<Snipped quote by Balance>
It's the fact that they said it unironically though. But you still get it.
Were you really spending all that time looking through that?
Yes. It's interesting.
<Snipped quote by Balance>
Pretty much. It really is just "Fictional violence is bad because I'm a self-righteous cunt with no spine, and we shouldn't have to read poorly written stories."
I don't think the no spine thing has much bearing. After all, one person who was very squeamed out by it decided that it didn't violate the rules at all. Rather, it seems as if everyone is interpreting every statement differently based on their moral standards, and some people are being more self-righteous about it than others.
EDIT: Like, for example, the essay by John Smith which was quoted in the first half of the Tribunal. I honestly couldn't decide whether the man was advocating or decrying the evil, but the arguments that he was decrying it were much more compelling than the ones saying he was advocating it--those seemed to interpret the statements loosely.
