Coomer artists, please get to work

  • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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
      1
      ·
      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
        0
        ·
        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
          1
          ·
          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
                0
                ·
                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
                  1
                  ·
                  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.

                  • Trudge [Comrade]@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    How is that a reasonable interpretation when my image has similar levels of exposure as OP’s image? It’s not a reasonable interpretation, and I’ve been trying to point that out this whole time. That was my problem with you.

                    Now that you are engaging without trying to somehow “win” an internet argument, here’s my take - flushed faces, contortion of spine and the body and direct “eye contact” with the viewer taken together seem to be suggestive to me.

                    You may choose to disagree with me, and honestly, I do not care for the topic strongly. What I do care strongly about is your manner of hostile argumentativeness which is why I bothered responding for such a long time.