People trying to call it CP or trying to call lolicons "pedo" have diluted the words so much and its the reason why i no longer know what people are talking about when they use the words, and whether they are talking about a bunch of anime characters or whether its actually about real children.
And Vaush has said and done way worse things in the past and the only time he gets massively cancelled is when people want to defend the rights of fictional cartoons characters of course. Though Vaush is also a gigantic hypocrite considering he attacked people over anime characters in the past himself as well
Yep, also I love to mention that everything other than the loli and the feral is what actually matters when talking about why he is considered a predator, plus there was criticism about people who only started to call him a pedo/zoo because he was caught with mere offensive drawings.
There were legitimate reasons to call him a predator over many of the past things that he has done and said. But people completely ignored all that and only started trying to massively cancel him because the rights of fictional anime characters are more important to them than anything real
Dude's been arguing for lower/no age of consent laws and that sexual relationships can benefit children for years and caused no uproars or controversies.
I'm pretty uncomfortable (understatement) with the lion's share of the loli/shota stuff that's out there, but I feel like the incendiary nature of the entire issue has taken the debate away from what the real issue is, as it was explained to me while I was growing up: Paedophilia is wrong because of the massive power imbalance between the child and the adult. Because the adult has such vastly greater life experience, and can remember what the world was like when they themselves were children, even claims that it was consensual are effectively meaningless. This is also why consent laws are even tighter when other power imbalances are involved, such as a teacher/student, boss/employee or guardian/charge. What I personally find significant about all this is how the same concept of power imbalances can be applied to morality in other aspects of life, and it bothers me that the dumbing down of this issue could be making it harder for people to recognize exploitation and abuse in non-sexual situations as well, such as youth engagement on social media.
"Power imbalance" is a nonsensical feminist argument. Particularly when you factor in that women are most attracted to men with the greatest "power imbalances" relative to everyone else.
Children can't meaningfully consent because they don't have the mental faculties to do it.
He only restated the same thing if you define "power" as just "mental capacity", which if you do you might as well just say mental capacity.
The problem with "power imbalance" is that it's so nebulous that you can just define it any way you want. A hulk married to an Olive Oil, is the power imbalance in his favor even if he's a lovable oaf and she's a dragon lady? It could be either way depending on which argument you're trying to win.
Its not even just the loli thing that is specifically cancelling him.
Its that the right eceleb finally told people it was okay to do so. Proving as always that people have no principles or morality to get them moving, they need "authority" to tell them they can destroy someone.
Unfortunately for everyone, he is suspected to be an actual zoophile rather than a feral fetishist as he claimed to have literally put a lizard on his penis, and unless he is spewing bullshit like a retard then this means he has confessed to a possibly unchargeable zoophilic act.
The only reason I can think of as to why it might be unchargeable is because anti-zoophilia laws may not cover what he did, and I genuinely do not know enough about these laws so I am running on assumptions despite the fact I want him to get charged.
Edit: looks like I got rogue users stalking and downvoting me despite the fact I said nothing wrong, the subhuman animals must hate me for being profiction.
I feel like trying to charge a guy for "put a lizard on his penis" would make the court look more silly than anything. As is acting like that's some massive act on the same level as penetrating your dog, which is what most people assume from "zoophile." Its still wrong, regardless but anyone hearing you explain it will not take it seriously as a "crime."
Screeching about things like that helps him more than it hurts by making the charges against him sound like a joke, when he has far more real and evil things under his belt.
Oh NOW there's fucking nuance THAT THEY'RE on the receiving end. Despite me not giving a shit about Vaush, no he shouldn't be on a list and especially not go to prison over completely fictional content.
He should be investigated over his excuses for ACTUAL CP but not this.
is it CP? I argue not strictly. At the very least, anything that doesn't involve abuse or sexual activity with real actual children should not carry the same legal weight as CP.
Are people who willingly consume it sick in the head? that's a very yes. Are they dangerous? potentially. More so than people who do not consume it. I would support measures to restrict such people from entering schools or working with children in general.
CP is CP because you can prove that someone under 18 was depicted. Emphasis on someone. There has to be a victim.
Now, arguably, if you did draw a specific human doing sexual activities, that is underage, then you would be creating CP. It kind of has the same effect, right? It's trying to prevent children being exposed before they can consent to it.
Look I follow the harm principle to the edge of reason on this. What I mean by that is extending the most broad definition of harm for the sake of children. This strikes me as a caution. It's already sketch to charge people with distributing CDs, and in fact the prosecution of "CP" has already resulted in many government overreaches. So that's as real a threat as the pedos.
I absolutely agree on your point on depictions of real people. even if the person was not involved in the production of the drawing, animation, or what have you, a depiction of a real person who did not consent to such a depiction being created is absolutely a violation of their rights. if that person is also a minor, I would absolutely lump it in with any other real CP.
That’s literally why Shadman’s so hated: he started out by doing edgy shit, the started doing stuff like drawing Hillary as a loli during the 2016 election cycle, which eventually ended up in him drawing actual underage celebrities performing sexual acts
Don't forget "let's allow the government to imprison people over the contents of their hard drives". No matter what is on them, however offensive it is, that's a power you don't want to give to the government. And for any real case other than just 'FBI found CP' , there will be some victim or some crime to alternately charge the pedo with. Making porn illegal is bootlicking, IMO. You can still honeypot people using CP. Finding the pedos is good.
Possession of real CP is proof of being complicit in a crime, namely trafficking in child pornography. It's no different from being caught with schedule 1 drugs or unlicensed NFA firearms.
If a man has a folder of animated porn of men, he's gay. If a man has a folder of animated porn of children, he's a pedophile. Even if he isn't committing crimes by victimising children, if he wasn't sexually attracted to children he wouldn't be collecting it.
I'll give you that, but we don't prosecute people for their predilections. Only their actions. You have to extend logic to the point where distribution of this pornography is a harm to the child. Which isnt' that hard to do. In the case of porn featuring actual children. Your victim in the Loli case is not very sympathetic (or real).
so... your quest is to jerk off to kids in peace, and for that you will vehemently fight against the guys whose quest is for you to jerk off to kids in peace, by lying about how you actually think jerking off to kids is disgusting?
why the fuck not join them, bro? vaush will give you all his horse-on-child pornography and you can have a grand old time.
Vaush is legitimately dangerous to children in real life regardless of what kind of porn he got caught with. I do not care one bit about any nuance or arguments over the exact meaning of specific words or any of that philosophical bullcrap, I just want to see him specifically spend the rest of his life in prison somewhere.
Here we go again with discussing animated depictions of raping little girls and boys.
Is it CP? No, CP harms real children. Is it very bad? Yes, yes it is. It's just a weird thing that language is not very good at defining. Maybe pseudo-CP would accurately describe it.
pornography has never been protected by the First Amendment
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was a literal landmark SCOTUS case about the very topic (child porn) that said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment says a person should never have to prove their speech is lawful, the government must prove it isn't and that it must do so in concrete and specific terms instead of "general wide net" ones.
Which is heavy in citing New York v. Ferber, another relevant SCOTUS case, that says that one of the biggest illegalities of child porn is the real damage it does to actual children by its creation and in doing so it has zero protections under any speech or law, even if it isn't "obscene."
Its all degenerate and anyone talking about it should be bullied and shamed out of any conversation, but the stance of those who are supposed to define the Amendment itself has consistently been "the government has no right to say shit unless its very specific."
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was about overbroad language in the CPPA. It did not contradict the key point of Miller v. California: the government is allowed to restrict obscenity.
A statute that targeted obscene, pornographic depictions of children with enough specificity to avoid ensnaring the works cited by the court (Romeo and Juliet productions, American Beauty, etc) would be constitutional.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it. Heck most of it would even be able to argue an "artistic value" angle to defend themselves with and likely pass in the case of drawn works.
Which is why Ferber specifically states CP doesn't get that protection to begin with. CP harms actual children which means no other questions need to be asked about its legality.
Well, when a Supreme Court justice declines to define a woman, I can't say you're wrong. But a functioning society would easily be able to distinguish artistry from obscenity.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. And society has extended the definition of art a long way, too. Performances that would once have been obscene are now considered art. There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
That's why I believe Ferber openly states that "CP has negligible artist value, and we don't care regardless." Because people could argue it does and likely win legally because if it didn't then works like Lolita or American Beauty would have to be banned to maintain the consistency.
CP can be easily legislated because it involves real children and society has come together to agree that any involvement from them is damaging. Period. So no arguments can be made against that hard wall.
Which is why the lolicon question is a trap. Since it lacks that one unquestioning brick to anchor to, any attempt to legally fight it will be a losing battle of letting the government have open season to define something undefinable. Which they will absolutely use for them and the other elites' benefit over protecting children.
Japanese people have their unique take on porn, but just like anime itself, that's a result of cultural exchange with the US. The advent of hardcore pornography is a postwar event, despite cameras existing for a hundred years prior.
I don't think anyone should go to prison for having improper pixels on a computer monitor unless someone was harmed in the creation of those pixels.
Depends if they describe and pronounce it as gif or jif.
So we're all in agreement that it's gif, right?
Graphical. Interchange. Format.
Guh. I. F.
Those who say "gif" get to sit over here in the seats with the nice view of a dog park.
Those who say "jif" get to sit over there in the seats which totally are not placed on a catapult aimed at the sun.
Well, that other one is a peanut butter brand, so....
Jif is also a cleaning product that used to be called Cif. Or it used to be called Jif and is now called Cif, one or the other.
Edit: the latter.
If anyone says jif unironcially you know they are Psycho.
People trying to call it CP or trying to call lolicons "pedo" have diluted the words so much and its the reason why i no longer know what people are talking about when they use the words, and whether they are talking about a bunch of anime characters or whether its actually about real children.
And Vaush has said and done way worse things in the past and the only time he gets massively cancelled is when people want to defend the rights of fictional cartoons characters of course. Though Vaush is also a gigantic hypocrite considering he attacked people over anime characters in the past himself as well
Yep, also I love to mention that everything other than the loli and the feral is what actually matters when talking about why he is considered a predator, plus there was criticism about people who only started to call him a pedo/zoo because he was caught with mere offensive drawings.
There were legitimate reasons to call him a predator over many of the past things that he has done and said. But people completely ignored all that and only started trying to massively cancel him because the rights of fictional anime characters are more important to them than anything real
Dude's been arguing for lower/no age of consent laws and that sexual relationships can benefit children for years and caused no uproars or controversies.
But then, look at who his typical listeners are.
I'm pretty uncomfortable (understatement) with the lion's share of the loli/shota stuff that's out there, but I feel like the incendiary nature of the entire issue has taken the debate away from what the real issue is, as it was explained to me while I was growing up: Paedophilia is wrong because of the massive power imbalance between the child and the adult. Because the adult has such vastly greater life experience, and can remember what the world was like when they themselves were children, even claims that it was consensual are effectively meaningless. This is also why consent laws are even tighter when other power imbalances are involved, such as a teacher/student, boss/employee or guardian/charge. What I personally find significant about all this is how the same concept of power imbalances can be applied to morality in other aspects of life, and it bothers me that the dumbing down of this issue could be making it harder for people to recognize exploitation and abuse in non-sexual situations as well, such as youth engagement on social media.
"Power imbalance" is a nonsensical feminist argument. Particularly when you factor in that women are most attracted to men with the greatest "power imbalances" relative to everyone else.
Children can't meaningfully consent because they don't have the mental faculties to do it.
...which results in a power imbalance when compared to an adult. You basically just restated the same thing with different words.
He only restated the same thing if you define "power" as just "mental capacity", which if you do you might as well just say mental capacity.
The problem with "power imbalance" is that it's so nebulous that you can just define it any way you want. A hulk married to an Olive Oil, is the power imbalance in his favor even if he's a lovable oaf and she's a dragon lady? It could be either way depending on which argument you're trying to win.
Its not even just the loli thing that is specifically cancelling him.
Its that the right eceleb finally told people it was okay to do so. Proving as always that people have no principles or morality to get them moving, they need "authority" to tell them they can destroy someone.
The subhuman degenerate Vaush also has a known horse cock fetish:
https://odysee.com/@CaesarAvg:2/VaushLovesHorseCocks:2
Unfortunately for everyone, he is suspected to be an actual zoophile rather than a feral fetishist as he claimed to have literally put a lizard on his penis, and unless he is spewing bullshit like a retard then this means he has confessed to a possibly unchargeable zoophilic act.
The only reason I can think of as to why it might be unchargeable is because anti-zoophilia laws may not cover what he did, and I genuinely do not know enough about these laws so I am running on assumptions despite the fact I want him to get charged.
Edit: looks like I got rogue users stalking and downvoting me despite the fact I said nothing wrong, the subhuman animals must hate me for being profiction.
I feel like trying to charge a guy for "put a lizard on his penis" would make the court look more silly than anything. As is acting like that's some massive act on the same level as penetrating your dog, which is what most people assume from "zoophile." Its still wrong, regardless but anyone hearing you explain it will not take it seriously as a "crime."
Screeching about things like that helps him more than it hurts by making the charges against him sound like a joke, when he has far more real and evil things under his belt.
Oh NOW there's fucking nuance THAT THEY'RE on the receiving end. Despite me not giving a shit about Vaush, no he shouldn't be on a list and especially not go to prison over completely fictional content.
He should be investigated over his excuses for ACTUAL CP but not this.
is it CP? I argue not strictly. At the very least, anything that doesn't involve abuse or sexual activity with real actual children should not carry the same legal weight as CP.
Are people who willingly consume it sick in the head? that's a very yes. Are they dangerous? potentially. More so than people who do not consume it. I would support measures to restrict such people from entering schools or working with children in general.
CP is CP because you can prove that someone under 18 was depicted. Emphasis on someone. There has to be a victim.
Now, arguably, if you did draw a specific human doing sexual activities, that is underage, then you would be creating CP. It kind of has the same effect, right? It's trying to prevent children being exposed before they can consent to it.
Look I follow the harm principle to the edge of reason on this. What I mean by that is extending the most broad definition of harm for the sake of children. This strikes me as a caution. It's already sketch to charge people with distributing CDs, and in fact the prosecution of "CP" has already resulted in many government overreaches. So that's as real a threat as the pedos.
I absolutely agree on your point on depictions of real people. even if the person was not involved in the production of the drawing, animation, or what have you, a depiction of a real person who did not consent to such a depiction being created is absolutely a violation of their rights. if that person is also a minor, I would absolutely lump it in with any other real CP.
That’s literally why Shadman’s so hated: he started out by doing edgy shit, the started doing stuff like drawing Hillary as a loli during the 2016 election cycle, which eventually ended up in him drawing actual underage celebrities performing sexual acts
Don't forget "let's allow the government to imprison people over the contents of their hard drives". No matter what is on them, however offensive it is, that's a power you don't want to give to the government. And for any real case other than just 'FBI found CP' , there will be some victim or some crime to alternately charge the pedo with. Making porn illegal is bootlicking, IMO. You can still honeypot people using CP. Finding the pedos is good.
Possession of real CP is proof of being complicit in a crime, namely trafficking in child pornography. It's no different from being caught with schedule 1 drugs or unlicensed NFA firearms.
If a man has a folder of animated porn of men, he's gay. If a man has a folder of animated porn of children, he's a pedophile. Even if he isn't committing crimes by victimising children, if he wasn't sexually attracted to children he wouldn't be collecting it.
I'll give you that, but we don't prosecute people for their predilections. Only their actions. You have to extend logic to the point where distribution of this pornography is a harm to the child. Which isnt' that hard to do. In the case of porn featuring actual children. Your victim in the Loli case is not very sympathetic (or real).
Yeah but people on here vehemently argue against how liking loli makes you a pedophile
do i agree that anime lolis count as cp? no.
am i willing to pretend it is to take an enemy squad leader off the field of battle? yes.
these are your rules, you fat communist faggot. enjoy the oven.
The only principle worth sticking to is "good things for my allies, bad things for my enemies".
so... your quest is to jerk off to kids in peace, and for that you will vehemently fight against the guys whose quest is for you to jerk off to kids in peace, by lying about how you actually think jerking off to kids is disgusting?
why the fuck not join them, bro? vaush will give you all his horse-on-child pornography and you can have a grand old time.
take your meds.
woe, how you parrot those you're supposedly against...
Must be an election year.
Vaush is legitimately dangerous to children in real life regardless of what kind of porn he got caught with. I do not care one bit about any nuance or arguments over the exact meaning of specific words or any of that philosophical bullcrap, I just want to see him specifically spend the rest of his life in prison somewhere.
I don't understand most of the words in this post title. But I'm all in favor of pillorying any and all beardy goony "influencers".
Where's the line for torches and can I use my own pitchfork?
The only debate we need for people like vaush is Woodchipper or Scaphism?
quartering by horses, i like me some irony
He'd probably be into that.
It is always funny to me that the same resident edgelords on here that love Hitler because "he killed degenerates" also defend this pedophilia
Here we go again with discussing animated depictions of raping little girls and boys.
Is it CP? No, CP harms real children. Is it very bad? Yes, yes it is. It's just a weird thing that language is not very good at defining. Maybe pseudo-CP would accurately describe it.
It's a complicated subject but it's important to note that:
A, pornography has never been protected by the First Amendment
B, pornography as we know it today is essentially a creation of Jews
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was a literal landmark SCOTUS case about the very topic (child porn) that said in no uncertain terms that the First Amendment says a person should never have to prove their speech is lawful, the government must prove it isn't and that it must do so in concrete and specific terms instead of "general wide net" ones.
Which is heavy in citing New York v. Ferber, another relevant SCOTUS case, that says that one of the biggest illegalities of child porn is the real damage it does to actual children by its creation and in doing so it has zero protections under any speech or law, even if it isn't "obscene."
Its all degenerate and anyone talking about it should be bullied and shamed out of any conversation, but the stance of those who are supposed to define the Amendment itself has consistently been "the government has no right to say shit unless its very specific."
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition was about overbroad language in the CPPA. It did not contradict the key point of Miller v. California: the government is allowed to restrict obscenity.
A statute that targeted obscene, pornographic depictions of children with enough specificity to avoid ensnaring the works cited by the court (Romeo and Juliet productions, American Beauty, etc) would be constitutional.
And obscenity requires a "common man" judgement over it, which due to our degenerate society would make nearly all porn fail to meet it. Heck most of it would even be able to argue an "artistic value" angle to defend themselves with and likely pass in the case of drawn works.
Which is why Ferber specifically states CP doesn't get that protection to begin with. CP harms actual children which means no other questions need to be asked about its legality.
Well, when a Supreme Court justice declines to define a woman, I can't say you're wrong. But a functioning society would easily be able to distinguish artistry from obscenity.
I hate to say it, but I agree with you. And society has extended the definition of art a long way, too. Performances that would once have been obscene are now considered art. There really isn't another definition of art other than "what people like."
That's why I believe Ferber openly states that "CP has negligible artist value, and we don't care regardless." Because people could argue it does and likely win legally because if it didn't then works like Lolita or American Beauty would have to be banned to maintain the consistency.
CP can be easily legislated because it involves real children and society has come together to agree that any involvement from them is damaging. Period. So no arguments can be made against that hard wall.
Which is why the lolicon question is a trap. Since it lacks that one unquestioning brick to anchor to, any attempt to legally fight it will be a losing battle of letting the government have open season to define something undefinable. Which they will absolutely use for them and the other elites' benefit over protecting children.
I'm pretty sure no jewish people were involved in the creation of La Blue Girl.
Japanese people have their unique take on porn, but just like anime itself, that's a result of cultural exchange with the US. The advent of hardcore pornography is a postwar event, despite cameras existing for a hundred years prior.
Yes they do, it's basically:
Lol
Well, a Jewish woman wrote the Japanese Constitution, so I guess in a way...