>>174998
>Or maybe I'm just giving anons too much credit and they really are organically replying to an argument that has been posted here a billion times
Well I don't sockpuppet when I post arguments on the subject, because that wouldn't be any fun. But considering how often I get illogical replies equating actions and attractions, I wouldn't be surprised if the fags replying "pedophilia is literal molestion, therefore loli =/= pedo" are just pedoniggers pretending to be pro-loli to make them look retarded. It's a super disingenuous argument because everyone in these discussions
knows very well by now it's attraction that's being discussed, not literal crimes. I'd like to believe I'm not giving anons too much credit either and they aren't organically giving the same debunked argument over and over again.
>>175008
>Do the shills still try to hit the bump limit quickly so it slides the thread off the front page?
I doubt it. These threads are already many times faster than the rest of the board. To outpace regularly posting and slide to bump limit, you'd have to actually spam them, which is obvious and deleted quickly. The threads are also made again pretty quickly. There's not much point in sliding, and I've seen very little of the usual evidence of sliding, that is, really high speed off topic posting suddenly going away as soon the bump limit is hit. But yes, of course people still samefag. That's never going away.