Are fine artworks in European museums deemed “NSFW” by forum rules?

[nullius]

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?

Link is NOT “NSFW”,
unless your workplace prohibits you from viewing the websites of museums.

• Delete reply: Re: Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt in topic #5293050 by member #976210
• [...]
• Delete reply: Re: Do you want more or less freedom? in topic #5293277 by member #976210
• [...]
• Delete reply: Re: Reeeeeeeeee: nullius is a cunt in topic #5293050 by

Another question:  Is my avatar permitted?  Although it is exoterically an infinite zero, it has an esoteric meaning that is sexually graphic and explicit.

It must be safe for work.

—Yes, I am serious.  I am well-known for double entendre and beyond:  Onion-layered multiplicities of meaning.  Inter alia, the green oval with a dot of my avatāra has always evoked and invoked the yóni opening to the liṅga at the moment of intromission, in accord with my private study of the kāmaśāstra.^*

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. —

[nullius]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

« Sent to: nullius on: Today at 08:09:26 PM »
« Sent to: nullius on: Today at 08:33:40 PM »
« Sent to: nullius on: Today at 08:39:01 PM »

Parts of one of the deleted posts, which in turn quoted parts of the two others:

Re: Do you want more or less freedom?

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

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:

Gustave Courbet, L’Origine du monde (oil on canvas, 1866)
[—REMOVED—]
Exhibit 0: A cunt.

Exhibit 1: The Musée d’Orsay

[...]

[...]

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?

[...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:

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.

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.

[suchmoon]

[Foxpup]

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.)

[Csmiami]

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.

[hilariousandco]

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.

[LoyceV]

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.

[nullius]

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.

Who knew that you are married to a cartoon character.


Titled, “In which nullius does some research, and learns to communicate in pop-culture terms that everybody else here will understand.”

Your concern for your children may be more credible if you weren’t essentially stating that you ban them from museums, art history textbooks (things evidently unfamiliar to you), libraries (oh dear me, what may they find there!?), etc.  As it is, you come off as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children.

At that, if you expose your children to this forum, do you have a problem with them seeing people call others a “cunt”?  Or watching you promote gambling (which I don’t dislike in itself—but it is not appropriate for children)?  What about a forum post which claims that tripping on LSD is an experience like taking a trip to France?

I also wonder if you protect your children from listening to the radio.  I would.  There is trashy stuff broadcast over the airwaves that you should be much more concerned about than famous paintings.

Ordinarily, as a gentleman, I would not speak ill of a man’s wife in an Internet argument.  But if you want to hide behind her, and she is a classless harridan who disrespects fine art, then she is fair game.

But I admit, my feelings are hurt:  I am shocked, outraged, and indignant!

Great! All this helps you grow a thicker skin.

LoyceV cherrypicks quotes out of context to strip obvious sarcasm from a satirical statement, and cast me in a false light as a fool.  Noted.

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.

Thank you for your reply.  No, I would not mind being seen at work or otherwise publicly looking at a Courbet painting.  Neither would the employees at the museum where it is on public display.  Neither would anyone else who is not an ignorant rube.  Indeed, it is hilariously ridiculous to suggest that this forum has higher standards than this workplace:

Interior of the Musée d’Orsay
A workplace beyond the ken of LoyceV and his wife.

In professional and social contexts, what I would want to avoid is to be associated with the massive amount of mass-mind, low-class cheap trash that gets posted here, such as non-nude “sexy” pics of tarts who look like streetwalkers—and also, all the photos of marijuana and cocaine that oft get posted to the Wall Observer.

In my professional life, and socially for me, it has also always been unacceptable to call someone “a cunt”.

My standards are higher:  If you really want to enforce my “safe for work” standard, then you need to delete at least half of the graphical content of the forum.  At least.  Plus many of the textual posts.

—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.  Anybody who reports or deletes this is mentally ill, an enemy of mankind, and a despicable cretin whom I despise worse than anybody whom I have ever despised on this forum, including Craig Wright.  Source page in English:  Perseus Triumphant.

...the statue was bought by Pope Pius VII Chiaramonti (1800-1823)...

My intended context for posting this image:  I am not a cunt, but a dick; and mythopoetically in the context of this forum, Perseus represents me, and the head of Medusa is suchmoon.

* My dick is bigger than a twitlib’s—where “dick” has a subtextual meaning of “supreme mastery of hermeneutics”, and its size is an allegory for my powers of mythological interpretation.

Laugh.  It’s hilarious!  🙃☮

the forum's puritanical (and somewhat hypocritical) approach to moderation

I doubt that theymos himself is Puritanical.  If he were, then he would not run GGB.

My hypothesis is that the primary reason for the forum’s policy is that if porn gets posted here, then the forum will wind up being blocked by numerous censorware filters.  On pragmatic grounds, it would not be an unreasonable policy.  Of course, only theymos could say for sure if my thus inferences are correct.

Whereas the images that I have posted cannot reasonably be described as “porn”.  Not unless in substantial effect, one were to equate the Musée d’Orsay to a porno shop.

I did not expect for my posts to be deleted, because I did not expect that any of the staff here would go full John Ashcroft.  Thus, it was not my intention to make a “test case” here—but it is inadvertently a good test case for the boundaries of forum policy:

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 version) (Hopefully Cloudflare's stopped being a bastard about these links.)

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.

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.

There is no better way to make nullius go nuclear than to attack culture.

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;

Do you mean to suggest that this forum has higher standards than a museum?  

<snip>
This whole situation would have been avoided with a simple tagged link instead of embedding the image.

Your value system is completely upside-down and inside-out.  I take the same offence to your suggestion as I would to the notion that I should need to hide away my interests in music—q.v. for a different pop-cultural allegory in the context hereof.

Mood Musik for my friends to enjoy whilst reading my posts:  Free download of a public domain project!

Hotlinks to MP3s for all tracks (now playing):  Aria; Variation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27–28, 29, 30; Aria da Capo è Fine.

24-bit FLAC is also available; see the above archive.org link for that, or for the handy in-browser Javascript musik player.

[Csmiami]

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.

I'm sorry, I forgot to use the BBCode for sarcasm

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.

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

[hilariousetc]

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.

Thank you for your reply.  No, I would not mind being seen at work or otherwise publicly looking at a Courbet painting.  Neither would the employees at the museum where it is on public display.  Neither would anyone else who is not an ignorant rube.  Indeed, it is hilariously ridiculous to suggest that this forum has higher standards than this workplace:

Interior of the Musée d’Orsay
A workplace beyond the ken of LoyceV and his wife.

This forum isn't a museum. A 16-man gangbang is a place of work but it doesn't belong in the office, nor do images of it even if they were painted by Courbet or any other French painter. You can certainly browse as many pictures as you want in your office if that so pleases you, but a lot of people here don't work in a museum or the Vatican and a lot of users likely won't want to be caught with vaginas on their screen - art or not - not to mention a lot of bosses and co-workers probably wouldn't appreciate it either. Sadly, I'm sure just calling them 'ignorant, uncultured rubes' wouldn't save them from their jobs or a disciplinary warning either.

Mood Musik for my friends to enjoy whilst reading my posts:  Free download of a public domain project!

Hotlinks to MP3s for all tracks (now playing):  Aria; Variation 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27–28, 29, 30; Aria da Capo è Fine.

24-bit FLAC is also available; see the above archive.org link for that, or for the handy in-browser Javascript musik player.

Have you heard the fine works of William Frederick Durst? I particularly like the third movement of his seminal work: Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water entitled "My Generation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE9CXWV1alg

The entire album is a masterpiece of nu metal and I would recommend it when reading my posts. 128kbs mp3 is available if you're interested.

In my professional life, and socially for me, it has also always been unacceptable to call someone “a cunt”.

Have you thought that some people might find it unnaceptable to look at pictures of vaginas too, regardless of who they were painted by? It looks like people have differing standards. Who would have thought not everyone thinks the same? So just to clarify, the word Cunt bad, but pictures of painted cunt ok? Gotcha.

In professional and social contexts, what I would want to avoid is to be associated with the massive amount of mass-mind, low-class cheap trash that gets posted here, such as non-nude “sexy” pics of tarts who look like streetwalkers—and also, all the photos of marijuana and cocaine that oft get posted to the Wall Observer.

And in professional and social contexts a lot of people probably don't want to see vaginas either, just like you probably wouldn't browse this forum in those circumstances. What would your associates say if they saw you looking at vile pictures of street-walkers and the evil devil's lettuce/dust? How ghastly! 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.

[nullius]

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.)

[Foxpup]

—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 functionally illiterate too polite to read over their employees' shoulders.)

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.

[Laudanum]

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://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138619.0

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.

[suchmoon]

[nullius]

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:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138619.0

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...

[LoyceMobile]

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.

[nullius]

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.

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

[Foxpup]

Code:

$ sha256sum foxpup.png
07fb66d0aabb6bd44eeb8d911a1b7d6c63d87fc7cd4000a80dd1efe4f36e6763  foxpup.png

Verified. The forum proxy is not doing any weird alterations/conversions/optimisations.

• 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.

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.) 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.

[nullius]

Bottoms first:

...tastefulness counts for nothing.

I noticed.

Code:

$ sha256sum foxpup.png
07fb66d0aabb6bd44eeb8d911a1b7d6c63d87fc7cd4000a80dd1efe4f36e6763  foxpup.png

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!

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.)

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;—

—With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment.  I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth.  It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption.  The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul.

—and you see—yes, you see, I took the nym “nullius”, which means ‘nobody’, for I please nobody.

Of note in this connexion, you awarded high merit to one of my posts that included, inter alia, a nude statue of Phryne in the Achilleion.  The Achilleion is a palace that was originally constructed by Kaiserin Elisabeth of Austria, who was strictly Catholic royalty; the palace was later purchased by Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, an extremely conservative traditional Prussian.  Both Imperial monarchs were Christians—but like Popes who have admired nude Perseus, they were also strongly influenced by Western culture far older than Christianity, as reborn in the Renaissance.

(I will admit that they both probably would have had a problem with Courbet—but politics are here inextricable from the question, insofar as Courbet was a damnable Socialist.  I doubt that they would have appreciated Foxpup’s oeuvre—but Foxpup, you did say you aimed for “distasteful”! ;-)

Phryne was, of course, a great woman who provided aristocrats with intimate companionship in exchange for (very large amounts of) money.  —So great that she has inspired painters, sculptors, and poets for millennia.  And her legendary image, as imagined by artists, has appeared in not a few of my forum posts.

Foxpup, remember this?  I think you didn’t know that it is from the former palace of ultraconservative German monarchs.  (—Later taken away and converted to a posh casino where at least one James Bond movie scene was filmed, after the Germans lost it due to war politics.  I am pretty sure that the fence was not there before, when it was not open to the public.)

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.

[Foxpup]

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.