May I post non pornographic depictions of women's boobies on s/tits?

submitted by [deleted] from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Maybe for you

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (18 children)

And site-wide rules.

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (17 children)

Pornography is never defined in rules or T&C. But to an ordinary person (non-AGP), breasts are not pornographic.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Pornography is never defined in rules or T&C.

I don't think u/magnora7 wants it defined, because trolls (like you) would use the definition to only barely not break the rules. For example, if porn was defined as tits: you'd just put small, black squares that only barely cover them up.

But to an ordinary person (non-AGP), breasts are not pornographic.

  1. Character attack (low on the Pyramid of Debate)

  2. Normal people don't post porn; most people aren't coomers (like you)

  3. Most people I know believe that breasts are pornographic

  4. Anti-pornography isn't a transgender thing (yes, I know what your dog-whistles mean), it's more of a Conservative or evangelical thing

  5. Someone get this boy a preacher

[–]JasonCarswell 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (9 children)

You should stop calling everyone you disagree with trolls. There's an abundance of real STABs around to aim at.

You're conflating tits with nipples with nudity with porn with other things. Don't knock a knockers sub until it needs knocking. /s/WatchPeopleDie, /s/WarWatch, /s/PoliceMisconduct, /s/Pedogate, /s/RulingClass, /s/Tyranny, among many others are far more disturbing subs.

In my humble opinion, you should steer clear of /s/Tits and related subs to avoid conflicts and drama, to not expose yourself, and to better serve SaidIt. Take that with a grain of source as you see fit. I'm trying to help you and us. M7 is prudish, but it's his site and his rules, and he can spell it out as needs be.

Also, religion is stupid.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

Why are you inserting yourself into literally every single one of my conversations?

You should stop calling everyone you disagree with trolls.

This guy is literally using a character attack as his main argument, Jason. He's one of the s/debatealtright guys who keep coming after me just for being trans — that's literally their only argument any time we ever talk.

There's an abundance of real STABs around to aim at.

Like on s/debatealtright

You're conflating tits with nipples with nudity

If you can manage to get those without nudity: have a blast.

/s/WatchPeopleDie, /s/WarWatch, /s/PoliceMisconduct, /s/Pedogate, /s/RulingClass, /s/Tyranny, among many others are far more disturbing subs.

There's a difference between disturbing and rule-breaking.

In my humble opinion, you should steer clear of /s/Tits and related subs to avoid conflicts and drama

I definitely want to, but I have to make sure there's no actual porn being posted there. Maybe Magnora can deal with it, IDK.

Also, religion is stupid.

The preacher thing was a joke, although he would definitely benefit from a come to Jesus mee'n.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

Why are you inserting yourself into literally every single one of my conversations?

It may seem like that but it's not intentional. If you were anyone else I'd speak the same. More importantly you're an admin and seem to need a modicum of restraint.

  1. I was invited to make a banner and co-mod /s/Tits 10 hours ago, and was in this thread before you. By responding to commets I tend to read and respond to the rest and thus hang around conversations rather than move on to hit every post of the day.

  1. Here icebong pointed to the DDG post I was going to read anyway because I use it all the time.

  1. Oddly, synchronistically, we were have a perfectly civil PM.

Feel free to have anyone I respect chime in to tell me if I'm out of line or in error. I'm seriously trying to help you refine a gentle touch, if intervention is even necessary. I would hate for us to lose a good one AND another admin due to snowballing problematic circumstances.

This guy is literally using a character attack as his main argument, Jason.

Be better than him.

He's one of the s/debatealtright guys who keep coming after me just for being trans — that's literally their only argument any time we ever talk.

Yes. I don't like many of them either. They're predictable. I ignore them. You and M7 can ban them - but you don't. I really don't know why. His existence here is not dependent on me. I report and report and report and report. I don't know who gets axed or even if any are. I have no power beyond that.

Like on s/debatealtright

So take out the trash.

If you can manage to get those without nudity: have a blast.

I can't speak for anyone else, but here are some retro tits of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrah_Fawcett. If I'm not mistaken, that's a famous best-selling poster from even before my time. This is the kind of stuff I am assuming the sub would be like, perhaps with more cleavage, but not necessarily of celebs. Because of the fame of the poster and celeb I would also share that in /s/PinUps where I've outlined rules to be more tasteful than I think /s/Tits may get.

There's a difference between disturbing and rule-breaking.

You're making a big deal before any rules have even been broken. I'm pretty sure Musky isn't aiming to break rules.

I definitely want to, but I have to make sure there's no actual porn being posted there. Maybe Magnora can deal with it, IDK.

IMO, I welcome you lurking and reporting. Don't pull the trigger before there's a crime, and if there is, I'd quietly deal with obvious infractions as you do or be liberally hands-off for questionable stuff and inform M7.

Yes, many liberals and conservatives and Christians should employ more Christian behavior.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

I was invited to make a banner and co-mod /s/Tits 10 hours ago

That explains it then.

and was in this thread before you.

I wasn't paying attention. I'm way too tired to be on here right now.

Here icebong pointed to the DDG post I was going to read anyway because I use it all the time.

Ah.

Oddly, synchronistically, we were have a perfectly civil PM.

I wasn't saying this to be mean, I was just wondering why I was getting so many messages from you. I'm sorry if you took it that way.

I'm seriously trying to help you refine a gentle touch

You can't take a redneck! Jokes aside, being an asshole is an unintentional part of my personality at this point.

Be better than him.

Which is why I use real arguments.

You and M7 can ban them - but you don't. I really don't know why. His existence here is not dependent on me. I report and report and report and report. I don't know who gets axed or even if any are. I have no power beyond that.

Yeah, subs like s/debatealtright and s/retards are rather problematic, but Magnora doesn't want to remove them.

You're making a big deal before any rules have even been broken.

I never said anyone broke the rules; we're talking about theoreticals here, so everyone knows what's allowed and what ain't: nudity is pretty much off the table.

I'm pretty sure Musky isn't aiming to break rules.

I know that; I'm here to make sure he knows where not to go. I don't want him getting himself banned. I'm sure Mag would just give him a warning the first time, though, so it ain't a big deal.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Jokes aside, being an asshole is an unintentional part of my personality at this point.

Maybe it's me but many of your "jokes" don't read as jokes. Add /s or /jk to be clear. Police and politicians don't make jokes because they're supposed to be respectable. You are the power on this site.

Be better than him.
Which is why I use real arguments.

Well...

so everyone knows what's allowed and what ain't: nudity is pretty much off the table. [...] I'm here to make sure he knows where not to go.

Common sense everyone already knows. Reminding people of the rules is not a light touch, and the tone is bossy where no boss is needed. It's like a cop swinging a night stick around your head saying that if you break any laws he can arrest you. Unnecessary intimidation, or rather, lame attempts/appearances of it.

so it ain't a big deal.

Unnecessary drama.

I also feel bad for unnecessarily budding my nose in too. But it really looks/ed like you need/ed some advice. Feel free to apply it liberally, or just ignore me, or something in between.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Maybe it's me but many of your "jokes" don't read as jokes.

I literally said it was a joke right after I said it.

Police and politicians don't make jokes because they're supposed to be respectable.

Politicians don't make jokes because they're soul-less creatures. Police make jokes, but they know when to be serious.

Common sense everyone already knows.

Eh... probably.

Reminding people of the rules is not a light touch

I thought it was.

Unnecessary intimidation, or rather, lame attempts/appearances of it.

I wasn't trying to intimidate anyone. There's a difference between trying to make someone afraid, and trying to make sure they don't get into trouble; I genuinely want to make sure he doesn't get in trouble.

[–]bobbobbybob 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

perhaps don't speak for /u/magnora7 without checking first, so as to not make an ass of yourself. Or even better, have these discussions using a non tam account, so that you don't get baited into mod abuse AGAIN

[–]Node 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

Most people I know believe that breasts are pornographic

pornography: printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

Do those people bottle feed their infants? It must be 10 times more pornographic to have breasts in real life, as you'd be in possession of ongoing pornography. How would a rational person begin to believe that "breasts are pornographic"?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You literally violated your own definition.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How would a rational person begin to believe that "breasts are pornographic"?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And pornography is rational?

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

/s/AnimeFoodPorn
/s/antipornography
/s/EarthPorn
/s/fakehistoryporn
/s/foodporn
/s/porn

They all literally has porn in the name, so some titillating content is allowed.

/s/Sex does not, but you can discuss porn, without links to actual porn.