Reddit and Loli

Art and fiction
6

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
7

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.

3 Likes
8

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

1 Like
9

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

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/aolhw3/comment/eg2su9r/

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 https://prostasia.org/event/dialogue/.

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.

5 Likes
10

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
11

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
12

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

image

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.

4 Likes
13

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
14

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.

2 Likes
15

So a non-sequitur on their part? Nice lol

1 Like
16

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

1 Like
17

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

2 Likes
18

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.

2 Likes
19

It’s funny. Death threats actually take less effort to respond to because of my… cultural knowledge. https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueSTL/comments/116isl6/pseudointellectual_altmer_watches_one_kreia_video/j9bs60j/?context=3 I just take it and reflect it back 9 times over.

1 Like
20

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

Me:

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…

Them:

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.

Me:

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

Them:

No, I mean pre-emptively.

Me:

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.

Them:

Yeah.

4 Likes
21

Then to protect myself (the only person who matters), I should definitely kill them first… Also because I’m paranoid and well-aware of Chinese history, I’d best do this, too: Nine familial exterminations - Wikipedia Wait, same person?

1 Like
22

Well that’s the thing, right, they’re operating on the presumption that these images are signs of intent to act, are consumed and engaged with as an expression of desired act, rather than desire itself. It stems from a failure to differentiate between reality and fiction on a fundamental level.

It also stems from a failure to understand the difference between a person whose interested in fantastical artwork, someone with a sexual interest in real children, and a child predator. All 3 are distinct categories, though, not precluded from overlapping.

It goes in-line with the rationale behind banning child-like sex dolls. In the Utah legislature, they flat-out used child pornography offenses as a predicate for legislative justification, based on nothing but a handful of highly-publicized news releases wherein people being investigated for CSAM also happened to own a child-like sex doll.
Such a rationale does not withstand even the most basic of scrutiny, since it’s associative prohibition, which presumptively violates due process, especially when the two matters are not intrinsically related.

5 Likes
23

And when I responded with this Danish article: Looking for Research He responded with… nothing. He stopped that line of questioning. Took another of my words out of context and ask about that. At this point, all I need to do is keep spamming that Danish article.

3 Likes
24

A couple of things.
When it comes to anything lolicon-related, 99%+ of people do not have an informed opinion because they do not see it necessary or lack the maturity or patience to form a ration-based view.
It’s safe to assume that most arguments are unfiltered arguments that they picked up from someone else, most likely a top-scoring redditor or an e-celeb influencer.
This is pretty common, anyway.

Another issue is that advocating for Prostasia’s goals, context-relevant “arguing in favor of lolicon”, is technically against Reddit’s ToS against advocating sexualization of minors.
See this warning message I got.

image
image788×394 17 KB

I was not sharing any pictures of drawn children, nor was I requesting them; I use this account solely to debate about “high-risk” topics, and the post in question was defending the consumption of lolicon.
It is natural that users of a plattform that explicitly tells you to not argue in favor of something, will shift its culture to antagonize said thing.

Both points also intersect with eachother in that content creators are fed new policies by their plattforms to operate under (such as Patreon cracking down on taboo sexual content), which leads content creators to get alienated by said content and perhaps even hostilic.
The opinions of a content creator gets drip-fed down to consumers, who then espouse their opinions as fact.

2 Likes
25

Then they’ll argue from rabble and talk about this mythical animal called a “normal person”: Reddit - Dive into anything What is that? Is it edible?

1 Like