The stupid comes when with_redribbons (I spose the name should give it away) gets butthurt and declares "You should put a warming on the lj-cut that you are modeling dead animals. I literally lost my appetite for dinner after seeing these." Tagging a cut to warn (or warm, as cuteanarchygirl would have it) people of nudity, gore, etc. seems fairly obvious - but since when have people tagged things to say "Warning: pictures contain photo of vintage stole." What next? "Warning: pics contain photos of leather shoes"? And why no whining for the poor ol' ostrich who lost his feathers in the 3rd pic down? Or the highly offensive marabou slippers? WARN ME ABOUT FEATHERY SLIPPERS, YOU BASTIDS!
hannahsarah is first in with a winning comment garnished with a lolcat usericon. boneorchard (OMG, your username offends me!) wins at the internet for posting pics of vintage Hollywood stars wearing dead animals (no one has yet complained they weren't warned). No sign of feminists moaning about girdles yet, which is a shame.
And there's some Iraq-wank too. Bonus "no shit, Sherlock" from severalmoose: Dead animals aren't the same thing as nipples.
(I should add: I'm not into fur myself and don't think it should still be farmed/taken from the wild, but in my opinion, using vintage fur is different from using new stuff (but I wouldn't use it myself). The stupid isn't "being offended by seeing the fur" but expecting people to tag it with a warning. Like the time someone posted a pic of a fat person in a comm somewhere and someone commented "Couldn't you have put a warning on it? I just purged my dinner. Pics of fat people are my trigger!" Diddums).
sorry - Mr Holy-moly-trolly did join in but the mod deleted his posts. :(
Also: someone on my friendslist has said that they agree with with_redribbons and that my post in my own journal lolling over it should've had a warning on it. Time for a friends cull, y/y? Oh no, I said cull, people will be offended...