Eww, I got classist identity politics propaganda in my feed.

Don't spread classist propaganda. Overalls are sturdy trousers for heavy work. The one on the top's job is to look pretty. The one on the bottom does some hard, manual labour in these clothes.

I'm not saying one's better than the other. Just that these people are graded on the same scale thah different jobs don't satisfy.

The one from yesterday was slop. This one at least some effort behind it (not much - it's still a shitpost).

Das eklige Gefühl im Bauch, dass du Google freiwillig nach den ganzen Daten auch noch in Geld bezahlen musst, was die Spinner in Silicon Valley gerade treiben?

Were's the comment that shows this ain't slop?

How am I mistaken and how does "ironic", or "hypocrisy" apply? O.o

And I'm tired of the fucking slop. Not posting slop is how you avoid unnecessary bandwidth.

Sure, Mrs Lovejoy. /s

That's note even my point, dumbass. 😂

You never clearly stated your goddamn point, troll.

What's racist is having a problem with beauty standards from cultures of PoC, while accepting european beauty standards.

The timestamp is 2m05s. Look it up.

So, what's your point exactly? That people with broad hips aren't supposed to be shown? What exactly is your point about the "body image"? You still failed to give a concise answer.

Literally pulling shit out of your ass.

That sure is a way not to respond in an argument. I interpret that as you giving up.

I can, and that's precisely why I find it problematic. I'm not sure you understand, though, by the looks of the shit you're saying.

Sure. And I can do one handed pull-ups. I just don't want to. /s

one is eagle spread on a surfboard and the other is checking out her ass.

What? She is sitting on a surfboard. How else is she supposed to sit. Have you ever been on a surfboard? And the one shot where she's "checking out her ass" has no sexual connotations. It was cooldown of a tense action scene and shows her being self-conscious about her weight. You probably never watched the movie. So don't just state shit you know nothing about.

Case in point.

Was your point that you're asking creepy questions? Because then I agree. Otherwise, I restate that it's not shameful for (pre-)teens to explore their sexuality at their own pace.

Teenage start at thirTEEN. 12 is the upper bound

Oh, yeah. Really big difference, Herr Obersturmbandführer of the sematics nazis. /s

but I've been repeatedly referring to 9 year-olds.

So, are you implying that broad hips spoil the youth into being sexually more active at an earlier age? Helen Lovejoy much?

You're so disingenuous and throwing shit at the wall.

Nah, you're just body shaming and/or a puritan Helen Lovejoy.

Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies my point.

Tell me: what's the canonical age that it's ok for people find out that big butts exist and that is an acceptable beauty standard? You're kind of coming across a bit racist-y here, if you apparently don't have a problem with white standards of eroticisation and suddenly have a problem if the beauty standards are those of PoC.

Is that a joke? Gaston is a strong man. What part of his design is specifically sexy and revealing? His forearms?

... i literally scrobbled to the line "literally everything covered with hair" and you don't get the innuendo? Disney announces their first (almost) openly gay character for the third time and it's how that other guy who's swooning for Gaston every minute.

Do you see the three women? Gaston. Fucks.

Can't comment on anything about what you find attractive, but you do you, man!

But just cause you don't find it attractive, doesn't mean it's not there. Don't come complaining to me, if you're underserved, homie. I ain't the problem.

What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.

Before that, I was not starting a logical argument. What "logic" have I introduced that you're referencing. You're inventing strawmen. If not: what "logic" are you referencing.

I'm saying this site already has a high sensitivity around sexuality involving children for me to have to explain why this is problematic as a kids show AND movies because I did grow up watching Stitch.

Let's just pretend that this supposed "sensitivity" you're talking about didn't exist: Could you actually explain this supposed "problematic"ness? Because I sure don't get it. What kinds of horrors has watching Lilo and Stitch corrupted in your precious little child's mind?

Not one real person gets objectified here. They're not doing anything erotic, they're just... there. Where's the problem? Should they be wearing Nun-outfits? Sexy Nuns, even maybe?

You all seem to be defending this because you found it sexually arousing at 12 and can't see past that.

If that actually were the case: Why would that have been a problem for me? What should it bother you how I've lived through my sexual development?

Also: You do know that a twelve year old has enough people their age where they can watch the whatever teenagers find hot these days? (I would guess thick hips never go out of style)

Don't insult their intelligence.

Umm... ok, so I should not insult it when it's about them being oblivious to things that aren't part of their daily live. But insulting the minor's mind is ok if it's about their precious little minds being corrupted by impure thoughts of "thiccc hips 🍑"? /s Grow up.

Who is talking about teenagers?

You brought up 12 year olds, now I can't say "teenager"? O.o

Quite the contrary, I'm all for teaching children HEALTHY ways of looking at bodies and sexuality. And this ain't it. You just don't get my point.

That kind of sounds like good, old body-shaming to me, buddy.