>this gets you banned for rule 1 GEEEEEEEEEG DO RAGETRANNY REALLY??
Shows 2 separate bans award
>>13207 2/3 of those aren’t even bans
@13207 @13208 l*te literally used stock photos of kids to test his csam filter btw >>>/x/294 @ragefag and what do you mean "jartyfail"? this is beyond @stratogem wiping half of /soy/ in the name of "cleaning up sharty coal", at least he had a good reason
>>13210 >l*te literally used stock photos of kids to test his csam filter btw Ok >what do you mean "jartyfail"? this is I meant oh I’m a jarty fail oh yes I’m a jarty fail >@stratogem wiping half of /soy/ in the name of "cleaning up sharty coal", at least he had a good reason Glazing
ok this is clearly too far for bans and moderator action. ragefag what the fuck are you doing?
@13214 a pot calling the kettle black >
>>13214 I thought threads posting children with odd replies were banned.
@13219 there're no odd replies it's simply that photo with the quote: >/soy/ you were just projecting your own pedophilia again
>>13221 I left that thread up for minutes maybe an hour untill someone replied with “sexy”. Skajyos if you want threads like those just go to kohlchan you sick fuck. Stop trying to bring your pedophilic cancer over here.
>>13219 >>13222 the replies that sexualize children are not permitted, the threads themselves, if they contain children, do not violate any rules. OP is not responsible for the replies in a thread.
@13222 i didn't make that thread @13223 does that mean i can post these without getting banned?
>>13224 OFCOURSE you want to fucking post those. Geg.
>>13225 just go on sharty's /raid/ if you want pictures and doxxes of underage kids.
>>13224 jesus christ you pedo faggots are given an inch and you try to take a mile. no, there is an inherit lewdness to scantily clad children that attracts sick fucks like you.
@13227 they're allowed on google and pinterest even with safe search on therefore techinically they're more than legal to be posted than fucking nigger baby gore
@admin while you're online baiting @w7-890, i have to inform you that he's probably not gonna come back after me exposed you as a furfag >>12525 and after the 'lita ban, the only soyjak posters on /soy/ are you and @lordofthejarty who's the real jarty killer here?
>>13228 Lute knows these images are legal, but he questions the poster's intentions. Predators often create sites with such images for their own gratification. The law doesn't intervene because it's considered freedom of speech. You and I both understand this, but you choose to act stupid. You're either genuinely clueless or aware of this but want to pressure Lute into creating a safe space for your sick pedophila.
>>>13228 > Lute knows these images are legal, but he questions the poster's intentions. Predators often create sites with such images for their own gratification. The law doesn't intervene because it's considered freedom of speech. >You and I both understand this, but you choose to act stupid. You're either genuinely clueless or aware of this but want to pressure Lute into creating a safe space for your sick pedophila.
Uhhhh sharty bros I thought the jarty was a bunch of pedophiles, or however I project and call everyone I don’t like a pedophile