Alright may as well talk about it, the recent Archcast brought this to light but everything from trans pushes to how people apply social media to the real world this is something that's been on my mind a lot.
We should have in our heads a clear distinction between what is fiction and what is reality. Reality is the empirical, from our senses, experience and anaylsis of the environment. Fiction is the opposite, it be based on aspects of reality but isn't required and should have little to no consequences on reality.
We've always had issues with the two with superstitions and mysticism but usually they were either because of lack of knowledge or to remember real world dangers (a tale of a monster attacking if you build there is a warning tsunamis hit this area)
But now it's gone nuts. We have a media encouraging delusions on sex, right and left saying drawings are immoral yet the left say that teaching kids about sex positions is fine and that a woman can beat up a man twice her size.
If I were to pin point when the acceleration pedal was pushed down on this, I'd say it's when normies hit the Internet. They were used to every communication being with an actual person that when they got on the Internet, they didn't understand the etiquette that you can be whatever you want here. They have never caught onto that distinction and it's why we see so many pushes to remove anonymity.
Then there's the lolicon 'debate', it's more a canary in the coal mine for us all than a hill not to die on. Look at everything that happened to it first, payment processors refusing service, refusal to allow content despite meeting tos, criminalisation in some countries of a drawing. This started with fictional content but has bled so easily into speech laws, the fictional was the thin edge of the wedge to then target the real.
I'll stop here to not go too long tldr; The West at large has lost a lot of it's ability to tell fiction from reality and it's led to the mass adoptions of delusions along with using fictional content to target the real world
I still don't understand what your point is.
Your slippery slope argument has happened and is currently happening for any number of right-leaning positions. On various platforms you will get warned/suspended/banned. Jewish holocaust questioning, saying gays are much more likely to be pedophiles, saying blacks have lower iq and poor impulse control compared to other ethnic groups, having the opinion that trannies are disgusting, saying women shouldn't be allowed to hold leadership positions or vote etc. Do you think not saying anything against cartoon child porn will magically make these other ideas allowed to be publicly discussed?
I also reject your premise that I should be the one to declare I don't want to see cartoon child porn. The cartoon child porn enthusiast needs to be the one who makes the effort to not put it in front of me.
Depends on if I'm an elementary teacher or not
Away from me glib, to avoid this going down the rabbit hole of 'supporting cartoon child porn' I'm going to set out some positions before I answer
Child porn is any content involving and using REAL children, film, video I'd even include audio, you used children to make it then you deserve life in prison worried about bubba coming into your cell.
Cartoon child porn is an oxymoron, it's a drawing. No children were involved in it so I just don't engage with it and get on with my life. It doesn't have rights, emotions, consciousness or action, it's a drawing. If we start treating that the same as actual child porn, what you have done is FLOODED the police services with so much more work it gets hard to track down actual pedophiles (which currently already happens)
Now as for the person putting it front of you, block them. If they try to invade your space and what you actually want, block them and never deal with them again. Fictional content is at this point a diversion as while trying to get the public engaged about loli's, the same people say how wonderful and artistic Cuties was...
You don't get to handwave that away.
Is it porn? Yes because it depicts sexual acts. We aren't talking about cute characters walking through a field of flowers here.
Is it a depiction of children, yes. It is intended to portray the properties of children in the characters in such a way as to engage the viewers' abstract concept of what a child is.
Therefore it is child porn. But because the depictions are drawings or renderings and not photographs it is cartoon child porn.
Thats cool and all but that isn't the issue. The question is what should happen to those who fail to exercise due diligence in concealing their proclivities from the general public?
I say they should be banned from the platforms they abuse and repeat offenders should be referred to law enforcement.
I'd be careful trying to go with that definition because they tried to call Uzaki-Chan a loli despite she's in college with MASSIVE tits. At least if we differentiate by going "this is a drawing" we can they just go "ensure it's tagged appropriately and they display it on the appropriate place" depending on how adult it is.
Thanks to the lefts trans and let's be honest pedo push, I've seen way more (and too many) REAL children in adult situations, not CP (thank god) but children in strip clubs, around sex toys and encouraged to copy sexual dance moves.
I have not encountered sexual loli content without warnings, like it was just pushed on me. They actually self register themselves and so it isn't an issue as most of the time what people get outraged by on twitter is a drawing of a short woman (a shortstack) that has big tits that they claim is a child.
At least with the drawing distinction we can just make that a content categorisation issue and then you can report if they fail to tag it appropriately. Doing more WILL flood law enforcement to the point real pedos get away and looking at the west currently, they do, A LOT.