It fantastic that the fetishists and pedos are so outspoken in their attempts to defend their predilections, its only a pity they don't do the same publicly.
Yes, your argument makes perfect sense, the ones complaining about loli art are really secret pedos while those advocating it are purely defenders of free expression....
The same predictable things always pop up when they rush to defend their grubby little vice: slippery slope, straw men, and false equivalence.
Lolicon isn't the same as someone playing violent video games. If someone plays video games and enjoys killing SS soldiers, carnivorous aliens, or invading aliens I would say, all in all, that's a pretty reasonable stance to take. If someone's favourite genre of violent games involved kicking old ladies to death or stabbing elementary school students I would have serious concerns.
It's not an issue of loli art turning people into pedos, it's that those who are into it to the extent that they will post on places like this defending it at length already have issues that the rest of us should be concerned about. Don't expect me to reply any further, its not that I'm closed to dialogue about such issues, its that there never seems to be anything but the same old weak and tired attempts at justification.
For once it would be nice for them to come out and say "Yes, I have a creepy and worrying fixation and, to be honest, I am a little worried about the ethical nature of my sexual drives, but its my only legal source of gratification so I want to hold on to it for purely selfish reasons of sexual stimulation."
Do you think your efforts at evasion actually convince anyone that you have any other motive? (rhetorical)
"Yay!" say the closeted-pedos and man-children terrified of interactions with adult women. And they will say this is a defense of free speech and that loli-art is the high mark of a slippery slope and that it if isn't allowed soon hard porn, then soft porn then all free speech will be banned.
Go the other way and say that if you allow loli-art, then the next step is hardcore loli-porn, then clothed but still erotic photos of real children, then less clothed, then non-frontal nudes, then, etc. The slippery slope argument is a fallacy for a reason. Judge loli art on its worth and you end up realising you're simply catering to the fetishes of a group of deviants. When I speak of deviants I'm not talking about people who have looked at loli art, or who have been turned on by it, I'm talking about those who care enough about it to make it 'an issue'. People obsessed enough to make it their hill to die on are a worrying sort who shouldn't be left alone in the company of small children and I sincerely doubt that any of them are out there making posts about Assange's treatment.
"But this is just drawings, it's not real people so it's not harmful." Me making a long, well-constructed argument about why its okay to rape women or attack ethnic group X, and encouraging others to do so, would just be words on a screen but it would also count as incitement to violence. Loli-porn should also be viewed as incitement to paedophilic behaviour and not tolerated because it actively promotes the sexualization of children.
Should have posted a link to the original (recent / some time ago) post. Without it there's no way to know this isn't real and hard to know what its mocking and not all of us read every single post that's made. Was wondering why someone with those beliefs would use pride colours.
Show it to who, yourself? Its free so you're not impacting anyone else, but then again I guess that's the ideal form of virtue-signalling, trying to convince yourself (against all evidence) that you're a nice person and matter in some way.
The context doesn't really change anything. Foucault's claim is about objectivity and subjectivity, the "no true politics" is a straw man which no one is arguing. There are (various) processes by which we can evaluate political systems on a variety of levels and refine them and these systems require objective standards. Frank's statement on materialist views equating to political activism is a non-sequitor and true only via circular logic. Why wouldn't Fish, someone admittedly concerned about his image, denounce a line that left him open to ridicule. Derrida's comment was on Deconstruction, his opinions on Marx economic or historical beliefs are contextually irrelevant.
I have no interest in engaging in debate about Postmodernism. Been there done that and - like practically anyone who has let it leech their valuable time - been left with very little to show for it. From all the hundreds of thousands of words written in its name, Postmodernism generated a tiny smattering of interesting ideas that, if applied in limited fashion could help open new perspectives for analysis of complex issues. As such, it is not completely devoid of value. Its development as the intellectual basis for movements such as intersectionality and critical race theory have been nothing but a regressive descent into emotive, faith-based belief systems that, far from offering nothing of value, actually undermine and seek to destroy systems that do provide not simply value, but fundamentally vital elements of a stable and intellectually open society. In this sense its worth is similar to statements praising Mussolini for making the trains run on time.
No intent to be impolite but I won't reply any further as, again, I have no desire to further explore the well-trod subject matter.
Michel Foucault: It s meaningless to speak in the name of - or against - reason, truth or knowledge. (the against is thrown in only to cover his bases as a consistently critical viewpoint would be a reasoned position)
Frank Lentricchia: Postmodernism seeks not to find the foundation of truth but to exercise power for the purpose of social change.
Stanley Fish: Deconstruction relieves me of the obligation to be right...and demands only that I be interesting.
Jacques Derrida: Deconstruction never had meaning or interest...than as a radicalization...in the spirit of a certain Marxism.
These are from the just introduction to Explaining Postmodernism by Stephen Hicks, a great resource if you want to be able to pick apart the nonsensical, hipster bullshit using their own claims and statements to show how flawed it is as a philosophy and how insidious as a form of insurgent politics.
This scumbag isn't trying to cancel himself, he's trying to cancel the publishing company who wouldn't meet his demands and the artist whose work offended him.
He was "work for hire", i.e. the company paid him to write a story for their book, he provided the text alone, they provided the rest of the art, editing, etc. It's no way 'his' book and now he's try to destroy their reputation and livelihood because they didn't listen to his concerns that having an Asian girl in a kimono was stereotyping. You'd rather have a Western kid wear the kimono, because we all know where that would lead? Or, are you (as the white authority of Japanese culture) just outlawing kimonos now?
Hopefully he gets blacklisted by the industry but in reality he knows doing this will get him ample contracts with woke publishers. He's trashing this book and this company because he knows it will pay off for him in the long run.
Sick bastards. What's next? Use the AI to show his last moments before he got killed?
*Crying as the shooter walks closer: "No bro, don't do it man, don't do it, please!"
Turns to camera: "See what happens when you vote for Trump"
"BANG"*
In some dank little room you can be sure the worst effluvium of the DNC are thinking, "How far can we push this?"
The Republicans need to highlight this. "The Biden campaign is putting words in the mouths of dead children to pander for votes." That's not an attack ad, its a simple statement of fact.
"Transracial adoption is fraught with trauma and potential for harm, and everything I see here is deeply concerning."
I guess this guy must really be against kids having gay parents then, and gay people who engage in transracial adoption (like the couple in Modern Family though there are countless real world cases) must be his go-to example of bad parenting.
I got this link as a reply to a comment i made asking for examples of mainstream right-wing extremism: https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckYouKaren/comments/hz28cd/petition_to_rename_this_place_karensville/
Its actually an interesting video as it does show that there are some (very, very limited) places where racism still seems pretty ingrained; it failed completely though as an example of such views gaining mainstream acceptance.
More relevant to this thread, they managed to go to the 'most racist town in the USA' and stand there all day with a BLM sign without any physical violence occurring.
What do you think would happen to someone with an All Lives or Blue Lives sign in Portland or Seattle for even half an hour? Never mind those, what if you tried it in any majority black neighbourhood in any part of the USA right now?
Give any SJW the choice of standing quietly with a BLM sign in Harrison or a ALM sign in Portland and watch them rapidly reappraise their beliefs.
This is not hysteria. It's orchestrated and there are very important differences. Hysteria is ultimately irrational and you have to respond to it based on the fact that it is not something that can be rationally assessed or predicted.
BLM is a tool used by several distinct groups in society to achieve more power. The fact that many of its cannon fodder are clueless idiots is beside the point. This is the nature of most large-scale political movements. Usually the grunts appear more rational but they still tend to have no idea what the actual goals of the people pulling the strings are, this applies to warfare too.
In this case there are four main factions who have rational reasons for causing absolute mayhem:
Black Supremacists: Feed on the system of white guilt and know they can get more social and political influence from promoting racial disharmony.
Marxists (including intersectional SJWs and Antifa): Hope to destabilize the capitalist, liberal democratic system and replace it with their alternative and fuck the cost to the common people. We all go up against the wall before they turn on each other.
The Democrats: Hope that the mayhem will cause a backlash against Trump. They've screwed themselves but utter stupidity is not the same as irrationality.
Soros and Co: Why Soros and his kind are funding these activities is harder to gauge. Maybe it's the Zionist element hoping that increasing 'white guilt' is good for Zionism/Israel. Maybe its something related to Trump. Maybe it's about destabilizing the economy so they can make a killing in typical vulture capitalist fashion. Again, I don't know but they seem to be a distinct faction.
Soros and co provide funding. Democrats provide political and legal cover for rioting. BLM and Antifa organisers (who understand their end goals aren't actually about police violence or systemic racism) provide the clueless idiots who go out and smash things up.
The fodder might be succumbing to hysteria but if you overlook the people playing this as a political game, you're not going to give them the response that's required.
Over here in Japan it was, "Yes, it's not bad now, but give it two weeks and you'll see the explosion of exponential growth." Repeated every two weeks for six months. For six months now Japan has held to a steady 3-4 very old people dying each day (with a tiny number of outliers). Altogether, far, far below the number who die each and every day from pneumonia and influenza-related illness.
Have the early doomsayers changed their stance in the slightest? Of course not, they just double down on the histrionics, switch the goal posts as often as possible, and keep on spreading fear over what might happen if we all become 'complacent'.
No maybe about it, you get the victim status, an ethnic identity you can openly be proud of, benefits from affirmative action, a blank cheque to be racist to anyone else, and little actual downside unless you live (not in the South, black people generally have little problems there) in an impoverished urban black ghetto - and if you were starting off white and are insane enough to act like this you're probably upper middle class.
Hi brother was shot by police in 2016. He already had convictions for rape, robbery and assault. Police came to pick him up for another crime, video shows him standing with his hands in the air and then diving into his car where he had a gun. Cops shoot him, he dies.
Seattle new Street Pimp was, of course, leading protests saying the police killed him in cold blood. Even if he wasn't a pimp of kids this would be more than enough to disqualify him as a reasonable candidate for overseeing police/community reforms.
What happened between the car tap (lands on his ass seems okay) and just before the stomp (when he's face down and already seems to have been in a brawl)? He also doesn't seem to go down at the end, so did it continue beyond this and was other force used that caused the coma?
Not saying anything was justified but just like when dealing with BLM bullshit about police I want to have a clear idea of what was happening.
It used to be common for movies and tv shows to get held if their content clashed with horrific real life events, e.g. a show with a school shooting wouldn't be released immediately after a real life school shooting.
But just days after two police officers are ambushed sitting in their car and both shot in the head (during a period of some of America's worst and most volatile civil unrest) these servile weasels release some of the most partisan and pandering political content I've ever seen, specifically encouraging the incitement of violence.
One of the very few areas in which the abuse of free speech can legitimately be punished (after the fact) is in the direct incitement to violent or harmful acts. I'm pretty sure this doesn't technically fall within those laws but just as sure it violates them in spirit and intent.
If an extremist priest whips his devout flock into a rabid frenzy of hate and then tells them to go out and kill some gay/black people for God, he is held partially responsible for the crimes they commit based on the fact that he knew his actions were certain to produce violent harm. There is no way the people making this excrement are not aware that those watching it will use it as justification for their own future violence.
The police across America need to start a watch list of citizens who have effectively given up the privilege of receiving assistance and when Sorkin and his ilk invariably turn them in future in desperate need of help, they should tell them instead to once again appeal to the mob.
There are lot of unintelligent posters here and its impossible to tell if its a 12 year-old trying to be edgy or a grown adult with issues.
It's not even a question of the views themselves. If expressed in a structured, intelligent fashion even reprehensible views can form part of a constructive dialogue. The above kind of low effort posturings are nothing more than random brain farts with no real thought behind them and, as such, not worth responding to. Call them out and based on how they respond, if they seem like a complete waste just block them.
I was sure this had to be someone either engaging in stolen valor or at best a national guard desk jockey; it comes across like an outtake from the Navy Seal copypasta.
But no, this is the guy who says he resigned from his position over his objection to the use of anti-terrorism information gained from torture.....but stomping on citizens necks is okay?
Diagnosis: TDS triggered early senile dementia with manic outbursts. In other words, your average Democratic candidate for political office.
Race relations don't improve by being hypersensitive or over-exaggerating problems. I'm referring here to this specific case, i.e. RbW is not a good example of the problem of black-washing or over-representation. There are plenty of cases that are (Anne Queen of Scots is one of the most recent OTT ones). Pointing out the problem where clear examples exist is one thing, seeing the problem where it isn't actually present is a different thing altogether.
In my view its a sign that people are letting the SJW bullshit get to them and reacting emotionally rather than rationally and thereby letting the SJWs drag them down to their level of reactionary extremism. This is just what they want so they can say things are a choice between two extremes, rather than the reality that there are a wide variety of centrists stances (including left and right) that avoid any form of fundamentalist thought.
Well, you chose a bad example to represent this point. As I said, the ratios in RbW are not especially strange. 1/8 of the USA is black and another 2/8 are non-white. RbW main characters are: Mother, Father, Campion, Marcus, Sue, and Paul. Five very white characters and one black. Similar proportions among secondary characters. Whats your problem?
All your arguments apply to Cuties but Cuties can at least argue (weakly) that its purpose is something other than the gross sexualization of children. Not hosting something is not the same as making its possession illegal. I don't want smoking in my restaurants or on planes I ride but I don't want smokers arrested.
Stop trying to pass off the sexualization of children as having any nobler aims beyond your own self-serving stimulation. It didn't pass the smell test with Cuties and it is far more obvious in this case. No one but your own kind believe you truly care about political free speech more than you do your loli porn.