"Couple" on dribbble is being debated (NSFW?)(dribbble.com)

almost 4 years ago from David Barker

  • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, almost 4 years ago

    I'm OK with intolerance to intolerance.

    6 points
    • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, almost 4 years ago (edited almost 4 years ago )

      "Uh yeah, hey Dribbble, so this shot looks like it goes against the policies stated here & here"

      "Wtf man! What are you, some religious dude?"

      "Well, I didn't say that but—"

      "I think this is fine. Don't push your religion down my throat!"

      "I just thought it went against these poli—"

      "You're weirding me out. Wait 'til everyone hears about this."

      5 points
      • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, almost 4 years ago

        I mean, just in general, I'm intolerant towards intolerance.

        As far as Dribbble is concerned, they should just follow the advertising industry. If you wouldn't see it on a billboard, you shouldn't see it on Dribbble. That goes for sex, and well as violence.

        0 points
        • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, almost 4 years ago

          I can agree with that!

          0 points
          • Elliott ReganElliott Regan, almost 4 years ago

            Of course, you could take that and say that you see zero ads with guns in populated areas, so why are there so many on Dribbble?

            If you can show non-violent pictures of guns, you should be able to show non-sexual images with nudity.

            4 points
            • Chase GiuntaChase Giunta, almost 4 years ago

              Sure. It's a grey area over what is considered sexual and what isn't, so that's difficult to enforce. The shot in question is of a couple, both nude, hand upon another, etc. Sexual IMO. A gun by itself (or in the act of hunt, protection, or sport) is not viewed negatively violent, IMO (though, I don't care to view any either) but put to use in the incorrect way, sure. The subjectivity of it all is tough.

              0 points
    • Floyd WilliamsonFloyd Williamson, almost 4 years ago

      Except Tait Brown's statement is intolerant without reason. He uses "Christian" in the negative sense even though he can't state anything that has been done to him. Instead, we get the vague word, "vibes."

      So it is just intolerant without a source. And that is not ok.

      1 point