Reading the comments of the people who want it suppressed and didn’t get mass downvoted, I ran into something common:
They want it banned because they believe that the society that they want is completely incompatible with that content existing, or that banning said content is completely consistent with 1A because the US existed for almost 200 years without such content (porn in general, lolisho really only got over here because of anime becoming a sensation) being mass distributed throughout the country.
Going back to lolisho specifically, there’s no way to get around the fact that sexual lolisho art depicts children in sexual situations, and I personally don’t believe that anime looking like it does matters, because that’s still a human out there, so the reaction to it is gonna be what it is regardless. The discussion tends to be a lot more…focused and less calling people authoritarians and pedos when we actually address the elephant in the room, so I might as well do it in the main post instead of a comment.
I’m just a college student that’s not that well informed on why this is being used as a canary in the coalmine, but I’ll let y’all have at it.
Want to talk about banning? We should ban discussion of it on this board.
It is just a grenade that gets rolled into right-leaning communities to split the lolberts away from the Christians and traditionalists and to make us look retarded to any new person who happens to come by.
Arguably worse in some ways. As I mentioned in my other posts, the right are being authoritarians on the issue...while the left still hold all institutional power.
This will backfire massively, this is certain segments of the right being absolutely retarded and handing power not to "good Christian conservatives," but essentially to leftists who hate us, since they're setting precedent but don't control the narrative or institutions.
At least what the left are doing is largely inline with their goals. What the right is doing is attempting to fight for their beliefs but just helping the left further.
I get what you're saying, but I think they do honestly dislike loli, and I get why. Although for me the issue is whether or not real children are hurt, I can see why people coming from a different angle link it to CP, the latter of which is very obviously bad.
Fair enough, though. They're certainly picking a stupid fight, and demanding everyone bow to them or else admit their moral inferiority. Pretty annoying - and counterproductive - stuff.
To be fair, the United States from 1776 to around 1950 is the exact type of society he wants
Unless you are a retarded anarchist you realize every aspect of civilization from property rights to self defense requires exercise of authority.
The question that people who aren't retarded argue of is in what situations that exercise is proper.
Authoritarian != totalitarian. Gay commies are totalitarian, actual strong civilization is authoritarian.
The people who don't like the person exercising the authority will always call it "authoritarianism". There is no point in running away from that label, it just paralyzes you, which is what the gay commies rely on.
But lets pretend you know what you are talking out. Why don't you explain for the class what you think the difference between authority and authoritarianism, and also what the difference is between authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
Looking forward to your failure of a reply.
Uh, personal authority is not authoritarianism. The less the government is involved, at least on this issue, the more free you are to exercise your "authority" in self defense.
Also, as I've said in other comments, there's a huge difference between legislating morality, and legislating against harm or violation. There's a huge difference between positive and negative rights.
We make laws to protect people's rights and freedoms, not their feelings.
It's illegal to murder, steal, rape, or take advantage of someone who doesn't have agency (e.g. children), because that directly infringes on the rights of the victim. Immoral or distasteful fiction that does not involve any parties that are nonconsenting or lacking agency, and whose consumption thereof is entirely voluntary (i.e. not pushed in schools and the like) does not have a victim. So in that respect there's a very clear line, which is why some people think "authority" is fine to be leveraged in one scenario, but not the other.
Look I was also a lolbert before I grew up. But world war T made it clear, live and let live is not an option. If you read any of the gay commie "theory" you will see that they have no stopping point and their pursuit of their "ultimate goal" will always end in total human extinction.
More gay commies enjoy and partake and PUBLICLY SUPPORT degenerate porn than our people do. Therefore making possession of it a criminal offense is a net win for us.
You think in principles, the other side thinks in friend-enemy distinctions.
We can argue over DMs why the non aggression pact and most other lolbert concepts are retarded but that isn't the issue of the day here.