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.
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.
Authoritarianism is a pejorative against exercise of (mostly) governmental authority, used formerly by dissidents and now by pretty much everyone when the government does something they don't like.
But you made a distinction without a difference. Every government exercises authority and every one of those exercises can be justified as "absolutely necessary" depending on who is holding the gun. The gay commies will say arresting the January 6th protestors and prosecuting President Trump is absolutely necessary. FDR would say interning the ethnic japanese americans was absolutely necessary. The Indonesia 1965 government will say killing all of the commies was absolutely necessary.
Has there ever been a functioning government that wasn't "authoritarian?"
Exactly why you can't operate exclusively on friend-enemy distinction and, as I mentioned in my other response, you have to meld it with principles.
Authoritarianism is dangerous because it renders the people powerless, and lets a select few bend them to their will, regardless of what that will is, and if it's good or bad.
If authoritarianism really rendered people powerless then the US would still be a British colony, Iran would still be under the Shah, and African shitholes wouldn't have a coup every 5 minutes.
If the enemy operates on a strictly friend-enemy distinction, it isn't to your advantage to do otherwise. It just gives you vulnerabilities for them to use against you.
The "free speech" thing is a great example. Their commie subversion is "free speech", us saying anything meaningful against gay commies is "hate speech" and gets us banned and fired. But according to your "principles" we are winning if we don't get them banned or fired.
Which is why you're up and down this thread attacking "the right" for operating on principles, when "the left", the enemy, holds power.
If your argument was intellectually consistent, you might win someone over to your side.
You answered the wrong question. I didn't ask if any government was "almost fully libertarian." I as was asking you provide an example of a government that isn't "authoritarian". If you can't then the label is a meaningless pejorative that just means "something I don't like."