/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>7084668
But if anyone makes a small argument based on morality or decency and common sense then it is called moralfaggotry and then it automatically gets dismissed.

Anon, draw and do and jerk off to what the fuck you want, but don't change definitions because calling it what it is makes you feel guilty and shameful about it.
>>7084679
But there is still no actual moral argument being made here.

>theyre now banning implied rape, incest and whatnot, IN FICTION
So, and instead of trying to point out the motivator and reasoning for this, you just put the blame on moralfaggotry?
Most people don't want to see that shit because it makes them highly uncomfortable and it has nothing to do with morality, but rather a natural reaction; you can't genuinely and sanely demand anyone to be exposed to graphic content because you are numb to it
>"yeah bro just watch gore, i do it all the time. wtf do you mean you don't want to, what are you some puritan or something? everyone gonna die and people blow up other people anyway so consume the fucking gore now, bigot"
Advertisement and public images are the way they are because there is a common denominator and modus operandi across the globe, not a cultural morality.
It don't make financial sense to alienate a majority of people because of a minority of degenerates wants to jerk off in public and expose their fetish to everyone.

It's the same as people going vegetarian once they see how animals are butchered for mass production because it is that repulsive to them.
This is rather based on emotions, but valid nonetheless, because of the subject being the reaction people have to stuff and its consequences.

>Pornographers are immoral
Honestly depends but why does morality suddenly matter now?

One can just simply block&mute on sns, and if a lot of people aren't interested or are repulsed by it, is it then moralfaggotry and puritanism and do you have the right to demand they consume your content or else they're nazi bigots?