Lurker > l0gic

Superman continues to be a one-man army against a bunch of angry, emotional dweebs who don't know how to argue.

Oh, and

superman 2000 posted...

@l0gic , I believe you said in an earlier post that you're a woman, right? Not that it should matter, but it's always nice to have a woman's perspective on stuff like this lol besides that YouTube video I posted.

yes, I am a woman. :>

Strawman is more about the actual argument being misrepresented; not so much the person, though I suppose I get why one could assume there's overlap. Conflict is definitely being dishonest about your character, but I'm not sure strawman is the best term to use...

Doom_Art posted...

see it's like i've been saying

either they're actually into this sort of thing and are lashing out at people making fun of their fetish, which is somewhat understandable but still very weird

or they're just doing this for fun, which is not only weird but kinda insane

It feels like your fetish is constantly repeating yourself. How many times have you said this?

Doom_Art posted...

who spends their time arguing over their pretend love of cartoon rabbit breasts online

Even if that was the case, you acting like a dick is far worse than TC just being weird. Makes you look very insecure.

Doom_Art posted...

Who said I was trying to be funny?

Who spends their time just making fun of people? Are you bullied in the real world, and the internet is the only place you can feel powerful?

Darmik posted...

It's about popularity not sensitivity. Jesus I really shouldn't need to explain this. You're not the target market.

The target demographic wasn't complaining about Lola having breasts; the complaints were always directed at Lola's sexiness.

Darmik posted...

It's not a minor thing for stuff like toys. Again she's gonna be out on the same shelves as characters like Peppa Pig and Bluey.

So basically, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN "

Yeah, how about we just stop thinking kids are these sensitive little morons who can't handle anything?

superman 2000 posted...

I had the day off and I love to argue.

I like to debate as well, but when it's clear that you're dealing with a bunch of presumptuous pricks, I can't say that I see the appeal...

Even though TC is right, I'm frightened by how long this topic has lasted...

eston posted...

I agree that there was nothing wrong with her having boobs, and I also think there's nothing wrong with her not having boobs.

There isn't anything wrong with either, which is why I think it's a fair question to ask why they got rid of the breasts on a character who previously had them. If there's nothing inherently sexual about Lola having boobs, then why make her look more-or-less the exact same but with no boobs? There's a contradiction there. Either the mere existence of boobs is inherently sexual, or it's not. Guess which belief is more misogynistic?

It's a cartoon rabbit ffs. The whole character change seems to be pivoting towards not bringing her sexuality into play at all, which I honestly don't see why it needs to be

You kinda just proved my (and I suppose TC's) point. Breasts CAN be sexual, but they shouldn't be seen as innately so (at least, not when drawn/shown in a way that clearly isn't meant to arouse).

As a woman myself, I agree. There was nothing wrong with Lola having boobs, and her "sex appeal" was always overstated anyway. Her de-feminization in Space Jam 2 reminds me of when men (usually of oppressive religions) make women dress in overly conservative ways, just because they themselves lack self-control when seeing a woman's body.