this isn't being argued in good faith in the slightest by >>68221 or >>68218 and the argument boils down to complaining over imaginary "twitterfags" rather than dealing with anything brought up in >>68206

or statements like
>I'm not concerned much with how long it has been a point of controversy for, or what the controversy is even about.
if it has been considered a problem on the site before, then of course someone pointing it out to the staff will cause action
shit doesn't happen on a whim