even put in its own section, just that it shouldn't be put in the metaphorical front room to be seen when people walk in off the metaphorical street.
As for sources and numbers...
>That is irrelevant to the point that there has, in fact, been plenty of evidence that (whether to offense, disgust, or whatever else) - there has been a ton more actual, observable evidence of people deciding to not use the site because of furries than because of porn.
I disagree.
If what you say is true - that furries are more objectionable than explicit sexuality or violence - then every instance of furry across all media would be associated with a massive outcry. Instead, we see furry characters all over the place, in children's cartoon shows and films, in ads for products... or is that too mainstream? Perhaps you'll contend that tgchan has a more specific audience, and we need to worry about them? Well, let's see. Tgchan primarily appeals to a demographic that also likes science fiction, fantasy, comics games... nerd stuff.
Well, I won't bother enumerating all the instances of beastmen and suchlike in fantasy, that's obvious. Not much less so for science fiction. There are plenty of furry comics on the internet that are popular, and in print. Games? Elder Scrolls, Warcraft, those have furries right up front as playable races, so by your reckoning those should never have been very popular... but, oh wait. No.
No, I think the loud declarations of people saying that they can't enjoy something because it has been tainted by the presence of anthropomorphic animals is, actually, a rather small minority.
Perhaps people complaining about furry porn are of more concern, but it's the latter half of that pair that I'd say is the problem, and that only supports my argument.
>And I would argue that somebody who is so disgusted by a dong that they're going to just leave the site and never use it again would very likely be disgusted by a site that is hosting a ton of porn even if it's hidden behind a 'o no its porn' blurb.
I'm not talking about someone going "oh this is disgusting I'm never coming back here"; as you say, that kind of person will leave anyway. Who I'm concerned with is people who get a little bit worn down in their enthusiasm (the way I myself have been when I've seen certain authors be indiscreet with particularly extreme material), losing interest in the site a little faster than the stuff that appeals to them can stock it back up, until eventually they drift away.
I'm also concerned with the principle of basic courtesy.
Like... there's a difference between visiting a nudist colony, and visiting somewhere that guys are getting sucked off out on the street, you know? I'm kind of reaching for a metaphor to make my feelings understandable, here, and that's not a very good one so don't take it too seriously.
|