Coomer artists, please get to work

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t understand why you think it’s a bad faith interpretation. I guess I don’t understand what your basis is for calling OP sexualized, as you haven’t explained what elements you find sexual. All I saw was where you contrasted the two pictures, which left me to guess which differences you found significant. I just figured you were going off vibes. Also some of the women in OP are wearing less.

    • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m calling it a bad faith interpretation because I haven’t said a single thing about their clothing. Why did you think I was talking about clothing “ankles, lol” when I didn’t mention it at all?

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because you didn’t tell me what you were talking about! So I’m left to guess, and apparently if I guess wrong it’s “bad faith.”

        Why don’t you just tell me what you’re talking about instead?

        • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If you didn’t understand what I’m talking about, why didn’t you say that instead of misinterpreting me to the point of absurdity? Were you engaging in good faith?

          • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Absurdity?? You said you found some unspecified aspect of OP that was sexualized, and I countered by pointing out how even in your example, someone could find something sexualized about it. That seems perfectly normal to me.

            And I still don’t have any idea what you’re talking about! At this point I’m the one that should be asking about good faith! Do you actually have anything or not? If so, why haven’t you just said it? You should’ve explained your reasons in your very first comment.

                • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  It seems like you still don’t understand what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to tell you to engage people earnestly instead of attacking them.

                  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I guess we have different understandings of what that looks like. I didn’t percieve what I said as a personal attack at all, I just saw it as a critique of your position. It was never my intention to imply that you would consider ankles scandalous, if that’s how you interpreted it.

                    My point was that any drawing of a person could be argued to be sexualized, and tenuous connections like a raised finger or a revealed ankle aren’t sufficient to classify it as such.

                    If you’d like, you could point out what about OP you consider to be overtly sexual, and we can go from there. Because as it stands I legitimately have no idea what you or other people are talking about, I feel like I’m looking at a different picture, the one I’m seeing looks like they’re about to invite me to play volleyball or something, not to have sex.