After an incident where anti-loli false flaggots got an account wrongfully banned for cp, ottman decided to ban loli by making false arguments similar to what 8chan owner jim watkins and gab owner andrew torba made.
Minds userbase is having none of it, and are actively calling ottman out for lying while demanding this decision be reversed.
new edit: ottman is having a meltdown, calling people bots and deleting posts.
edit: the mods need to consider banning the anti-loli spergs on this site for pointless infighting.
I can, because its my own beliefs and trust on the line. For example, our boy AntonioofVenice I can trust to be true to his principles, and also be a bullheaded retard about them at times. But I know what to expect.
Someone who freely and happily becomes a hypocrite you can't trust for a moment, because what sets them off could always change. Its why you don't trust SJWs either, because tomorrow war is now good and blacks are above trannies on the totem pole.
But they aren't. Many, if not most, are consuming "responsibly." There is a gap until actual victimization occurs still.
Alright you got one. I can list off Puritanism, Prohibition, Comics Code Authority, Hays Code, Persecution of Christians in Japan, the DnD moral panic, the Satanic Cult moral panic, the anti-Pokemon moral panic, the metal music moral panic, Reddit Era Atheism against Christians, Atheism+.
Those are just a few obvious ones, and I'd bet you fall into at least one of the groups crusaded against in there.
Me either, but if we argue about the same topic I will get the same responses back from him every time. And trust me, we have argued the same topics many times. I don't need to agree to find the principle still endearing.
As such, while I disagree with this idea its at least a tangible, logical idea that is far more than most anti-loli discussions end up with.
I didn't say that, but I can see how you'd take it as such. I consider moral crusading doomed to failure because it fails to properly act and gauge its target objectively. It always ends up running through emotion instead and overshooting its target because it cannot properly and objectively quantify itself and its goals. Prohibition for example just hard shut down alcohol with no ifs and or buts and then told people to kick rocks if they didn't like it. A more valid crusade would have been understanding what causes people to enjoy alcohol, offer alternatives and minimize destructive gateways while transitioning it out of society over time.
And I think the "war on drugs" is a living example of the failure of it on hard drugs.
Christianity was a rising religion in Japan back in the middle ages. But the Hideyoshi Shogunate considered them a threat and foreign influence, so when he shut Japan off from the outside world he forced all of them to denounce it, or be horrifically tortured and killed. Many were literally crucified and left to die in public as a warning.
While it decreased the numbers, many still practiced. They just went underground, so underground it became part of their religion to this day to be secretive about it. So when in the 1900s Japan opened up again, there were still Christians. Less of them, but still enough to have churches everywhere filled with hardier, more devout ones.
So not only a failure of a moral crusade, but a good example of why "banning" something always fails to actually remove it.
I don't think we are. I am a firm believer in culturally enshrined morality as the dominating decider of behavior being the best option. As in, you feel shame and social consequences as the primary negative response when you do something wrong, rather than SWAT teams and jail that comes from legally enshrined morality.
One of the strengths of that is that you are "Free" to do things, but you probably shouldn't. The choice is there, and that's freedom enough while not being fully Leftist hedonism.
The tighter you grip things, the more they slip away. People will always rebel against authority. Not all of them, but a certain number in every population. They will crack every loophole wide open. They will never accept being told what to do. When you take something away from them, they will replace it with something else. Usually worse. That's why "spirit vs letter of the law" is a long going debate going back centuries.
Restrictions might not completely fail directly everytime, but the spirit of them will. If you ban porn, for example, you won't stop coomers. They will just masturbate to something else, possibly going out and committing acts of peeping tom (a crime that has fallen off with the rise of easily accessed porn) or groping molestation in crowded places.
This is a problem independent of the hands on the lever, though those hands will change how effective or error prone the restrictions are.
No, the people like the Minds guy whose "free speech" idea changes depending on the topic at hand to circle back to the original issue. I can trust Antonio to begrudgingly admit stand by his principles when shit goes sideways for him.
I can agree. I don't see the "anti-loli/porn" crusade as entirely rational and definitely not strategic in the slightest.
Well we aren't in a culture that is against it. This is a slippery slope we jumped on years earlier. You don't just go from "society that protects children" to "pedo shit." You gotta break down the family unit that protects them, expose them to sexually charged things much earlier and constantly, allow degenerate sexual types more freedom and thereby increased access to children.
That's why a solid cultural founding is important. It may not always be correct or good, the Christian dominant culture failings are well known, but it gives us a solid standing to resist evils with much of the time.
And yeah sometimes it does enshrine itself into law, but generally that's because if everyone is a certain culture it only makes sense to put it in writing to forbid something. See Islamic nations for example.
It wasn't a question of size, only the action and its failure to succeed I was referring to. 1.5% is also about how many LGBT people in society as well, so let's not discount how powerful a force that many can be if they are allowed.
I'm not even allowed in my hometown because of a false rape charge back when I was a child over 2 decades ago now. I am not allowed in a certain neighborhood in my current county because a couple of guys believe in a false rape charge a few years ago pointed at me when MeToo started. I've had to delete my physical presence to cover my own ass from actual direct consequences of people out for my head. Trust me, I know that fear.
I've also been tightly gripped enough to reverse hard on the intent. My start into this "culture war" was being an anti-feminist, which I became because a hardcore feminist counselor kept trying to beat me into submission.
And despite what it may seem, I'm a far right extremist with radical views. But I've been part of this "culture war" for decades, much longer than I bet almost anyone here. So I've learned to appear innocuous and unthreatening, even agreeable, to continue to speak and spread my beliefs. If I fully unvieled my power level I'd be met with hard resistance and instant bans everywhere. Being conscious of the threat of the squeeze is my everyday.
I agree entirely. We have a significant problem. I just see porn as the symptom, rather than the cause. If I had the power I'd be committing extreme acts to beat on the causes and (hopefully) the coomerism would decrease.
We have been going for a while. And I do appreciate you are actually having a conversation here, unlike most who gave up quick when insults and emotion don't sway me much.
Possibly. I wouldn't doubt it, and if they outright said that I think the decision wouldn't be taken nearly as hard. What usually sets it off is the soap boxing about it from a moral angle, which undermines any amount of "free speech" principle you may claim to hold.
So either they truly do believe it morally, which is a problem, or they are lying to try and use the moral angle to cover for their profit/pragmatism. Which is stupid in many ways, but possible. Not a lot of people complained about the 4chan/4channel split, because everybody recognized it was a pure profit motive and didn't hurt the majority much.
There is, but its not a very effective one. Its mostly a lot of guys all over the "alt-right," manosphere or other areas on our side of the "culture war" losing their absolute mind over it. In very large numbers. I think if any of us held actual power it would absolutely be a crusade.
It does, but in a different discussion. The point of bringing them up was that by attempting to clamp down on a small minority, it just drove them underground, made them much more devout, and still failed to remove them anyway.
Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant about the "squeeze" in this case. As I meant it, the attempt to squeeze down on my problematic views only radicalized them further than they likely would have been otherwise. Which is a problem with the methodology often being employed in these moral crusades.
I don't view maintaining decorum as working well however. I am still saying most of the same stuff, just with less direct wording and differing perspectives. I'll argue against my own point to get people to argue for my point and convince themselves, for example. Its no less a problem than having to cease my crass and curse riddled normal language in polite society in reality. As long as the point is achieved, the method of delivery is barely worth remembering.
No doubt, but in most cases its likely not a cause on its own. I very much think the vast majority of men would choose otherwise if other root causes were taken out of society, though that's a major bar to clear I'll admit. A few would still be pathetic coomers, but you can't fix everyone.
In this case, I was referring to it more as the anti-porn movement in general. The loli portion is minimally discussed relative to that because it generally doesn't come up much. However the anti-coomer motion has picked up enough steam to be a major talking point around all sorts of places unrelated to ideology and one another.
If you consider "I don't see them" contained sure. They still existed, and did the same things, just in secret. It didn't solve the stated problem of getting rid of them.
Unlike most in these parts I don't just talk this stuff with you guys. I've been talking shit in real life for decades now. I still talk it to my employees regularly, and slowly see the "red pill" (cringe term for it, but effective) take root in them. I've managed to change many minds, make many friends out of former enemies, and even effect many future therapists and clients during my time training/working as a therapist.
My only cage is a theater one I adopt to help my words reach longer and further. If I truly wished to remove it I could, but that's incredibly ineffective and would only hurt my goals.
In fact, most of my interactions in these places is only to help hone my own arguments, and be prepared for the counters I may face. And perhaps a bit of memery and socialization.,
And I would have been radicalized in some form eventually. Traumatic childhoods can do that. Its the form radicalization took that was effected here. The thing that keeps my going is an everburning rage and disgust at the world I see. The things within the world causing that could easily have been something different.