Christianity is objectively the best thing to ever happen for women's rights

About time someone did something about this.

Bye bye CRT/BMF, hello Scar's partee for you

It's going to be epic

F**K YES I;VE BEEN TIRED OF THE NSFW

Ironically, your comment is NSFW.

it's not my fault if imgflip can't handle a simple f word

Question for the Christian Theocracy Party (maybe Think Tank stream too)
If a woman takes a booty selfie and posts it on the internet, is she objectifying women?

yes

In doing so, she reduces herself to her most carnal attributes, all for the men who are interesting in nothing more than fleshly pleasure. These men use women to satisfy their carnal desires, and women are playing right along with it.

Andrew posed the hypo of a booty selfie. But what about showing “too much” leg? Or cleavage? Or midriff? Or in some countries, hair? Any body part can cause offense to somebody somewhere. Catering to the most offended is a recipe for making everyone miserable.

Beyond the rule of common sense (no one wears a bikini to a job interview, unless it’s, of course, some kind of modeling gig), it’s difficult or impossible to make overall rules about this without turning into the “morality police” that used to harass women in America, and still do in many Muslim countries.

If this were just about clothing that’d be one thing, but it’s not really. There’s a notable correlation between the rollback of women’s rights to wear clothing and the rollback of other civil rights. We can’t prescribe the sartorial choices of adult women without infantilizing them in other ways.

Imgflip’s NSFW designation seems adequate for this issue. There’s no real issue here on I_P as no one mistakes I_P for the boobs stream. That said, banning such content here outright will paradoxically make it more political (turning it into a free speech issue) and therefore more on-topic for this stream than it was before.

Too much thigh, bad. Cleavage, bad. Midriff, bad. Hair there's nothing wrong with.

It could be said that public decency should be common sense.

Examples of this correlation being?

If there's no issue, than a rule against it shouldn't be an issue. Besides, I didn't start this, people were posting crap like that here and I decided it'd be a good for the Christian Theocracy Party to take a stance against it.

Slobama brings up a fair point. This seems an awful lot like IG’s attempts to ban content he didn’t agree with like the kissing and LGBT images. Plus, it’s not like this is becoming the boobs or booty streams anytime soon, that sort of content has never been prevalent here.

If I remember correctly, IG attempted to make non-NSFW content NSFW. What is and isn't NSFW is determined by imgflip itself, with the parameters of NSFW content being one of the automatic rules listed on every stream. It is not within a stream's jurisdiction to change the boundary of what is and isn't NSFW, as it would contradict the rule imgflip has already established; the rule that is in fact listed in every single stream's list of rules.

However, it is well within a stream's rights to decide what sort of content is and isn't allowed on a stream. This includes the restriction or banning of content that may be within TOS. For instance, politicsTOO generally bans right-wing content. Even though such content is within TOS, the stream has chosen not to allow it, that being a stream's right. And again, look at any stream that unfeatures unrelated content, even though said content is well-within TOS. I'm not trying to do something that every other stream isn't already doing.

What's unconstitutional about it? Freedom of speech doesn't protect indecent exposure.
And if that's not enough, the ship has already sailed on the infallibility of the Common Sense Constitution imgflip.com/i/76rm9t (see Article 11 Section 2)

My point still stands. That sort of content has never been prevalent here, so any sort of legislation banning it is unnecessary and just seems like the same sort of virtue signaling we saw from IncognitoGuy. As for whether or not the Constitution would just be ignored, I have always stated that the stream owner could just throw out the Constitution if they wanted to, as is the stream owner’s right per Imgflip TOS, but the fact remains that it’s still in place, which would mean Slobama would have the right to take this to court and likely win.

eh, there've been a couple posts the last few days. Seemed like an opportune time to start preparing election promises. Besides, the bill shouldn't be a problem if that stuff isn't really prevalent here, right?
I suppose he could, but when's the last time a regime has actually done anything here? It's really all the same-old-same-old. If the regime has some real power, things might get interesting. I'm not trying to ban anyone. Nobody's going to get hurt here. It's just time that a regime is willing to make things interesting; raise the stakes >:)

Read Article 16 Section 1

Article 16: Security of the Common Sense Constitution
Section 1: The Common Sense Constitution is the law of the land. No law or Amendment can be in contradiction to the Constitution. Articles of the Common Sense Constitution cannot be edited or repealed; however, Amendments can.

what about it

Oops, wrong section...

I meant Article 16 Section 4...

Section 4: Upon passage of this Constitution, all previous Constitutions are repealed and all future Constitutions are seen as invalid.

what about that one?

You said...

"What's unconstitutional about it? Freedom of speech doesn't protect indecent exposure.
And if that's not enough, the ship has already sailed on the infallibility of the Common Sense Constitution imgflip.com/i/76rm9t (see Article 11 Section 2)"

right, the law I'm proposing is well within constitutional limits
and for those not convinced and still fretting, the constitution has already been ignored and nobody cared

Ok, but as long as you're not doing what IncognitoGuy tried to do

naw

So you want to be like IncognitoGuy?

no, I mean like "naw, it's not gonna be like IG"

Oh

We cannot make a new constitution

that's not the point

See other comment I made

'Tis a good idea.

glad you're in

ELECTED

thank you, glad to have your support!

*resists urge to bite*

*bites anyway*

How’s this different from IG’s 5 gajillion attempts to keep content he doesn’t like off this stream for being “immoral”? How’s it not unconstitutional out of the gate?

Also, has this ever happened?

If I remember correctly, IG attempted to make non-NSFW content NSFW. What is and isn't NSFW is determined by imgflip itself, with the parameters of NSFW content being one of the automatic rules listed on every stream. It is not within a stream's jurisdiction to change the boundary of what is and isn't NSFW, as it would contradict the rule imgflip has already established; the rule that is in fact listed in every single stream's list of rules.

However, it is well within a stream's rights to decide what sort of content is and isn't allowed on a stream. This includes the restriction or banning of content that may be within TOS. For instance, politicsTOO generally bans right-wing content. Even though such content is within TOS, the stream has chosen not to allow it, that being a stream's right. I'm not trying to do something that every other stream isn't already doing.

What's unconstitutional about it? Freedom of speech doesn't protect indecent exposure.
And if that's not enough, the ship has already sailed on the infallibility of the Common Sense Constitution imgflip.com/i/76rm9t (see Article 11 Section 2)

has what ever happened?

honestly it's funny to hear from you cuz you banned me for typing in all caps

I honestly can’t even remember your SN I had to ban so many folks that day.

If you want your ban reversed on any stream I mod and will commit to commenting respectfully going forward, the door is open, as it always is for anyone.

using all caps isn't very disrespectful

It is and there was more to your comment than that