Coomer artists, please get to work

  • Trudge [Comrade]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By flanderizing my statement as if I was talking about the clothing. Hence, ankles, lol. Explain what you meant by that then.

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

      I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion. If you can point to some random element in OP like India raising a finger and say that that’s somehow sexual, the I can do the same and point to revealing ankles as sexual. I’m not mischaracterizing your position, I’m just demonstrating why I disagree with it.

      • Trudge [Comrade]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I was extending your argument to its natural conclusion

        There isn’t significantly less clothing in OP’s art compared to the one I presented. Explain how it is not a bad faith interpretation.

        • 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]
            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]
                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]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You countered by finding the worst argument possible. That doesn’t seem good faith to me. Maybe it does to you.