5 ms·

> Do you think it's holding us back? Absolutely, the idea that a naked human body is inherently obscene, and that we need to protect people from viewing it, is

> Do you think it's holding us back? Absolutely, the idea that a naked human body is inherently obscene, and that we need to protect people from viewing it, is ridiculous. It's the sign of an immature society whose practices are still based upon ancient superstitions.

jncfhnb 3y ago
Do you think that kids should be shown imagery of a dog fucking a young girl
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Probably not, but that shouldn't be conflated with nudity. Fucking (typically) happens in the context of nudity, but there are many other reasons for nudity, and its association with and only with fucking in American society has led to some...unfortunate side effects.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Alright but you’re just drawing a slightly different line then. And both of the lines in question are running straight through the thick wad of content that gets pushed on kids if nothing is set up. So sure, Americans are prudes. But neither you, nor the Americans, want furry rape porn pushed on kids. Maybe you do want nudes pushed on kids. Is your opinion on the general setup of the system really that different? I think not.
    - BobaFloutist 3y ago
      First off, I'm American. I'm complaining about my own culture. It's interesting that you're using active language ("pushed on") for kids browsing and seeing something. It's possible (likely, even) that "Artistic nudes" should have an 18+ tag on them that 1. Prevents an under 18 user from seeing them and 2. Is easily filtered out. I'm kind of astonished that isn't already the case. But I also think one thing that's happening is a bunch of people are taking the opportunity of Twitch expanding what's allowed to flagrantly break the expanded rules. And it's always a little funny to me when people say "People are flagrantly breaking the rules! We need tighter rules!"
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
        Sure But 1 and 2 are not implemented. That’s the tablestakes. It’s not ironic to suggest that this particular rule is prone to abuse and that changing it would change user behavior.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
inquirerGeneral 3y ago
Grow up

jncfhnb 3y ago

Do you think that kids should be shown imagery of a dog fucking a young girl

BobaFloutist 3y ago
Probably not, but that shouldn't be conflated with nudity. Fucking (typically) happens in the context of nudity, but there are many other reasons for nudity, and its association with and only with fucking in American society has led to some...unfortunate side effects.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Alright but you’re just drawing a slightly different line then. And both of the lines in question are running straight through the thick wad of content that gets pushed on kids if nothing is set up. So sure, Americans are prudes. But neither you, nor the Americans, want furry rape porn pushed on kids. Maybe you do want nudes pushed on kids. Is your opinion on the general setup of the system really that different? I think not.
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    First off, I'm American. I'm complaining about my own culture. It's interesting that you're using active language ("pushed on") for kids browsing and seeing something. It's possible (likely, even) that "Artistic nudes" should have an 18+ tag on them that 1. Prevents an under 18 user from seeing them and 2. Is easily filtered out. I'm kind of astonished that isn't already the case. But I also think one thing that's happening is a bunch of people are taking the opportunity of Twitch expanding what's allowed to flagrantly break the expanded rules. And it's always a little funny to me when people say "People are flagrantly breaking the rules! We need tighter rules!"
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      Sure But 1 and 2 are not implemented. That’s the tablestakes. It’s not ironic to suggest that this particular rule is prone to abuse and that changing it would change user behavior.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

inquirerGeneral 3y ago

Grow up