>>95340081>MissI said it to make a point:
There's a line that SJW's cross with free speech and I'm not gonna cross it because I'm not a goddamn SJW. You're all free to think of me what you want and insult me all you like for saying it, but I'm not going to judge any of you or think any less of you for it. If you think I'm a dumbass, I'm rightly deserved to be called one for bringing up personal tragedy where you think it might not be warranted...
...but then that means You'd also be not paying attention to the fact that (1.) pre-emptively stated that I respect your views and just like you, I don't think rape is a taboo subject so long as it is is not practiced in reality/lied about or otherwise applied in any fashion where it directly violates an individual. (personal feelings does not count.) Rape can be a talking subject and can be 'dramatized' to the lens of harmless artistic expression by means of written/drawn/painted/syndicated/studio-produced fictional works and things of such nature, but that's the limit of it.
(2) My assertion here is that regardless of my feelings that I don't agree that a single person's belief's ( Such as this
anon's view
>>95339615 ) Should ever be allowed to go "uncontested". It's bullshit like that that people let
float around that assholes like to exploit, practice the preaching of in echo chambers and refine to the point of evolving
into bogus buzzwords that SJW's tend to fuel themselves with to further whatever propaganda vehicles they keep
crashing into mainstream traffic... which keeps making our hobbies worse.
>"/co/ has always been a champion of pedo rights"That shit there.
I'm all for free speech, but I'm literally informing /co/ that I might be biased while still making a point that nobody
should ignore how nebulous the statement came off, because that's the exact sort of shit that gains traction
with SJW's.
