first of all, this isn't about sexism, lol. i am a sexist, and unrelatedly my primary worry is about the effect porn has on MEN, not women.
so, one can watch midget rape porn as a natural progression when the Dead Or Alive titties stop feeling exciting, get blackout drunk, and take heroin-cocaine speedballs, but as long as they're a well-adjusted person otherwise and aren't using the former things as a coping mechanism, it's cool, right?
i'm probably butchering what he said a little, but it was thomas sowell, ironically a negro, who came up with a good distinction between lefties and sane people: lefties think ideally, that everything can be the best version of itself and that's the result people should barrel towards. you exhibit this vision, because you think people can do all the above and still stand a chance in frozen-over hell to be well-adjusted.
sane people realize that the willpower of man is generally lacking and that throwing boob physics into every game because it's vaguely less disgusting than the mystery meat dyke afro stuff is still not the best, most rational choice. it replaces beauty-destroying cultural degeneration with just another sort of cultural degeneration: that is, the reduction of beauty into commodified lust.
the fact that you get so worked up just over being told that maybe H-cup bikini girls are more lustful than they're worth in entertainment media is proof enough that it has enough of a hold on you to start being damaging. if truly it meant nothing and was not an addiction you would have no problems with those same, pretty girls just being fully clothed and less exaggerated instead. instead you jump to attack your allies and insist that pornography has a place in society. it's just a hobby man, i just enjoy my hobby, let me have my constant half-chub watching bikini babes move around on screen. it couldn't possibly have an unseen effect on my psyche.
the right claiming it's degeneracy and causes violence.
oh how your tongue twists, some lawyers and grift organizations in the 90s going on about "the GTA" are now equated to the people of today who dislike our world of high speed pornography and dopamine toxicity.
to think that you can be any better than lefties while exposing yourself to the same fucked up, hormonally destructive shit they expose themselves to, to the point where you even feel the need to vehemently defend the act online, is nothing but insanity.
we live in times where irrational people try to pretend they are hyperrational, so when their narrative goes against statistics and all believable likelihood they will say we don't know for sure and must wait to empirically find out... as in be told by CNN or whoever the fuck.
language and logic have been poisoned completely in the mainstream, the minds of most people are straight-up broken. the way out of this will be interesting for sure.
Then I asked myself: Are these men worthy of belonging to a great people? The question was profoundly disturbing; for if the answer were 'Yes', then the struggle to defend one's nationality is no longer worth all the trouble and sacrifice we demand of our best elements if it be in the interests of such a rabble. On the other hand, if the answer had to be 'No--these men are not worthy of the nation', then our nation is poor indeed in men.
During those days of mental anguish and deep meditation I saw before my mind the ever-increasing and menacing army of people who could no longer be reckoned as belonging to their own nation.
you don't even HAVE to screw principles, you just need to have not-retarded ones.
"no the jury is sacred i must be a robot to serve on it!!!" retarded nonsensical principle
"i am fighting actual demons and should not be restrained by their rules as if it were an honorable fight" good sensical principle
perhaps they are trying to get you to support another avenue of pedophilic distraction and control by pretending to dislike it?
unfortunately race is far from arbitrary... think about it meta-logically: if we were all the same, how would we find such huge, fundamental differences in paradigms between all of us, divided so cleanly with racial lines?
you might say "environment", and i would agree, because indeed the environment changed how people were physically built, and how they evolved to behave, and changing how one behaves inherently changes the structure of one's brain and bodily systems and uh-oh, you're a racist nazi, welcome to the club.
the right man with the right words can rile a million guns into action
speech IS warfare, and refusing to engage in it to uphold a principle that lived and died with a single constitution in history, written by and for people that are not half as evil as who we're dealing with right now, is just ensuring you end up on the losing side.
they don't want a race war, dude. you know who would win a race war.
they want a plausible excuse, just barely plausible enough, to send their hordes on to kill more Whites, and have half of them cheer it on in the name of "racial justice" while the other half are busy trying to prove they're not a racist or an Evil German.
an actual honest to God race war would mean a near immediate end to this stuff, and a much brighter future for us.
there is no more truth in anything you say than someone who explains existence itself as subjective because it all has to go through our eyes and brains, which are purportedly so imperfect as to be untruthful all the time, and thus anything can be truth. using your logic, we could excuse shameless digitally created child pornography by merely claiming that the author has created a world in which characters who look like, act like, and say that they are 10 years old are in fact 3000 year old dragons - a quirk of language or somesuch. and, if the author shuts up and neither denies nor confirms? whoops, can't call anyone a pedophile, that'd be jumping to conclusions!
it's mental olympics. we have to actually lay down objective facts at some point to get anywhere, so let me do just that:
people who jack it to kids are pedophiles and ought face death (hopefully we agree on this?). looking like a kid is a very significant characteristic of being one and it is indeed a very significant characteristic that pedophiles look out for. i can say with confidence pedophiles would not be happy with "young and innocent"-acting geriatrics; it is not a personality thing. however, even then, it is to my understanding that a lot of depicted lolis do act young and innocent. i cannot confirm because i'm not a pedophile and don't watch anime, so forgive any mild inaccuracies here, but i doubt i'm wrong.
so, lolis are made to look like kids, and very often have the mannerisms of, act like, and trigger the same emotional responses within our brains as kids, especially regarding responses to their physical appearance. lolis are therefore made to depict kids. they look, walk, and quack like ducks, and therefore must be ducks, created by a human on the other side of the pen who knows what ducks look like and what pen-strokes he should perform to create one on the paper.
thusly
lolis = kids
jacking it to lolis = jacking it to kids
nothing here i said can be disproven except by a moral relativism and subjectivism so idiotic that i could kill you and claim that death in my culture is actually life, and you'd have to accept it or risk infringing on my free speech. any resistance on your part would be agreeing that there exist objective facts, making you a disgusting death-deserving hypocrite when you go on about muh author's intent regarding child porn.
i'm agreeing and amplifying, not attacking strawmen, my friend. all logic must be proven by being taken to its extremes: if policing any drawing is bad because it could potentially lead to policing the wrong drawings, then policing anything is bad because it could potentially lead to policing the wrong stuff. it's faulty logic, because we as practical reasonable people know that some things must be policed, including pedophiliac material.
as for the part where you would instantly give up free speech once it personally seriously offended you, i stand by that. keep your cool in front of guys free speeching towards your toddler to try to rape them and i'll cede, but we both know that it's not even possible.
now the question is who decides which actions are ok, where the line is, and half a dozen other fronts... if murder isn't okay, suddenly tomorrow walking backwards is a crime!
no, sorry. this logic doesn't compute, it's a dead-end, you end up standing for absolutely nothing and thus standing for everything, including the sickest of our world. you would quit this very logic the moment a man walked up to your toddler daughter and used his free speech to ask her to suck his dick, you'd punch his lights out and suddenly you're the one taking away free speech (after all, he just said some words, he didn't do anything...)
let's solve it this way: when things collapse and the people with the integrity to hate pedophilia (and a million other depraved things) come out on top while you're bickering about your naps and free speech, we can rope the shameless ones and you guys can just kinda slip by and conform, alright? it's a good deal.
what if france doesn't feel like paying for the processing and transportation of its invaders?