As many have noticed, several anti-loli dipshits who cater to the anti-regressive movement, like the gab founder, have expressed remarks such as "satanic garbage" in regards to mere offensive pornographic artwork, and has also attempted to ban porn but relented due to a larger outcry.
I suspect that these individuals are tradcons, and are attempting to take over the opposition of the regressive left to further their personal agenda, which will only damage it by fracturing the dissident right and driving off the libertarian left.
I also suspect that 8chan owner Jim banned lolicon from his site because he personally hates it, and simply asked his lawyer to dig something up to use as an excuse, which fratured the community and put any user who decided to use Mark Mann's 8chan.moe at risk of abuse by the owner, who has a history of being a goddamn lolcow who got his nudes leaked and is accused of violating sex offender laws.
On the subject of Mark Mann, he defends unteralterbach despite the fact it depicts real minors, showed it to his underage niece and got disowned by his aunt for it, and is accused of running CP discord servers.
Probably not a popular take, but honestly? I don't see the appeal of loli stuff unless it's wholesome; such as, Yotsubato!, but in the end, it's just shit scribble, and not meant to be fine art or social commentary. I certainly don't agree with writing a manga or comic where the character is explicitly stated to be a young child -- not a teen mind you -- and is put into sexual situations. That said, these are not real people, and I personally don't care what people feel like drawing and publishing. They're adults; they can handle the consequences of public opinion themselves. But what really pisses me off is this idea that if a woman is drawn with small tits, she's a child -- and if she's drawn with big tits, you're sexualizing women to attract the male gaze.
I've dated a few petite women, and at no point while doing things with them did my mind somehow infantilize the girl I was with. I don't understand how they can so callously shame smaller women into feeling like they're less of a woman than their peers due to their overall size. It's such a shallow and pernicious thing to do.
From what I’ve seen, 8chan in particular has gone out of their way to remove even threads with “SFW” in the title.
"Cute girls doing cute things" isn't lolicon. Lolicon is a type of porn; it's short for Lolita-complex, where complex is Engrish for "fixation."
Honestly, reading this forum and TD.win and a few others...
I've about decided the Left and right are both obnoxious beyond belief. Though the left is currently causing more damage. I have no doubt many on the right would legislate the bible given half a chance.
Just because the left is infinitely worse presently doesn't mean the right can't still be fools.
Never forget, none of us are truly allies. Ultimately, we're just momentarily aligned. Power, ideals, and what is most important to us in the moment is not static. The enemies of today can be the allies of tomorrow and vice versa.
Fucking tell that to AntonioOfVenice after his fucking hardon for JK Rowling.
He believes the trans cult is the biggest threat to humanity and we should support everyone who weakens it, in my opinion.
I personally believe the feminist cult is worse, others believe the commie LARPers are the biggest threat etc etc.
r/enlightenedcenteristism
LMAO centrists are complete cucks too. They're all the same. They're all a bunch of socialists, it's just that two thirds of them won't say it to your face.
That's an extremely unfair assessment, because you get crazy individuals everywhere along the economic axis.
You may as well be saying that all Centrists and Leftists are Neo-Liberal crazies, which is a overly-massive broad brush to be painting individuals you don't even know, with.
I'm a Centrist, but would traditionally be on the Left, except that the Neo-Liberal virus has gone far too rampart, and has now more or less become synonymous with Leftism, which horrifies and worries me.
Why would I traditionally be a Leftist? Because economically I care purely about workers' rights ~ and care not at all for the pure insanity of Neo-Liberal identity politics. Indeed, I loathe it, because it causes endless amounts of division among everyone.
Workers' "Rights" is just shiny anglerfish bait. Socialism will only oppress workers more and more. what's happening today in America? The Public Sector robs you every year, of around half your labour. This is exactly what a leftist government will, do, they will simply do it more.
Government is a cancer. It will never die. It will spread and spread and by the time it eats itself, we'll all be dead. Excise the cancer. The only right you have is exclusive control over your own body, and all derivatives of this exclusive control: right to life, right to not be aggressed against, right to own property, etc.
Statists are sheep that trust farmers to look after them. The farmer, on the other hand, wants t get his hands on some wool, and later, some fresh mutton.
It was not "shiny bait" ~ that was the reality of Socialism back when it began.
But, it got infiltrated by those who wanted to hide behind the idea of fighting for workers' rights, while not actually giving a shit about it.
Genuine movements get infiltrated and turned to nefarious purposes.
Socialism is simply collective control of the economy. Anybody who understands prices, and how humans act and interact, can tell you that interfering with the individual economy is a huge mistake. This system of anti-propertarian sentiment is also unjustifiable when logic is applied.
Moral judges exists in both sides. People ranting about sexualization, glorification of violence, etc
That's pretty much always been the case with tradcons. They were one of the two crappy factions of the MRM back in the day, and insisted on being a part of it despite having more in common with TRP. They tend to bring more problems than they solve.
We need a faction that rallies behind taking women out of power rather than propping them up or begging them for mercy.
only way's i see a faction like that emerging is if one of the following happens
nihilism hits critical mass in the usa alowing minor fringe powers to take center stage.
feminazi's and their allys commit a SERIOUS blunder something that can't be ignored or squelched and hitting the worst target possible on top of it either someone LOUD or someone very precious and folks use them as a spearhead to get things going
and lastly a "then let me be evil" mindset takes hold of folks victimized by these clowns and they become the thing they were accused of and run with it, given time they will gradually drift together to become either a lump of uselessness or something very potent indeed.
The uptick in anti-loli stuff is mostly due to an ongoing campaign to push people prone to knee-jerk responses into crafting a deflective wall to protect active child abusers from effective organized investigation. Kinda like how Occupy Wall Street got corrupted; people start making you uncomfortable, so you send in some paid agents to shake things up.
As you may have noticed, this strategy if VERY effective, so you should expect to see more of it for decades to come.
Occupy Wall Street was doomed from the start due to the fact that Soros and other corrupt globalist elements were funding it.
Legitimate participants have also reported takeovers of their groups by regressive leftists such as the SRS spergs, which caused them to abandon the movement, leaving only the early regressive leftists behind to eventually riot
You don't have to be Tradcon, SJW or anything other that a fully-functioning, fucking adult to think that people who care about Loli-porn suffer from stunted emotional growth and a crippling lack of self-confidence. I don't blame them for that, everyone goes through phases; I do blame them for choosing to address their insecurities in fixating on sexualized imagery of underage children rather than getting their fucking act together and making an effort to play the part of grown-ass man.
If you're worried about people 'kink-shaming' you there are plenty of subs on reddit to gain sympathy.
God forbid someone understand how precedence and loopholes work. This is the "soft sell" and "foot in the door" strategy at work, getting people to agree to destroy something nobody would defend so that they can sneak in the stuff we should be defending using the same laws and movements.
We can mock why someone would be into such a thing, but allowing it to be banned or sacrificed on the altar of "well, I don't wanna look wierd!" will only leave us defenseless when they come for everything else.
Get the hell out of here with the Slippery Slope nonsense. There's a wide sea, sprawling desert and endless plains between hand-drawn CP and any other medium that risks censorship.
I believe in freedom of speech but anyone saying "Ya'll need to go out and bash some gay people" needs to get done for instigation.
In the same way I believe in artistic expression but not when its done specifically to stimulate and promote tolerance for what are one of the few truly deviant desires. Necrophilia? They're dead, fucked up but no inherent harm. Sadism? If its a willing partner, whatever floats your boat.
This loli-shit? Fetishising vulnerable children as sexual objects and making it seems as though its something that can be tolerated as being 'normal' rather than a pervasive fucking danger than encourages people with serious emotional and psychological issues to indulge rather than suppress their latent desires?
Some people, quite a lot actually, will say "the only good pedo is a dead pedo". I'm not one of them. I actually realise that many of them can't help it. They either have scrambled neurological pathways that fucked up their attraction stimuli at an early age or they're emotionally incapable of dealing with mature adult women and so seek immature juniors they can have confidence with. Being that way is not their fault. Failing to realise/care that those desires are a threat to children is something you can 100% blame them for and indulging their fantasies through loli-bullshit is an utter failure to rein in those tendencies.
So no. People opposing the distribution of this kind of nonsense is not the first step to them taking down Michaelangelo's David for flashing his junk.
Except, we already have seen the consequences of this slippery slope in actual reality. Australia already started the trend of banning adult women from porn for not having boobs big enough, for all the same reasons you listed. Regular manga gets confiscated when being imported despite being nothing but moe bullshit.
The current American law already states that a random person gets to decide entirely on their own judgment if its considered obscenity or not, and therefore illegal.
I won't pretend its some high art that deserves respect or even normalization, but any law or rule you would make against it would be used in far more ways and ways that are equally guilty under any umbrella made. "Simulates perverse fucking danger as normal"? Shit ban all rape porn, and blackmail, and snuff. Even if its completely fake, that applies back to the lolishit too. And once that's gone, oop now all edgy media is guilty and on the chopping block too.
Its literally the most disgusting shit, that's why its the easy sell to get people to throw down their arms and let it be banned. "Slippery slope nonsense?" As if we didn't in less than a decade go from "let gays be married" to "suck the dick and drug/mutilate your children."
That's the first good comment I've seen on the other side of this thread because it actually made me sit down and reassess my entire position (not because I thought I was wrong, but to make a sincere effort to reevaluate whether I was being reasonable rather than emotional). My first reaction was, predictably, "fuck yeah, ban it too" but to extrapolate from that, should we ban , media that includes rape scenes, murder, etc. No, of course not. So what's the difference? It's a question of degree. One is very clearly fictional, the other is (frequently) deliberately designed to convince the viewer it is real, to the extent that people watching it might often think, "Shit, do I need to call the FBI?" But what if it has disclaimers, the actors appear to say they're fine, etc. No. If its entire purpose is to stimulate unhealthy desires (unless you want to say that sexual stimulation from the idea of rape and murder are healthy? And don't say "women fanatize about rape. female fantasy and realistic rape are v. v. different things) it is not something that is in the interests of the vast majority of society.
"But we need to protect the interests of minority groups, we can't deprive them of their needs just because they don't match the majorities". There are certain groups who don't get to indulge their natural instincts because the welfare of the group supercedes them (psychopaths) or because the safety of a different vulnerable group (children) is a higher priority. Determining where that line were something crosses from edgy, to actually dangerous, is always going to be a judgement call but all rights have similar boundaries based upon our ability to make rational judgements.
You shot yourself in the foot with the last comment. "Gay marriage was the mistake that led to SJW insanity." Allowing gay marriage was perfectly fine (though I personally think it is was unnecessary) the fault in society lay in its/our failure to apply the breaks. Every minority group that is conceded some measure of power eventually uses it to reach beyond what they deserve, it's an established pattern. That doesn't in any way delegitimize their initial problems or concerns. The problem is shifting from one extreme control group (ban everything, no liberalization) to a different extreme control group (let do what thou wilt be the whole of the law). Our issue as a society is letting the extremists hold control and promoting the slippery slope argument is just arguing for one form of extremism over another.
Finally, not that the slippery slope isn't fallacious (it is) but if you want to employ it the closer fit is Japan were decades of indulgence of this shit has led to the growth of the j/k sex industry, trains that need women only carriages because of the chikan that frequently specifically target school girls, and the chaku ero and junior idol sub industries that lead to crap like this https://twitter.com/kabukicho01/status/1235452171832811522
Once again, the slippery slop is bullshit. Its always possible to apply the breaks if you fight for the right things and rejecting Z doesn't mean you need to reject A. This is a specific example of where that culture goes when allowed to develop without reins. I'm saying this is the specific point where intervention is warranted. Not banning all art and comics, not letting anything go. This point - sexually explicit loli art - is the reasonable tipping point.
That's an extremely difficult line. So if a movie is "too realistic" its now evil and bannable? What's too real actually? Most kids I know are covered in snot and shitting themselves, yet that's not common in lolishit media. So clearly its not realistic enough for a standard I would employ.
Its an absurd point, but the point is that you are using complete subjectivity to define the lines. In fact, the SCOTUS struck down the Child Porn laws in 2002 we had since '96 for that very reason of being "too broad that it would interfere with the First Amendment."
To get around that the government just passed a new law (which was found unconstitutional later for the same reason, but left alone) saying "if the common man calls it obscene, its now obscene." Which means its literal mob rule left up to random sensibilities of a random person, who might be a super Trad or SJW who calls everything obscene.
I didn't say that. I said a small reasonable change opened a gate to far more insane and demanding changes. Which is my entire point. An easy law everyone agrees on opening the door for more unhinged groups to demand protection and action using the same precedent.
Its literally not. Its only fallacious if there is no evidence that X can lead to Y. Masturbation will cause you to go blind and becoming a sex criminal is a slippery slope fallacy from history. Giving a child soda causing him to get fat is a slippery slope with complete evidence to its chain of events and possibility.
You always write the law in the way that the worst possible usage and interpretation is still acceptable. Otherwise it will always be abused by the corrupt or the ideologues. You have yet to prove in any way that such a law could be made that would plug these gaping holes and abusive uses other than "people are reasonable, stop fearmongering" as if we don't live in a literal culture war where big titty anime girls are under attack to be banned.
I’m not sure if you’re being disingenuous. I think it’s clear to viewers that movies and tv shows, from their titles, structure, camerawork, etc. are fictional works. There is a significant amount of online pornography that is filmed deliberately to make it seem like real crimes are taking place (and in many cases I’m certain they are).
Apologies for putting words in your mouth on the gay marriage front. Your argument stills seems to rest on the slippery slope though. Either you’re saying we shouldn’t have allowed gay marriage because of where it led, or gay marriage was fine and the problem was letting things get out of control. From your statement it’s unclear:“An easy law everyone agrees on opening the door for more unhinged groups to demand protection and action using the same precedent.” Either you are suggesting we block reasonable laws that everyone agrees with (out of fear), or that we need to simply control the unhinged groups more strongly (which is my position).
Numerous laws are utterly subjective in both their creation of guidelines (e.g. the age of majority) and their applicability (e.g. whether self-defence is accepted based upon judgements of ‘danger’). Your statement on objective law: “You always write the law in the way that the worst possible usage and interpretation is still acceptable.” is simply not the way the law works, and with good reason. A perfectly safe law would be so narrow as to have almost no impact. All laws require some level of subjective interpretation which is why we have judges and supreme courts. The legal system is based entirely upon standards of doubt and subjective interpretation of the facts, for better and for worse. A perfectly objective and rigid legal system would be an utterly dystopian nightmare. Occasionally, we realise prior interpretations were unwise or simply shifting with changing social values, the judgements loosening or tightening the hold of law are still subjective ones based upon ethical and moral considerations rather than explicitly quantifiable measurements.
The crux of this issue is whether (a) the distribution of sexually explicit imagery of children creates higher danger for children, from those who sexualise and fetishise children, by reinforcing rather than suppressing the sexual drives of these groups (and the many, many gay men who lived their entire lives in the closest is evidence that suppressing desires is possible), and (b) whether laws restricting such distribution can be enacted that will not be used to thereafter promote censorship of items with no relation to the safety of children. Your view that people will try to use them to introduce broader censorship is a valid concern but remains an utterly separate problem and there is no clear evidence of any sort that sexual imagery of children cannot be banned with further censorship occurring. The robust state of the porn industry is ample evidence the child related imagery can be strictly prohibited without evangelical puritans using the same laws to expand the scope of ‘obscenity’.
I have enjoyed the discussion as it did make me reassess my position but ultimately there is nothing here that makes me feel my initial positions was unwarranted, rather it has clarified, for me, their solid footing. In the end I believe it is a subjective call based upon the ethical question of balancing the rights of one group against another. If you see it differently, or hold different priorities, it's unlikely we would move past this point without far longer dialogue that breaks issues down into far finer points of law, rights, and ethics. Interesting (and important) though the topic is for me, I don't have the time for it, at least in this medium, so I think I'll leave it there.
Since you wish to call it here, I will do the same as I also do not see myself budging.
I am glad we can at least have a reasonable discussion about this without resorting to "PEDO!" and "PURITAN!" name calling, as is often the problem with this topic. Its inherent emotional kneejerk makes it impossible to get truly objective and reasonable discourse.
See you around then.
I think that the UK banned pornography featuring performances depicting dangerous or illegal acts between adults and threatened to put people caught watching it on the registry if they refuse to comply, which is a waste of resources in my opinion as liking offensive pornography made via legitimate means by adults does not make someone a criminal sexual deviant.
Another slippery slope issue we should be concerned about is future bans on zoo porn criminalizing feral porn, which is the animal equivalent of lolicon/shotacon.
Shocking.
Even more shocking.
Unclear. Are you suggesting that the Gab founder wants to supplant SJWs/Antifa/BLM as the biggest opposition to the Dems/GOPe, or are you saying tradcons want to be the biggest obstacle to SJWs/Antifa/BLM?
Everyone wants political power, even libertarians, who want to seize the power to mostly neuter it.
If making cartoon tiddies slightly less convenient to find on the internet is the price for making allies in the fight against the commies and degenerates then I'm willing to pay it.
Tradcons aren't shooting people in the streets, commie footsoldiers are. Keep your eyes on the big picture because being the most principled corpse in the mass grave doesn't help anyone.
Neither are woman-worshipping tradcucks.
Generally, cosying up to the enemy is not a good strategy.
BLM leadership : 100% female.
Democratic Party : The non-senile candidate is female. Openly preaching female supremacy.
"Green" movements : Majority female, are pivoting towards blaming men for climate change.
ACLU and assorted pressure groups : All female CEOs.
The map if only women voted would be 100% blue. The figures if only young women voted would be a Reagan v Mondale repeat, but for the Democrats.
But yeah, I'm sure that supporting them will work. It sure did work to stop all this from happening.
Considering tradcons have never opposed anything women have pushed for, with the exception of abortion, I think it's a valid point.
Tradcons are like a battered spouse, ironically. They keep getting harmed, yet they run back to women's side and tell everyone "they're not usually like that, maybe they were just mad"
It. Doesn't. Fucking. Work.
You are not going to close Pandora's box. Gender relations have never been worse and 2020 elections when they all turn out for (D)onna Hylton's fan club will make them take another massive dive.
No, it's a criticism of their lack of spine, which they've always had.
They could have put an end to this way before it became the trainwreck it is now, but they always have that "women are wonderful" effect active. Even Trump does, considering he didn't kick "muh wage gap" Ivanka out of the administration. Having said that, he seems to at least understand some of the issues and remains the only person to put a dent in their ideology in a position of power.
Tradcon crap might have worked in 1800, but it's 2020. We need to acknowledge they fucking hate us and do something about it.
I'm not suggesting violence either. We just have to acknowledge their tendency towards dehumanizing us and start countering it.
TI1 is right. The Right has never come up with a strategy to suck the wind from the Left's sails.
Tradcons have a nasty habit of just wringing their hands and shrieking, "No! Don't change anything!" even when the old system is melting down. The idea of radically changing the system to adapt old principles to new realities is beyond them.
It'd help if you'd get over this "pedo libertarian" thing when the lefties are applauding some fucking African woman paying little girls to twerk and selling it on Netflix.
The left as it is now is a result of those who rebelled against the Bible thumpers of the past growing up. They are in large part why they hate the Republicans and the right so much because in their minds, all people on the right are the tradcons and they are still the tradcons. And should the pendulum ever swing back and this crop of social justice morality policing ever falls out of favor, then the tradcons will eventually rise to become the new enemy of free speech. Or just simply retake the old position again.
The left as it is now is a result of commmunist infiltration of North America and western Europe after WWII.