Minds has stated that lolicon is allowed on their site
(www.minds.com)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Loli involves no actual humans, it's drawings, people just find it distasteful, that's fair, but it should not be illegal, and banning it on a site that otherwise allows many types of drawn fetish porn would be wrong imo.
An interesting development, but I can't really dip into the site. Seems to be one of those social media places. I'm too old for this, where's my web1.0 interface.
Seriously, it's neat seeing an alternative to twitter trying to pick up where other sites seem to fail, but I wonder about the endgame there. Can they turn into a place with porn artists that bring in crowds? Would they be happy doing so long term?
Including a tip button on the posts is bad news to me. A lot of negative schemes can stem from that design.
What is this?
A legitimate rival to gab.
I really wish it would take off. I like it, but no one is on it
It simply isn't the job of the government to police sketchwork. The site made the right call, morally. Politically? Who can tell in 2020.
Annnnnd today I was reminded that I have a Minds account. Damn shame they never really took off, and also a damn shame on Gab's part that they're basically languishing in obscurity. We need a Twatter alternative to hit critical mass, and soon.
Why do you say that?
"Yay!" say the closeted-pedos and man-children terrified of interactions with adult women. And they will say this is a defense of free speech and that loli-art is the high mark of a slippery slope and that it if isn't allowed soon hard porn, then soft porn then all free speech will be banned.
Go the other way and say that if you allow loli-art, then the next step is hardcore loli-porn, then clothed but still erotic photos of real children, then less clothed, then non-frontal nudes, then, etc. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy for a reason. Judge loli art on its worth and you end up realising you're simply catering to the fetishes of a group of deviants. When I speak of deviants I'm not talking about people who have looked at loli art, or who have been turned on by it, I'm talking about those who care enough about it to make it 'an issue'. People obsessed enough to make it their hill to die on are a worrying sort who shouldn't be left alone in the company of small children and I sincerely doubt that any of them are out there making posts about Assange's treatment.
"But this is just drawings, it's not real people so it's not harmful." Me making a long, well-constructed argument about why its okay to rape women or attack ethnic group X, and encouraging others to do so, would just be words on a screen but it would also count as incitement to violence. Loli-porn should also be viewed as incitement to paedophilic behaviour and not tolerated because it actively promotes the sexualization of children.
There are studies that have proven your argument wrong. Loli drawings does not make someone a pedo or predator in real life just like violent video games does not make someone violent in real life. And if you think they wont keep trying to ban more and more you have not been paying attention at all.
Actually there have been TONS of examples of people complaining about loli drawings and then later on they turned out to be the actual pedo/predator in real life. There is often a lot of projection going on when people go around crying so much about drawings.
And for that matter the other things you listed literally no one would argue with you on those, if they are also just fiction that doesn't hurt any real people (the line that exists in all this is whether it actually hurts any real people or not and it does not ). . And there ARE plenty of fiction that do have "rape against women or attack ethnic group X" and if they are fiction that doesn't hurt any real person then they have the right to exist, just like fiction that might have torture or murder in it, have the right to exist cause it. isn't. real .
It fantastic that the fetishists and pedos are so outspoken in their attempts to defend their predilections, its only a pity they don't do the same publicly.
Yes, your argument makes perfect sense, the ones complaining about loli art are really secret pedos while those advocating it are purely defenders of free expression....
The same predictable things always pop up when they rush to defend their grubby little vice: slippery slope, straw men, and false equivalence.
Lolicon isn't the same as someone playing violent video games. If someone plays video games and enjoys killing SS soldiers, carnivorous aliens, or invading aliens I would say, all in all, that's a pretty reasonable stance to take. If someone's favourite genre of violent games involved kicking old ladies to death or stabbing elementary school students I would have serious concerns.
It's not an issue of loli art turning people into pedos, it's that those who are into it to the extent that they will post on places like this defending it at length already have issues that the rest of us should be concerned about. Don't expect me to reply any further, its not that I'm closed to dialogue about such issues, its that there never seems to be anything but the same old weak and tired attempts at justification.
For once it would be nice for them to come out and say "Yes, I have a creepy and worrying fixation and, to be honest, I am a little worried about the ethical nature of my sexual drives, but its my only legal source of gratification so I want to hold on to it for purely selfish reasons of sexual stimulation."
Do you think your efforts at evasion actually convince anyone that you have any other motive? (rhetorical)
What does loli art look like to you? Seriously. Because people made the same kind of "agreement" about hate speech. Now the reins to govern what hate speech is have been handed to the left. Citing FBI data and telling journalists to learn to code is now harassment. Sure, ban loli. Then anime in general gets banned. As long as you can marginalize the opposition, you can enforce a tyrannical "definition". Everything is now a power struggle to ban every opposing idea.
Loli is hot. Children are not.
All your arguments apply to Cuties but Cuties can at least argue (weakly) that its purpose is something other than the gross sexualization of children. Not hosting something is not the same as making its possession illegal. I don't want smoking in my restaurants or on planes I ride but I don't want smokers arrested.
Stop trying to pass off the sexualization of children as having any nobler aims beyond your own self-serving stimulation. It didn't pass the smell test with Cuties and it is far more obvious in this case. No one but your own kind believe you truly care about political free speech more than you do your loli porn.
Twitter, Facebook, and Google don't want conservatives arrested either. They just want to exclude their views from every platform. Payment processors, credit companies and banks don't want gun owners arrested. They just want firearms transactions off their platforms.
What's the smell test? You still can't answer this.
You seem very confused about this issue. I defend the right to post "hate speech" regarding men, women, majorities, and minorities. Do I also hate men, women, whites, blacks, asians, and everything in between?
The DIFFERENCE between loli and Cuties is that Cuties actually hurts real life kids . . So no the arguments are not the same.
I suppose you think Joker is an incitement to mass murder.
This ridiculous notion has been shown to be false time and time again.
Not sure why this matters so much to people, shit is creepy as fuck.
Like it or not, criminalizing it is a waste of government resources.
Canary on the coal mine.
First lolis, then anime, regular porn, "hates peach", political opinions, then all that but off-platform too.
patreon proved this when the loli bans became nippophobic, and they enforced feral porn bans in a similar manner against slugbox.
I consider loli to be the canary in the coal mine.
The vast majority of loli bans happen because of entirely moralistic reasoning, without real logical or legal considerations.
In those cases it means you have a group in control willing to make entirely emotional and hypocritical judgments on content. If you applied their reasoning to other content you'd also have to ban said content, but almost never is that the case. You should then understand that NOTHING is safe. Your speech will ultimately be restricted in some capacity because the precedent has been set.
We could say the same about your one man obsessive crusade on feminists too.
Ask yourself how many areas of their supremacy started with "one little thing no one cared about" to open the door to the monstrous things they have now.
Except they have genuinely evil motives and cause very obvious damage to both society and male individuals.
Banning weird pedo-type shit that nobody wants to see and gets extremely uncomfortable at the thought of is fair.
Not every site has to have porn at all, much less this kind of thing.
And you think the people who make these laws and pushes don't have evil motives? That they won't cause damage to society and male individuals?
The entire "war on porn" is entirely built on "men use this to subvert women's dominance over their sexual release, therefore it must be stopped." This is just a subset of that larger war. You have shockingly large blindspots in your own zeal to how this war on men works based entirely on personal biases.
If a site doesn't want to have porn for PG reasons, that's entirely fair. Making a political statement on "freedom of speech, except things I find icky" is a different beast and that's where this battle is taking place on these sites. Its challenging that these "free speech" advocates won't back down when its even something horrific and distasteful they have to defend.
The ACLU defended the KKK for the same reasons. Because they understood at the time that compromising your rights for any reason just gets them compromised further.
This isn't like being against Twitter and Facebook blocking Hunter Biden info. It's a weird crusade for something that nobody wants to see because of some weird purity spiral.
Nobody's disputing that banning porn entirely from the internet (unless you pay your tithe to your new gods...sorry I mean unless you pay for OF..) is an obvious feminist ploy. But that doesn't mean every site has to have porn and it doesn't mean that every site that has porn has to include all types of it.
Again, that's your personal bias blocking you from understanding what is being said.
Its not some "weird purity spiral." Its understanding how foot in the door works, and how precedent in rule enforcement works. Earlier this year a giant titty short anime girl in a barely lewd SoL show was considered "pedophilia" because we let these people run amok. Austrailia considers girls with tits too small pedophilia legally no matter their age. That's what happens when you let these "weird crusades" go on unchecked, more absurd shit happens.
You have porn or you don't. That's a rule. Any other distinction beyond strict legal ones (beast, cannibal, rape, etc.) is moral enforcement and has no place in rules at any point ever if you want to be considered seriously.
And before you argue it, loli stuff was held up as free speech by the SCOTUS so it isn't illegal federally and the Protect Act of 2003 has gone unchecked by it which is the only vague law against it.
Nobody would have cared if gab didn't allow porn. But the guy in charge took a personal, moral stance against lolishit while still pretending to be a free speech crusader. That's where this particular fight evolved from.
principles are important but this isn't the hill to die on
just accept that there isn't a rational discussion to be had about the subject, add an implied "except child porn and stuff that is sort of like child porn" exception to everything, and fight for the stuff that isn't edging up to the line
Yeah. Don't fight for free speech if you don't like it. Just let the line get redrawn time and time again until it's something you care about. Then watch at that something gets censored too, because free speech isn't an argument against the censorship anymore. It hasn't mattered before, why whould it now, suddenly? Because you care about [topic]? Get real.
I expect your guns on my desk in the morning then. Because there isn't rational discussion to be had on that hill either, and that one actually does hurt real people instead of made up flat fiction.
Just keep compromising every time, it certainly worked so well for all our gun laws didn't it?