Nullius
A few things in reply to your post here..
1. Tman was a moronic slobbering fool who spewed out profanity and nonsense. Who also went over the line with child sex abuse filth. Jokes or not that is a step too far. Also caught scamming in his auctions.
Bring me a collection of his posts that were original insightful and made a real difference here.
2. Lauda was a deliberate sneaky plagiarist and scammer
You tried the old ..lauda simply changed his mind defense which was smashed.
You didnt once rebuke his plagiarism after your bullshit about it being something you hated with passion.
3. Mentioning those truths does not damage my credibility it has never been damaged since I have never had a point debunked on anything important. The clear insightful and undeniable rebuff I gave robovac was entirely valid and I see that you have jumped upon that legitimate point. You're welcome. Don't add public ingratitude to your repertoire.
So to be clear.
1. Yes they will legitimately remove your pic on NSFW grounds. I dont agree with it being removed but I dont make the rules.
2. They must keep to those grounds not start crying it was because their kids prefer to read about pajeettwatwanktardcumguzzlingskankfuckingwindowlickingspazcunts or other more serious filth from tman that they collate and celebrate.
So next time photoshop a little leaf or picture of a kitty cat over the pussy lips and you'll be okay. I hope a naked asshole is allowed but you cant be too sure. As you have noticed I'm an ass and skat enthusiast.
I would have liked to defend your side of the argument more and would do if you post images of classcial statues (either sex or them xxy ones)bending forwars and away whilst reaching around spreading their ass cheeks ready for a good felching. I've already provided you with what you have adopted as one of your main retorts so that's more than you deserve considering your historical wrongdoing towards innocents here.
Looks like you're getting the old cold shoulder treatment now. So you'll have to just wait for me to get around to you and keep you company. Since my vast fortune is becoming a distraction what with all the pleasures it can afford me now that may not be as frequently as would like. Once I hit 50M I may shout you a free cyber sex session with thepharmacist since his rates are the most economical and provides the depravity it would take to ease the pressure of those blue balls lauda/alia left you with.
For mop up I'll call in " the guzzler" he has been parched I hear since lauda turned off the fountain. That load should quench him nicely.
What's 50 bux all in between 2 outcasts like ourselves when 1 has so much the other.... a little less In many various ways.
So about those statue pics I mention. Now when posting you can get around the NSFW by using this method.
Super impose a hedge in front of them so you just see their heads and upper torso ( from behind obviously) now make it super high res.
Okay then remove a few leaves on the hedge layer just big enough to see the anus. Then unless they download the image and remove the hedge layer or super zoom in on the little gap of leaves only we will enjoy the image fully as it was meant to be enjoyed.
The others who prefer to just read about pajeetwanktardfucknozzlejizzslurpingbuttmunchingpeasantspazoids will just think it's two lovely statues sitting beside each other behind a low hedge.
I hope this post has given you both a way to back down without quitting the forum and an excellent plan from which we can both benefit going forward. You would be a great loss to the forum and I cant take being prevented from another goodbye world thread just now. I'm suffering a major hangover and other complications related to overly spicy food. You get the picture. If not I can send.
TLDR
they can delete your pic because a lovely juicy hairy pussy will likely be a clue that they are not cracking on with the designated rat run chores at work.
Dont worry a workaround provided ...mutually beneficial.
Pics if you're up for it.
Dont leave the forum. I'm warming to you.
Topic: Are fine artworks in European museums deemed “NSFW” by forum rules? (Read 651 times)
December 02, 2020, 09:23:57 AM
December 01, 2020, 02:14:41 PM
Foxpup, on looking back over the thread, I think that my last post came off toward you in a way that I did not intend. I don’t quite apologize, because I was sincere in what I said, itself; I was simply being candid, not trying to criticize you personally. See below for a further note on that.*
Zeroth of all: Now, I am asking! —And not receiving any clear, authoritative answers. —And being criticized by some people for asking, as if I were asking a stupid question. Observe that the topic title ends in a question mark.
And first of all: I would ask, if I were doing something that I thought was questionable. I did not think that an art-museum piece was questionable; and in the first instance, I would not choose to participate in a forum where it was. As you can probably tell by now, this is an important issue to me.
(As I expected that it would be to others. Where are all of the ACLU types? Doesn’t the ACLU raise hell if some church ladies cover up a nude statue in a public park, or whatever? I am pretty sure that if I look on ACLU.org, I can find plenty of long wall-of-text essays about the social and cultural importance of protecting artworks.)
I consider the prohibition of fine art to be disgraceful. Disgusting. I wouldn’t significantly involve myself in any site where I knew that it may happen. Yes, it is a private forum that I am free to leave at any time. I was also free to not sign up here, if I knew that something like this could happen.
(That is not difficult: I have never been so deeply involved in an Internet forum; and other than some fire-and-forget throwaway accounts, I have not really participated in any forum since perhaps around 2003 or so.)
People who have praised me when I stood up for principles that they agreed with, should understand that I am being principled here. I need to explain that—not to make the topic about myself personally, but rather, because I am even puzzled at why people seem not to understand why I don’t just shrug, forget it, go back to business as usual. Not going to happen. The deletion of those posts was major turning point for me.
Deleted:
It is usually a matter of principle to me that one who values his own work should never give it away as “user-generated content” (a) to any site not under his own control, (b) without compensation. Hereby, this forum’s primary general topic is important to me. I thought that I understood the forum rules, that the rules were acceptable to me, and that the rules would be applied consistently. Whoops.
The past few days, I have almost regretted ever signing up here. —Not quite, because of some of the people whom I never would have met otherwise. And today, on the third anniversary of my very first “Brand New” post, I have been having some dark thoughts about this:
Boldface, italic, and underlining are in the original; highlighting is hereby added:
I will probably seek a solution that is more constructive. —Or more destructive. —Or both. I am talking about this to make a point; if I intended to do a drastic action, I probably would not announce it beforehand... But for those who are wondering why I don’t just blow this off and move on, I think that that adequately illustrates how seriously I take this issue.
I didn’t “know perfectly well what [you] meant”; I took what you said at face value. Doesn’t that succinctly sum up the problem whence arose this thread?
Anyway, I thought that you would appreciate discussing art history.
At this juncture, in reply to the remainder of your post, I began an earnest reply that went way off-topic... Never mind.
* Part of the problem is that the post was stitched together from pieces of a much longer draft, in an attempt to make it more “succinct”. The red-lettered warning about things offensive to Foxpup was originally in a discussion about how workplaces differ; and reductio ad absurdum, office employees at AVN, Pornhub, or for that matter, Slixa could probably be fired for reading my posts (unless it is only to demand that I be cancelled and deplatformed from the Internet). Obviously, actual porn is acceptable in those work environments. (I speak here as to non-sex employees; such companies have office staff, too!) In the original draft, it comes off very differently.
For reasons that you have succinctly described from your own viewpoint, I really do not understand the “NSFW” rule. Rules are supposed to be understandable to the ordinary intelligent person. I believe that I meet or exceed that description; and yet, I seem unable to use my usual mind-reading powers to guess what a moderator will declare “Not Safe For Work”, vague as the term is.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to simply ask what is and isn't appropriate, as I did when attempting to determine whether my contest entry was acceptable.Zeroth of all: Now, I am asking! —And not receiving any clear, authoritative answers. —And being criticized by some people for asking, as if I were asking a stupid question. Observe that the topic title ends in a question mark.
And first of all: I would ask, if I were doing something that I thought was questionable. I did not think that an art-museum piece was questionable; and in the first instance, I would not choose to participate in a forum where it was. As you can probably tell by now, this is an important issue to me.
(As I expected that it would be to others. Where are all of the ACLU types? Doesn’t the ACLU raise hell if some church ladies cover up a nude statue in a public park, or whatever? I am pretty sure that if I look on ACLU.org, I can find plenty of long wall-of-text essays about the social and cultural importance of protecting artworks.)
I consider the prohibition of fine art to be disgraceful. Disgusting. I wouldn’t significantly involve myself in any site where I knew that it may happen. Yes, it is a private forum that I am free to leave at any time. I was also free to not sign up here, if I knew that something like this could happen.
(That is not difficult: I have never been so deeply involved in an Internet forum; and other than some fire-and-forget throwaway accounts, I have not really participated in any forum since perhaps around 2003 or so.)
People who have praised me when I stood up for principles that they agreed with, should understand that I am being principled here. I need to explain that—not to make the topic about myself personally, but rather, because I am even puzzled at why people seem not to understand why I don’t just shrug, forget it, go back to business as usual. Not going to happen. The deletion of those posts was major turning point for me.
Deleted:
Do you suggest that this Very Venerable and Serious Museum publicly, openly displays things that cannot be embedded in posts on the libertarian cypherpunk Bitcoin Forum?
It is usually a matter of principle to me that one who values his own work should never give it away as “user-generated content” (a) to any site not under his own control, (b) without compensation. Hereby, this forum’s primary general topic is important to me. I thought that I understood the forum rules, that the rules were acceptable to me, and that the rules would be applied consistently. Whoops.
The past few days, I have almost regretted ever signing up here. —Not quite, because of some of the people whom I never would have met otherwise. And today, on the third anniversary of my very first “Brand New” post, I have been having some dark thoughts about this:
Boldface, italic, and underlining are in the original; highlighting is hereby added:
For the record: As one who does not generally contribute content to sites run by others, I myself have carefully considered very unlikely hypothetical scenarios in which I may mass-delete all my own posts here. E.g., if I were to be administratively forbidden from [...], I may decide to burn my own work and walk away. (I did say, very unlikely hypothetical scenarios.)
Whereas if I were to leave the forum in anger at its administration, withdrawing thereby my own contributions, I would not take it into my own hands to destroy the work of people who had contributed to my self-moderated threads in good faith, in accord with my local rules, and sometimes even from sincere friendship toward me. In this hypothetical, I may post a note encouraging people to follow my example. But to trash others’ work myself in that circumstance would be self-centred, narcissistic, and downright treacherous of me. I would not do that.
Whereas if I were to leave the forum in anger at its administration, withdrawing thereby my own contributions, I would not take it into my own hands to destroy the work of people who had contributed to my self-moderated threads in good faith, in accord with my local rules, and sometimes even from sincere friendship toward me. In this hypothetical, I may post a note encouraging people to follow my example. But to trash others’ work myself in that circumstance would be self-centred, narcissistic, and downright treacherous of me. I would not do that.
There is no better way to make nullius go nuclear than to attack culture.
I will probably seek a solution that is more constructive. —Or more destructive. —Or both. I am talking about this to make a point; if I intended to do a drastic action, I probably would not announce it beforehand... But for those who are wondering why I don’t just blow this off and move on, I think that that adequately illustrates how seriously I take this issue.
When I said "Western society", you know perfectly well that I meant current Western society, which I'm well aware has been negatively influenced by religious conservatives. You can spare me the art history lesson.
I didn’t “know perfectly well what [you] meant”; I took what you said at face value. Doesn’t that succinctly sum up the problem whence arose this thread?
Anyway, I thought that you would appreciate discussing art history.
At this juncture, in reply to the remainder of your post, I began an earnest reply that went way off-topic... Never mind.
* Part of the problem is that the post was stitched together from pieces of a much longer draft, in an attempt to make it more “succinct”. The red-lettered warning about things offensive to Foxpup was originally in a discussion about how workplaces differ; and reductio ad absurdum, office employees at AVN, Pornhub, or for that matter, Slixa could probably be fired for reading my posts (unless it is only to demand that I be cancelled and deplatformed from the Internet). Obviously, actual porn is acceptable in those work environments. (I speak here as to non-sex employees; such companies have office staff, too!) In the original draft, it comes off very differently.
November 29, 2020, 11:24:50 PM
For reasons that you have succinctly described from your own viewpoint, I really do not understand the “NSFW” rule. Rules are supposed to be understandable to the ordinary intelligent person. I believe that I meet or exceed that description; and yet, I seem unable to use my usual mind-reading powers to guess what a moderator will declare “Not Safe For Work”, vague as the term is.
I don't suppose it ever occurred to you to simply ask what is and isn't appropriate, as I did when attempting to determine whether my contest entry was acceptable.You are unfair to “Western society”. It is a Christian issue, and most of all an issue of the persistent influences of certain denominations of Christianity—not a Western cultural issue.
When I said "Western society", you know perfectly well that I meant current Western society, which I'm well aware has been negatively influenced by religious conservatives. You can spare me the art history lesson.You probably disagree with me about many things; for example, I infer that you would hate this post of mine and its followup. (← ⚠ WARNING: Links contain artistic nudity—i.e., a nude statue of Napoleon’s sister as Venus Victrix—and are likely offensive to Foxpup!)
I'm only offended by your apparent confusion about how drag performance works: Conchita Wurst is not a man in a dress; she is a fictional bearded lady, who is played by a man in a dress (Thomas Neuwirth) - and the dress itself is merely a stage costume. It just makes it really hard to take you seriously when you start conflating actors with the roles they play. November 29, 2020, 04:11:42 PM
Bottoms first:
I noticed.
Verified. The forum proxy is not doing any weird alterations/conversions/optimisations.
I was partly showing some evidence that I had indeed downloaded the image, as you have now confirmed. I see too many liars and two-faced twisters on this forum. Just in case you may have been suspicious that I was only pretending to ask to see it, I wanted a succinct way to demonstrate that, at least, I have in my possession the data without which I could not have produced a hash which, to my knowledge, has not previously been published.
Cryptography solves many problems!
I don’t doubt that you usually enjoy being caught between a rock and hard place—and that you don’t, here. I appreciate that your evident willingness to discuss this topic fairly, and to express consistently the same principles as you have elsewhere.
For reasons that you have succinctly described from your own viewpoint, I really do not understand the “NSFW” rule. Rules are supposed to be understandable to the ordinary intelligent person. I believe that I meet or exceed that description; and yet, I seem unable to use my usual mind-reading powers to guess what a moderator will declare “Not Safe For Work”, vague as the term is.
Before further attempts to define that term, I will step back and examine the potential cultural origins of this dispute.
You are unfair to “Western society”. It is a Christian issue, and most of all an issue of the persistent influences of certain denominations of Christianity—not a Western cultural issue.
When Popes have bought nude statues of mythic Greek heroes (who worshipped non-Christian gods and goddesses), they were not getting that from the Bible! They were Renaissance men—culturally European, and sometimes not very good at being Christian.
Of course, what you want is not to be a Renaissance man. I am not really one, either; but modulo a few of my own freethinking adjustments, it is an ideal for which I strive, so as to rise beyond my own modern corruptions, weaknesses, and failings. Properly considered, I am not an “Antihero”, but rather, a Byronic hero (and a Don Juan). —A hero in the original sense, but with tragic flaws inasmuch as I am assuredly not an Achilles. Anyway... I despise “virtue”: I seek virtù.
You probably disagree with me about many things; for example, I infer that you would hate this post of mine and its followup. (← ⚠ WARNING: Links contain artistic nudity—i.e., a nude statue of Napoleon’s sister as Venus Victrix—and are likely offensive to Foxpup!) And some of the forum’s right-wingers, who oft concur with me politically, are probably upset by my Nietzschean attacks on Christianity;—
The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.
^^^ This is Western culture. Only a subset of Puritanical Americans, and a few mutant Englishmen, could ever have a problem with it. Their problem is that they are mentally ill, and unfit for survival in this world.
On that note, I do understand that this is a very American forum; and its policies are thus subject to the cultural influences of a country that was partly founded by
Perhaps my expectations may be too high here.
This post is getting too long even for me. —To be continued, with further discussion of “NSFW” as I attempt to understand what it means here. Because I really don’t.
...tastefulness counts for nothing.
I noticed.
Code:
$ sha256sum foxpup.png
07fb66d0aabb6bd44eeb8d911a1b7d6c63d87fc7cd4000a80dd1efe4f36e6763 foxpup.png
I was partly showing some evidence that I had indeed downloaded the image, as you have now confirmed. I see too many liars and two-faced twisters on this forum. Just in case you may have been suspicious that I was only pretending to ask to see it, I wanted a succinct way to demonstrate that, at least, I have in my possession the data without which I could not have produced a hash which, to my knowledge, has not previously been published.
Cryptography solves many problems!
Thank you. "Distasteful" is exactly what I was going for with that piece. 
Though if tasteful nudity is more your thing, I've done that too: IsFoxpupStillANSFWVixen.today (even more NSFW) (Graciously hosted on loyce.club, so no Cloudflare nonsense, unless there's something LoyceV's not telling me.)
Though if tasteful nudity is more your thing, I've done that too: IsFoxpupStillANSFWVixen.today (even more NSFW) (Graciously hosted on loyce.club, so no Cloudflare nonsense, unless there's something LoyceV's not telling me.)I don’t doubt that you usually enjoy being caught between a rock and hard place—and that you don’t, here. I appreciate that your evident willingness to discuss this topic fairly, and to express consistently the same principles as you have elsewhere.
For reasons that you have succinctly described from your own viewpoint, I really do not understand the “NSFW” rule. Rules are supposed to be understandable to the ordinary intelligent person. I believe that I meet or exceed that description; and yet, I seem unable to use my usual mind-reading powers to guess what a moderator will declare “Not Safe For Work”, vague as the term is.
Before further attempts to define that term, I will step back and examine the potential cultural origins of this dispute.
My objection to forum policy is not so much that it reflects Western society's unhealthy obsession with genitalia and "female-presenting" nipples, but
You are unfair to “Western society”. It is a Christian issue, and most of all an issue of the persistent influences of certain denominations of Christianity—not a Western cultural issue.
When Popes have bought nude statues of mythic Greek heroes (who worshipped non-Christian gods and goddesses), they were not getting that from the Bible! They were Renaissance men—culturally European, and sometimes not very good at being Christian.
Of course, what you want is not to be a Renaissance man. I am not really one, either; but modulo a few of my own freethinking adjustments, it is an ideal for which I strive, so as to rise beyond my own modern corruptions, weaknesses, and failings. Properly considered, I am not an “Antihero”, but rather, a Byronic hero (and a Don Juan). —A hero in the original sense, but with tragic flaws inasmuch as I am assuredly not an Achilles. Anyway... I despise “virtue”: I seek virtù.
You probably disagree with me about many things; for example, I infer that you would hate this post of mine and its followup. (← ⚠ WARNING: Links contain artistic nudity—i.e., a nude statue of Napoleon’s sister as Venus Victrix—and are likely offensive to Foxpup!) And some of the forum’s right-wingers, who oft concur with me politically, are probably upset by my Nietzschean attacks on Christianity;—
The actual fence is much higher,
and it works both ways.
^^^ This is Western culture. Only a subset of Puritanical Americans, and a few mutant Englishmen, could ever have a problem with it. Their problem is that they are mentally ill, and unfit for survival in this world.
On that note, I do understand that this is a very American forum; and its policies are thus subject to the cultural influences of a country that was partly founded by
the idiots who banned Christmas, a holiday that they correctly identified as “pagan” (and therefore hated for its essential nature),
Perhaps my expectations may be too high here.
This post is getting too long even for me. —To be continued, with further discussion of “NSFW” as I attempt to understand what it means here. Because I really don’t.
November 29, 2020, 12:23:26 PM
Code:
$ sha256sum foxpup.png
07fb66d0aabb6bd44eeb8d911a1b7d6c63d87fc7cd4000a80dd1efe4f36e6763 foxpup.png
- The image does not depict nudity, not even cartoon nudity. I had assumed that it did. Beneath the black bars, I could not see that the genital area and nipples are (barely) covered.
- The image is what I myself consider to be distasteful. I already knew that; but I could not say by how much, without seeing the uncensored image.
Though if tasteful nudity is more your thing, I've done that too: IsFoxpupStillANSFWVixen.today (even more NSFW) (Graciously hosted on loyce.club, so no Cloudflare nonsense, unless there's something LoyceV's not telling me.) Again, I've never posted that link on this forum without a NSFW tag, which is how I get away with this sort of thing; tastefulness counts for nothing. November 29, 2020, 11:06:50 AM
NSFW doesn't necessarily mean work only. But feel free to join a family gathering wearing that picture on your shirt.
If you don't understand the difference between NSFW images and text, I give up.
If you don't understand the difference between NSFW images and text, I give up.
Dishonest debate tactics severely annoy me. Stop switching back and forth between “NSFW images” and “think of the children!!!!” —Or do you suggest that only images can ever be allegedly* unsuitable for children? —By the way, do you let your kids listen to Cardi B?
but worse than that, I have kids walking around here too.
* Although I have not checked, I seriously doubt that the Musée d’Orsay has an 18+ policy. The very suggestion is one of those eye-rolling-emoticon things. Their website, which displays the same image as I posted, is not age-gated; and if porn filters were to block it, the censorware companies would immediately be hit by professors, museum curators, et al. with a firestorm of the same protest that I am raising in this thread. Oh, and your boss would look dumb as a brick if he fired you for looking at a museum’s website at work: https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/notice.html?nnumid=069330
November 29, 2020, 10:48:36 AM
NSFW doesn't necessarily mean work only. But feel free to join a family gathering wearing that picture on your shirt.
If you don't understand the difference between NSFW images and text, I give up.
If you don't understand the difference between NSFW images and text, I give up.
November 29, 2020, 10:32:47 AM
I tried to look, so as better to understand your objection to forum policy. Cloudflare threw me a Google CAPTCHA. I don’t do those anymore, especially not for read-only viewing of a web resource.
Sorry. In my defence, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find image hosting sites that a) allow NSFW art; b) allow hotlinking; c) don't resize/recompress/otherwise mangle the original file; d) don't use Cloudflare or anything worse; and e) don't do anything even more obnoxious that I haven't listed. Here it is via the forum's image proxy: ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd.facdn.net%2Fart%2Ffoxpup%2F1572178064%2F1572178017.foxpup_btcntlk10yrs.png&t=619&c=82s3t2f-vi7JLA (NSFW)Thanks. Neat trick.
Code:
$ sha256sum foxpup.png
07fb66d0aabb6bd44eeb8d911a1b7d6c63d87fc7cd4000a80dd1efe4f36e6763 foxpup.png
Now, this is why I wanted to see it:
- The image does not depict nudity, not even cartoon nudity. I had assumed that it did. Beneath the black bars, I could not see that the genital area and nipples are (barely) covered.
- The image is what I myself consider to be distasteful. I already knew that; but I could not say by how much, without seeing the uncensored image. Now, I can say that I have seen worse elsewhere on this forum. Furthermore, I can state that I often see other things freely posted which I would consider to be much more harmful to children. See below for an example.
Not that I want to ask for those to be deleted—to the contrary, it is an argument in my mind of: “If this is permitted, why is that forbidden?” The rules do not make sense to me; and I do not think that I am on notice of how I can follow them.
^^^ Thus began my reply to Foxpup, which I set aside because it takes time and tedium to locate suitable examples, etc.
To be continued, with whatever adjustments may be needed as the thread evolves.
I don't even like nullius for obvious reasons
Mutual. And you are severely mischaracterizing TMAN here. It is a shame that that undermines your credibility, because you raise a good and fair point about LoyceV:
You forgot that LoyceV also runs didtmansayabadword.tk, which I found sufficiently amusing that I suggested that it should count whenever TMAN said the word “fork”. (← ⚠ ACHTUNG! The screenshot of Jihan’s infamous tweet is NOT SAFE FOR WORK!)
but worse than that, I have kids walking around here too.
And even though we don't raise them to be snowflakes,
Does “not raising them to be snowflakes” include teaching them to use language that would make a sailor faint? Admit it, you shitcuntarsedicktwat, you reported my posts because you disliked my masterful counterstroke against suchmoon’s middle-schooler grade potty-mouth trolling of me. As I alluded above in this thread, one of my deleted posts seriously-sarcastically documented suchmoon’s prior history of pride in not wearing a paid signature—hah, hah, only serious!* Loyce, I think that that probably offended you more than the Courbet painting.
...and then, you rhetorically hid behind your wife and kids. Classy.
* For the record—a I have said before, repeatedly—I am quite ambivalent about paid signatures. I strongly dislike them myself. I have spent the past few years reserving the right to take a paid signature from a reputable, no-spam campaign, if I really need it to avoid starving. I have not done so, because I cannot stomach putting an American-style ad billboard on all of my posts. Ugly! Crass! Whereas Lauda thought that I was stupid for spending so much of my time here, with zero compensation—effectually devaluing myself; and I don’t think that she did anything wrong by wearing a paid signature. Anyway, none of that is the point here. suchmoon used to be so very proud of not wearing a paid signature, and now she has one; so...
November 29, 2020, 10:26:36 AM
November 29, 2020, 09:44:51 AM
Is the content of websites of famous European museums considered “NSFW” by Bitcointalk.org moderation policy?
Do you really have to ask? Forum rules don't care where the images come from.I reported your post. You posted it in my topic. In work-from-home-year-2020 it's more of a Not Safe For Wife but worse than that, I have kids walking around here too. And even though we don't raise them to be snowflakes, they don't need to see all hairy details either.
But I admit, my feelings are hurt: I am shocked, outraged, and indignant!
Great! All this helps you grow a thicker skin.Old robovac the Absolute Imbecile here to entertain.
I have no issue with the post being deleted but this outrage at your kids seeing a female body when you actively draw attention to and compile a list of posts with far more worrying content and keep bumping it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/poetry-by-tman-5138619
I mean the sexual deviant tman who's posts often detail child s3x abuse filth and other obsessive drivel surrounding cunts ?
Do read those out to your kids ?
You dont raise them as snowflakes, I hope you're not raising them to read either.
Yes sure delete the post but dont come all butter wouldn't melt.
I don't even like nullius for obvious reasons but he is just the latest person the DT colluding mass of corrupt scum are now hunting as a pack. I'm not sticking up for him I just like to bring some reality and context to these threads.
I don't buy the reason for your horror of this terrible sin of posting image of a vagjna whilst compiling and revelling in other obsessive and far more deviant filth that tman spews out of his retarded skull to the point of being creating an appreciation thread.
Report fine ...deleted fine...coming crying you kids start looking on your computer and seeing what's on there lol
Little Johnny- hey some dude posted a pic of a pussy on a thread on that forum moms always on
Little Johnny : hey mum created a thread celebrating cunts being fisted and assholes being fucked hard or kids being abused. Err moms a bit different to what we thought robbie keep child protection on speed dial.
Lol I think little Johnny would be far less damaged by the former.
Fine you don't wanna see snatch without warning but dont start pretending its cos your kids would be more offended by his actions than your own actions.
Report..delete ...shut up and stop your bogus crying.
If you claim your kids are not old enough to read then fine what about parents that have kids that can read ? They do on your thread and then have a piss and their kids see what list of filth you're compiling.
I dont have kids but if I did I would really be terrified if they saw a naked image like the one in question, I sure wouldn't want them to known that I'm a huge fan of tmans sexual deviant spew.
Also I dont like all this spite and hate being wasted on nullius. Let him stay on your side. There will be no challenge at all if you expel those that can put up a semi fight. I'm doing my best to unite you guys again.
Chill.
November 28, 2020, 10:17:54 PM
—Let’s not go that way. I will defend others’ posting of non-pornographic images, whether or not they are to my taste; and I find it regrettable that I even need to ask if forum policy prohibits the following image, which depicts male genitalia, and is hereby hotlinked directly from the Vatican Museums at a .va Internet address. The whole of Vatican City is the Pope’s workplace, subject to Catholic law; thus, this is “SFW” for the Pope.
In light of recent events, I don't think the Catholic Church should be held up as an example of what kinds of genitalia are appropriate to look at. It is not porn. It would be very foolish to claim that it is porn; this is not even a borderline, arguable question, such as with art-nude photography of a more or less sensual nature. I reasonably interpreted “NSFW” as a euphemism for porn, or almost-porn, or arguably-porn. —What does “NSFW” mean?
NSFW is not, and never has been, a euphemism for porn (or anything else). It has the plain meaning of the words: anything that is not safe to look at in at least some workplaces because it could get you fired. That category includes a lot more than just porn (but often does not include text regardless of content, because everyone knows that managers are I tried to look, so as better to understand your objection to forum policy. Cloudflare threw me a Google CAPTCHA. I don’t do those anymore, especially not for read-only viewing of a web resource.
Sorry. In my defence, it's becoming increasingly difficult to find image hosting sites that a) allow NSFW art; b) allow hotlinking; c) don't resize/recompress/otherwise mangle the original file; d) don't use Cloudflare or anything worse; and e) don't do anything even more obnoxious that I haven't listed. Here it is via the forum's image proxy: ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fd.facdn.net%2Fart%2Ffoxpup%2F1572178064%2F1572178017.foxpup_btcntlk10yrs.png&t=619&c=82s3t2f-vi7JLA (NSFW)My objection to forum policy is not so much that it reflects Western society's unhealthy obsession with genitalia and "female-presenting" nipples, but more that it's applied inconsistently and even in cases where it makes no sense, such as in the art contest.
November 28, 2020, 06:14:37 PM
I'm sorry, I forgot to use the BBCode for sarcasm
Oh 🤬forking🤬 h—, have I now been also been fired by Sarcasm? 😭
(New users, my apologies. I cannot link to the post that gives the context for this in-joke, because it was one of the posts that was deleted.)
Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water
I must ask, are you hereby speaking officially in your rôle as Global Moderator on behalf of the forum, or expressing only your personal opinion?
...wouldn't save them from their jobs or a disciplinary warning either.
If I ran a business that was publicly represented in the manner in which you have now reacted to me here and in the other thread, then I would promptly fire the employee who had tarnished my business’ professional image—whether or not that employee was expressing my own policies by such means.
I have always addressed forum staff with due courtesy (except for that Bcash shill HostFat), including in my hereby discussion with you. Your behaviour toward me is unwarranted. Internet flamewars between myself and random parties are one thing—but it is quite another, when you are entrusted with the responsibility to execute forum policy judiciously; whereas you have chosen to reply from the gutter and hurl personally insulting innuendo at a party who has addressed you with polite (if impassioned) discussion of official forum policy.
(I will set aside your arguments for the moment. I reasonably want to know whether they are official policy or your personal opinions, so as to know how properly to reply—and whether even to bother.)
I'm not sure why you're even wasting time here wallowing in the mire with all us mere peons since this is all obviously below you.
At least the other person who told me so (in much gentler terms) was an honest person, and thus meant it sincerely. (—And knew why I waste my time kicking around on the Internet, but that is none of your business.)
November 28, 2020, 04:19:11 PM
November 28, 2020, 03:42:03 PM
What an unexpected reaction to a predictable action
yourself:- “Unexpected”? In one of the deleted posts, I had explicitly promised that if necessary, I would defend this in Meta. I am a man of my word.Despite my political and aesthetic disagreements with Courbet, I will defend this in Meta if
- “Predictable”? I sincerely did not predict that I would need to defend it. I did predict that somebody, somewhere would complain about it; no doubt, there are many complaints about my posts, very few of which have ever been deleted by the moderators.
Quote
There is no better way to make nullius go nuclear than to attack culture.
And who here is attacking culture? If you fail to realize that there's a place and time for everything, including art, then you may need a speleology team to go take your head out of your ass.Quote
Do you mean to suggest that this forum has higher standards than a museum?
I fail to see how anyone could reach such a conclusion. They are simply 2 different things, with different objetives. And seriously, if you are going to open a thread for every post of yours that gets deleted, you should consider growing some thicker skin
November 28, 2020, 01:45:04 PM
November 28, 2020, 03:44:30 AM
Is the content of websites of famous European museums considered “NSFW” by Bitcointalk.org moderation policy?
Do you really have to ask? Forum rules don't care where the images come from.I reported your post. You posted it in my topic. In work-from-home-year-2020 it's more of a Not Safe For Wife but worse than that, I have kids walking around here too. And even though we don't raise them to be snowflakes, they don't need to see all hairy details either.
But I admit, my feelings are hurt: I am shocked, outraged, and indignant!
Great! All this helps you grow a thicker skin. global moderator
Activity: 3990
Merit: 2717
Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!
November 28, 2020, 02:36:41 AM
I didn't remove it but ask yourself this: would that artwork or something like it belong in the workplace, or would you feel comfortable looking at a picture like that at work? I doubt it. Just because something is 'art' or in a museum doesn't mean it's SFW.
November 27, 2020, 09:07:35 PM
What an unexpected reaction to a predictable action
Getting a bit more serious, yes, it is indeed art and that particular one displayed in museums. But this is a forum, not a museum; and the fact that it's art doesn't imply that it's SFW. Not only that, but also when you visit a museum, you do so willingly, knowing or at least expecting what you are about to see; if you happen to open a thread while you are having your morning coffee, it's safe to assume you are not expecting to see a big drawn cunt on your screen, and I can think of a couple more scenarios in which it wouldn't be the best thing to have at a screen. Rules are there, and they are for a reason, although we may not completely agree with them or their enforcement.
This whole situation would have been avoided with a simple tagged link instead of embedding the image.
Getting a bit more serious, yes, it is indeed art and that particular one displayed in museums. But this is a forum, not a museum; and the fact that it's art doesn't imply that it's SFW. Not only that, but also when you visit a museum, you do so willingly, knowing or at least expecting what you are about to see; if you happen to open a thread while you are having your morning coffee, it's safe to assume you are not expecting to see a big drawn cunt on your screen, and I can think of a couple more scenarios in which it wouldn't be the best thing to have at a screen. Rules are there, and they are for a reason, although we may not completely agree with them or their enforcement.
This whole situation would have been avoided with a simple tagged link instead of embedding the image.
November 27, 2020, 08:30:13 PM
Unless you're the curator of an art gallery, your work does not involve looking at pretty pictures, so get back to it! In all seriousness, the forum's puritanical (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to moderation forced me to censor my entry in the 10th anniversary art contest even though the contest explicitly allowed NSFW entries, resulting in this travesty:
(NSFW version) (Hopefully Cloudflare's stopped being a bastard about these links.)
(Okay, admittedly not all the travesties depicted are the result of forum moderation. Incidentally, I never did get an answer to the question of what kinds and/or genders of nipples are allowed.)
(NSFW version) (Hopefully Cloudflare's stopped being a bastard about these links.)
(Okay, admittedly not all the travesties depicted are the result of forum moderation. Incidentally, I never did get an answer to the question of what kinds and/or genders of nipples are allowed.)
November 27, 2020, 07:59:36 PM
November 27, 2020, 07:00:19 PM
Loyce, please add a poll option demanding a ban of people who, being accused of being cunts, reply with famous fine-art paintings of cunts. Thanks.
Subject: Re: Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt
Subject: Re: Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt
Despite my political and aesthetic disagreements with Courbet, I will defend this in Meta if Puritanical Americans whine for censorship of a painting that is currently displayed in the Musée d’Orsay in Paris:
[...]
[...]
WTF, are you John Ashcroft? Or perhaps are you one of those people who irreparably damaged Renaissance artworks in European churches by effacing artistic displays of genitalia and/or female breasts? Would you Bowdlerize Shakespeare, too?
[...]
Some people wonder why I have become habituated to using my highlighter pen. I will illustrate here by example: My point was, of course, that if a painting is hanging in full public view in a major Parisian museum, and is displayed on that museum’s website (try my links!) with no 18+ check or other indicia of so-called “NSFW”, then I am sure it can embedded on this forum.
[...helpful highlighting to assist with comprehension...]
I even showed the museum itself, for a reason. Do you suggest that this Very Venerable and Serious Museum publicly, openly displays things that cannot be embedded in posts on the libertarian cypherpunk Bitcoin Forum?
WTF, are you John Ashcroft? Or perhaps are you one of those people who irreparably damaged Renaissance artworks in European churches by effacing artistic displays of genitalia and/or female breasts? Would you Bowdlerize Shakespeare, too?
Quote from: Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark (modernized spelling for the ineducable peasants and proletarians here)
[...famous Shakespearean pun about “country matters”...]
[...]
Some people wonder why I have become habituated to using my highlighter pen. I will illustrate here by example: My point was, of course, that if a painting is hanging in full public view in a major Parisian museum, and is displayed on that museum’s website (try my links!) with no 18+ check or other indicia of so-called “NSFW”, then I am sure it can embedded on this forum.
[...helpful highlighting to assist with comprehension...]
I even showed the museum itself, for a reason. Do you suggest that this Very Venerable and Serious Museum publicly, openly displays things that cannot be embedded in posts on the libertarian cypherpunk Bitcoin Forum?
The above-linked Telegraph article, in pertinent part:
Quote from: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1383108/Curtains-for-nude-statue-of-justice.html
Curtains for nude statue of justice
By Toby Harnden in Washington
29 January 2002 • 00:01 am
AMERICA'S puritanical attorney-general, John Ashcroft, has had the half-naked statue of the Spirit of Justice covered because he was annoyed at being photographed in front of the exposed right breast.
Curtains costing £5,500 will now shield the aluminium art deco work - nicknamed "Minnie Lou" - and its companion, the Majesty of Justice, a male figure naked apart from a loincloth.
[...]
Last November, after announcing a restructuring of the department to cope with the threat of terrorism, Mr Ashcroft was presented with press pictures showing his serious visage next to the Spirit of Justice's breast.
By Toby Harnden in Washington
29 January 2002 • 00:01 am
AMERICA'S puritanical attorney-general, John Ashcroft, has had the half-naked statue of the Spirit of Justice covered because he was annoyed at being photographed in front of the exposed right breast.
Curtains costing £5,500 will now shield the aluminium art deco work - nicknamed "Minnie Lou" - and its companion, the Majesty of Justice, a male figure naked apart from a loincloth.
[...]
Last November, after announcing a restructuring of the department to cope with the threat of terrorism, Mr Ashcroft was presented with press pictures showing his serious visage next to the Spirit of Justice's breast.
A coda for those who may be confused by modern false dichotomies: Unlike “conservatives”, who want to turn back the clock by about fifty years, or “paleoconservatives”, who want to go back about a hundred, I want to return to the Renaissance—or to classical antiquity.
With a few exceptions, most of the nude artwork that I have posted is classical or (more or less) neoclassical—not Courbet, of all people; but Courbet is unavoidably a part of nineteenth-century art history, and is not pornographic or “NSFW”. —Unless famous museums are deemed to meet that description. I dispute that, which is why I am raising this issue in Meta.
November 27, 2020, 07:00:00 PM
A question that I ask because I do strive in good faith to heed the forum rules:
Is the content of websites of famous European museums considered “NSFW” by Bitcointalk.org moderation policy?
On another note, I request heavier moderation of rude trolls. Some foul-mouthed lowlife called me a “c—”, and I am deeply offended! Sincerely offended: Courtesy is important to me; and I am in principle against the use of anatomical terms as “dirty words”, on grounds that such usage defiles the cleanliness and sanctity of the human body.
Naturally, what with this being the Internet, and what with my being a mature grown-up, I just rolled with the punches instead of demanding that my feelings be protected. But I admit, my feelings are hurt: I am shocked, outraged, and indignant!
Where is the Bitcointalk.org Trust and Safety Team!?
What with this being a private forum, I will not repost the deleted content without permission. Rather, I do hereby as I promised: I am taking this up in Meta, in an appropriate manner.
However, I will publish in Post #2 a brief excerpt of such deleted content as is—most ironic, and not only relevant, but essential to this discussion.
Is the content of websites of famous European museums considered “NSFW” by Bitcointalk.org moderation policy?
I have spent more time studying and practicing kāmaśāstra than science and technology! Now, why don’t you quote that, PM theymos, and ask him to ban me because I like sex, and I am not ashamed of it.
* No, I did not even try to decline all these Sanskrit words tossed into an English sentence. Eh.🤬
On another note, I request heavier moderation of rude trolls. Some foul-mouthed lowlife called me a “c—”, and I am deeply offended! Sincerely offended: Courtesy is important to me; and I am in principle against the use of anatomical terms as “dirty words”, on grounds that such usage defiles the cleanliness and sanctity of the human body.
Naturally, what with this being the Internet, and what with my being a mature grown-up, I just rolled with the punches instead of demanding that my feelings be protected. But I admit, my feelings are hurt: I am shocked, outraged, and indignant!
😭
Where is the Bitcointalk.org Trust and Safety Team!?
What with this being a private forum, I will not repost the deleted content without permission. Rather, I do hereby as I promised: I am taking this up in Meta, in an appropriate manner.
However, I will publish in Post #2 a brief excerpt of such deleted content as is—most ironic, and not only relevant, but essential to this discussion.
— See you next Tuesday. —
Jump to: