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.
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.