Reddit and Loli

Why is Reddit so anti-loli? 99% of the time it’s people calling names and making comments about normalization and how it’s ok to murder Lolicon fans. Since when did the anti-loli sentiment start on Reddit? Was there a pivotal moment leading to this change (aside from banning it)?


This Prostasia article might help a bit: Twitter’s pedo-populism is a setback for prevention - Prostasia Foundation

Reddit joins in

The template these cowardly websites have set in their pandering to scattered, noisy fanatics has been imitated strenuously by others. Scandinavian teenager ‘PedoViking’ established a Reddit account and was winning much approval by setting forth the ACMAP line that children should never be sexually exploited. Abruptly, after many months of mostly popular posting, he received the message “Your account has been suspended from Reddit for sexual or suggestive content involving minors. The suspension is permanent. Violating content: (post linked). Be sure to read up on the Reddit content policy to be sure you understand the rules for participating on Reddit.”

What was this horribly violating content that caused the suspension? It was Viking’s response to an allegation from a non-pedophile poster that pedophiles were hoping for legal changes so that they could have sex with children.

His response said, “I am not joking. I am a pedophile. Though I am against sexually molesting children, I’d never want to actually have sex with a child, because children can’t consent.”

If your child were secretly a pedophile, wouldn’t you want them to see that another pedophile had said this? Reddit, however, evidently prefers the old silence and secrecy environment that has led to most if not all of the world’s cases of child abuse.

Also, Reddit refers to lolicon as “child sexual abuse imagery”: Do Not Post Sexual or Suggestive Content Involving Minors – Reddit Help

So far, the only subreddit that I’ve seen that isn’t necessarily anti-loli is r/KotakuInAction, here’s a post that was made when Reddit was cracking down on lolicon:

You should probably check this out too:

1 Like

I’ve actually seen mixed sentiment from reddit.

In subreddit r/videos, there’s a thread:

And the sentiment definitely seems to be AT THE EXPENSE of the video, or at the very least, critical of it. This was not a good video, and Vice’s recent anti-fiction crusade is nothing short of a repugnant attempt at poking a hornets nest to try and act morally superior, when in fact, they are simply being antagonistic.

I used to have a lot of respect for Vice, but this is just… no. Journalistic ethics used to mean something by those who cared about reality, not just ideals.


Reddit is a shitshow sometimes, to be honest. I have asked for dating advice for finding someone to date at work, but mentioned that I was scared of being seen as unprofessional. People were then making assumptions about me being a potential rapist and what not, all of which was based on nothing. I deleted the post and moved on. There is this huge badwagon effect you get on Reddit sometimes, and it takes one comment that’s eloquent enough to get support and fuel flames.
As for them banning loli, I think they burned the house with the pig. They could have allowed it with some restrictions (e.g. making it so that only people with accounts can see them and restricting them to people 18 and older), but money and banks I guess.

1 Like

Somenone commented this on the thread you linked:
“Japan is also a country with a doctrine of judicial precedent. Meaning; if they choose to ban this specific type of media they will set a legal precedent for other types of media to be banned as well. So, as straight forward as this issue seems on a moral level - in a legal sense it’s Pandora’s Box for potential litigation.”
This person gets it! It’s what I have always said: if they can ban cartoons of lolis, they will eventually use that as precedent for banning other things as well.

1 Like

Here’s another post on that thread:

Congrats to everyone that sat by and did nothing while lewd games were being censored and loli was being banned from Gab because you only care about free speech and free expression if you can look good while defending it. Fucking cowards. Now look where we are. We told you that the rules can always be arbitrarily expanded at any point until they’ve grown so much that something you like is now a bannable form of expression.

“hurrr loli?! you really wanna die on that hill?!”

Yes, yes, and fucking yes. Either we have free expression, or we don’t. There is no Well, I believe in free expression, BUT. You’ll concede on loli today and find all lewd anime (almost fucking all of it) banned the next week. Then what other art form is next after that? What other industry is next? If you actually have principles, you’ll defend even that which you personally find distasteful. If you don’t, just admit to yourself that you’re a hypocrite and a coward. Some of the pics people are getting banned for aren’t even loli, for god’s sake.

And here’s another post:

Keep in mind that due to the ambiguous nature of the word “loli” and the American age of consent, “loli” will be interpreted as any character that is below the age of 18 sooner or later. It’s just a matter of time until the definition also includes any attractive, sexualized or sexual content about most main characters in anime and manga.

The word “loli” is a very ambiguous term and may refer to girls in a certain age range (that may or may not include young children) or a paraphilia thereof or someone with that paraphilia, a character archetype, a genre, a type of content, someone who dresses in a certain fashion etc. The most common usage in both Japan and the West is most likely just as a synonym of “little girl”, where it could imply attraction towards a character but not necessarily any sexualization in the content itself.

Only including “loli” in the rule but not “shota” is already completely non-standard by any interpretation of the word. It essentially can be interpreted however they want.

1 Like

That is related to what I have said before as well: at some point, even adult porn will be seen as a gateway to child abuse. In fact, it has been seen as that in the past. Just look at the obscenity cases of the early and mid 2000s (when Alberto Cortez was US Attorney General). Much adult porn was prosecuted as obscene, and a lot of it wasn’t even simulations of minors nor bestiality. It’s a case where the slippery slope fallacy isn’t a fallacy, but the reality.


Like with Discord, Reddit nominally bans loli, but it is ultimately up to the mods and admins of that particular sub-site.

1 Like

Hey, Jeremy Malcolm (qirtaiba) had made a post on the Reddit link that I posted:

Here’s what he said:

I am from Prostasia Foundation, a child protection organisation that actually stands up for artists and fans because of our anti-censorship stance, which is part of our broader human rights focus. We fight against new laws that are focused away from direct harm to actual children. In the case of companies like Reddit though, it’s not laws but policies that guide what’s allowed. So we want those policies to become better informed and more human rights compliant too. You’ve all seen how this is getting out of hand with all the bans on Tumblr, Reddit, Facebook, Gab, Discord, and other platforms. So we are hosting a meeting to which we are inviting all these companies to meet with experts from a wide variety of backgrounds, including the adult entertainment industry, mental health experts, criminal justice experts, sex workers, and human rights experts. See

When a user asked him what is Prostasia’s stance on lolicon, he replied:

There is no obligation on any Internet company to allow it if they don’t want to. It’s also fine for individuals personally to think it’s gross and to avoid it. But it is constitutionally protected speech, so banning it from the Internet means drawing a line somewhere, and art is going to end up being censored no matter where you draw that line. For example Discord has decided that the line between permitted and banned art depends on whether the character is a furry. This makes no sense. A much better line to draw is: does it directly hurt a real child? And in fact that is where the U.S. Supreme Court also draws the line in its definition of child pornography. We support the elimination of images of real children being exploited and there is lots of work to do before we call victory there. Censoring art of any kind is a distraction from that aim and is harmful to speech and freedom.


Have you ever gotten a retort where you find it difficult to respond, not because the words are unreproachable, but because they come from so far into left field, that you honestly have no idea how the opposition even came to that conclusion? So yeah, this Redditor tried to “stump” me by tangentially going off about deepfakes, despite no one mentioning it, and then specifically deepfakes of me. Reddit - Dive into anything

It’s not that I have nothing to say, but I have so much to say that I honestly don’t know where to start. How should I go shutting him up. Of course, he also tried to get me to dox myself, in order to prove that I stand by my words.

1 Like

had something like that with a german politician where I was just like “there is so much wrong in this statement if I start at the conception of the universe I might miss half of it” …

Sometimes you just can´t.

1 Like

Honestly, I don’t know why you even bother with some of these people.


This right here tells me everything that I need to know about their thought process.
They’ve already lost the argument when they tried to compare deepfakes of real people to fictional characters, and literally everything else said prior to that can be rebutted with:

“it’s not real, you know it’s not real, I know it’s not real, and anyone who engages with it does so knowing that it’s not real. It will not influence or motivate immoral or harmful acts, it does not condone real-life acts of harm or beliefs supportive of such acts.”

The problem with people who are in favor of censorship is that they believe that it’s not “just a drawing” and try to attribute it to the causation of real-life acts, which is unsupported on both an empirical level and a practical level.

Someone tried to use the flood of criminal botspam with Twitter, Pawoo, and Pixiv as a talking point, by arguing that it attracts pedophiles, therefore it should be banned, despite being completely oblivious to the fact that this is all artificial - i.e. it’s bot activity, not actual human beings posting these, because Pawoo and Pixiv didn’t have 2FA, and Twitter has been rife with bot-spam anyway.

They were also oblivious to the fact that they were injecting themselves into ‘teen’ and conventional pornographic content as well. And, like consumers of those contents, criminal CSEM posts are not tolerated by lolicon/shotacon/CGI consumers, but the issues on moderation fall on the platforms specifically to deal with.

Once you hammer home their underlying beliefs, you can convince them that they’re wrong. If not, then you at least demonstrate that you’re more conscious of things than they are, which, to observers, lends credence to your perspective.


Not much use censoring their name, we can all just click @LegalLoliLover1’s link and be taken straight to the person they’re arguing with.

1 Like

Then they respond by saying that if it’s not real, then why am I spending money on loli pillows. Yes, I boasted about that and being turned on by it.


So a non-sequitur on their part? Nice lol

1 Like

They’re really digging into that “deepfake” thing.

1 Like

I didn’t read much about the original topic, but liked your post about Babette. Dittos for vampire lolis.


Well, he blocked me because I’m not the sort to reveal myself to my enemy, unlike that Knight in The Seventh Seal movie, LOL.


It’s funny. Death threats actually take less effort to respond to because of my… cultural knowledge. I just take it and reflect it back 9 times over.

1 Like

So, I had my own side conversation with this person. Here’s how it went:


Comparing deepfakes of a real identifiable child to ink and paper of a fictional character like Kanna Kamui or Anya Forger. Yes, because fapping to cartoons is exactly the same as looking at CSAM. It’s not at all like actual CSA victims would vastly prefer their abuser had just looked at cartoons instead of raping them! Bro, the disconnect is real…


Oh, have you asked a CSA victim?

Because I’d have preferred if my abuser was tied to the back of a car and dragged behind it until there was nothing left, rather than doing any of the things they did in their life.


So you’d rather get revenge than wish it never happened at all?


No, I mean pre-emptively.


You can’t punish people for something they haven’t done yet. That’s literally the definition of thoughtcrime. You’re arguing in favor of punishing people’s thoughts. Straight outta 1984 or Minority Report.