Because there are underaged characters who are able to keep it in their pants in public, or who never engage in anything sexual. What you propose will prevent these characters from even having sfw rp.
Because asking for the conditional of [Cub] + [anything else sexual] is a far more complex setup than [cub] yes/no? Again, it also means cubs who aren’t sexual in public but are in private would be included.
Because there are underaged characters who are able to keep it in their pants in public, or who never engage in anything sexual. What you propose will prevent these characters from even having sfw rp.
Because asking for the conditional of [Cub] + [anything else sexual] is a far more complex setup than [cub] yes/no? Again, it also means cubs who aren’t sexual in public but are in private would be included.
Yes. People who choose to use the block function do so because they get the heebie-jeebies from an underage character whose profile makes it clear they engage in sexual roleplay elsewhere. They already don’t want to RP with those characters. Again, I ask, what is the objective in wanting to keep said characters visible to people who would choose an option that would block them, other than making them wish they could? This wouldn’t change the reality of the roleplay situation at all, the people such a feature would be for are the people who are already doing the avoiding.
Look, I signed up for this forum just to respond that this is an amazing logical fallacy and the height of hypocrisy.
In the end, you and I would probably reach the same outcome and decision. But it is important that we GET THERE for reasons that are honest, reasonable, and rational. I absolutely understand the direction here from the practical perspective.
But as a legal, factual, and logical matter, you are simply wrong.
I think that was covered, like, 200 posts ago.
Like you haven’t said the same thing over and over this entire thread.
Point to where I said that. Go ahead. Quote a post of mine.
You can’t. Good god, the more people start throwing out personal insults and making unwarranted comparisons to actual genocides and racial segregation programs, the more I start to maybe think that a more hardline approach is necessary - not out of opposition to the content, but out of opposition to the kind of unhinged behavior coming out of that crowd. You really are your own worst enemy here.
Principles can only hold me for so long before enough bullshit makes me inclined towards spite.
And on the off chance you were referring to my repetition of a general position rather than the one the person above was arguing against, it is because I seem to have to keep reiterating the same points over and over against people who are perhaps motivated to prevent any restrictions on their own presentation whatsoever - not realizing that my proposal would actually require the least restrictions overall. But I suppose explaining my own points to resolve misunderstandings is just as bad as necro-ing a post from 200 messages back.
You’re the one who got mad at someone for stating their opinion on a topic. vOv
And please lean into the spite!
I’m not doing a classic 2010s-era flamewar today. I’ve said my piece.
unwarranted comparisons to actual genocides and racial segregation programs.
I apologized for not fully thinking out all possible implications of my comparison. From my perspective at the time, thinking only about the former laws themselves and not the entire implications of the repercussions and effects and given how upset I was, I can only say it felt like a reasonable comparison when I said it. But I didn’t think about all the ways it could be viewed and my intentions and how other perceived them did not align. That’s why I apologized.
Having apologized, I do not think it’s fair to call us unhinged by continuing to bring it up.
Further, I can find no evidence that anyone actually made a holocaust comment except for you and one other person complaining that the comparison was made. Having made sure that all 400+ messages were loaded first (on both topics), control+F gives no indication this comparison was ever actually made. If it was made and someone misspelled it or something, then it was made 200+ messages ago itself. and hasn’t been brought up since except by you.
I get everyone is emotionally charged about the topic on both sides of the debate, but maybe, just maybe, one or two people getting emotionally charged and making a comment in poor taste because they are upset, is not reason to go on a tirade about how we’re all unhinged.
this is the post I was responding to, but that’s already been litigated. We’re not making things up for sport.
But folks also need to take a step back. There are going to be people who don’t want to interact with your character for any reason, and that’s ok. Giving people the tools to curate their experience is not trying to cause harm to any one group, it’s a collective compromise for a safe and healthy platform.
2 posts were split to a new topic: Profile Images Question