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.
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.
All I can say is, terribly faulty logic. No point getting further into it, aside from saying just because something is authoritarian doesn't mean it can't be overcome, and just because something gets beaten doesn't mean it wasn't authoritarian. Nazi Germany wasn't authoritarian...because they lost the war!
Again...then please take over the institutions first. It's kind of sad that someone cheering on authoritarianism (again, you do you, I'm open to all arguments, and can see the upside) is having to be told how to do it correctly by someone you've accused of being a "lolbertarian."
My issue isn't with your authoritarianism, although I'm admittedly not a fan, but it's with your proposed implementation.
Never said that, and again, just kind of reinforces my point that you should probably fix that before you implement more speech policing while they control everything.
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.