> It's unusual that there can't be negative feedback about a website.
I didn't say that there couldn't be negative disagreement. Am I allowed to disagree with you and say that it's fine?
> I want to read the content, but I can't. The website is too distracting.
You can't read the text because there are little icons off on the side? I guess you can read it in elinks; it appears to load fine there. Someone upthread also posted a uBlock-style rule to filter them out.
> Is that a valid problem for you, oh great oracle?
No, it isn't; I'm not convinced that it's that bad to begin with, and if you really care the tools are available to it yourself.
> I didn't say that there couldn't be negative disagreement.
> What's the problem? What's the actual problem?
You're not as personable as you think you are with such a confrontational attitude towards feedback on a website you support. The website is distracting to enough folks that it matters. Period.
I'm not sure I understand the weird fan crowd we have here for the site in question. This thread is rife with folks who are ecstatic to defend the author for exercising artistic license, yet incapable of understanding or receiving valid feedback on said artistic license. And these folks aren't even the author!
If you put it in public, anything is fair game.
> if you really care the tools are available to it yourself.
I cared enough to leave feedback for the author, I'm not going to go out of my way to read text peppered with distracting weeb shit. I don't expect folks to sift through my unusual interests to get to my points.
Not pretending anything, I don't actually see the problem. They're clearly fictional talking heads that exist purely as a narrative device; why should I care if one of them is a girl with cat ears and another one is a fox/wolf(?)?
> Sexual attraction to furry characters is a polarizing issue. In one survey with 4,300 furry respondents, 37% answered that sexual attraction is important in their furry activities, 38% were ambivalent, and 24% answered that it has little or nothing to do with their furry activities.
So I'm reading "no reason to assume it's a sexual thing without specific contextual evidence", which I'm not seeing here.
Consider it like dressing up, with nice clothes. Sexual attraction is an important aspect of dressing up to some people, but that's only part of the time, and just generically being dressed up is not a sex thing.
Well that's the point I didn't get it because it also said that the author is not female, which doesn't exclude that person from having the ability to ask for people to call the author with a female pronoun. Me actually using it and respecting that ask is another thing as it is completely up to me if I'm going to do it or not, and honestly if it's respectfully requested with due reasoning I'm okay with it. I did read the page and make the effort to understand which one the author was looking for me to use but eventually I just bounced from the page as I figured I wasn't that interested in the content of the blog post anyways.
