>>40852305
>>40851673
what a ridiculous non argument
per capita metrics are not ok for comparatively rare and high profile examples with a clear bias (mass shooters)?
per capita, minorities are more likely to be homeless. by your argument, are you not allowed to view this as a red flag and assign resources to help correct the issue because per capita is muh trump muh conservative boogeyman?

the absence of certain things proves the rule. you'd agree that most mass shooters are white men, yes? how many indian women mass shooters are there, despite indians being a minority? how many japanese? how many chinese?
if you're fine with the statement "most mass shooters are white men," then you also have to be fine with saying, "it's a bit odd when a certain group is overrepresented in an extremely visible and concerning pattern like killing innocents on the world stage"

both 8ch_n and the sharty have a weirdly high rate of producing mass shooters. are we not allowed to say this because per capita measurements are le hecking racist or whatever

>>507074430
>not pozzed
not by today's standards, no. there was still a reasonable amoutn of blacked and whatnot
>classic american looking women
not only were they classic looking but they were just hotter in general. maybe it was because they were all natural and so only the naturally hot ones could make it. even in the 2000s which i think was the peak of western porn (and maybe jav, though i think jav peaked in the 2010s) the women were incredibly hot. way, way hotter than the women in porn today
>good shots and angles
absolutely not. they got a bit better in the 2000s and much better in the 2010s, but camera angles and shots in retro porn were fucking garbage. and so were the cameras. i do have a soft spot for late 90s to early 2000s porn though, because of the warm sepia tones that were going on. they really added to the hotness somehow, in ways i can't explain

tldr: old and older porn was better, yes, but it wasn't perfect