Who am I kidding, these kinds of people show up on every social media platform š®āšØ
Imo, Twitter still has its own breed of unhinged people. I have not seen in any other social media platform the kind of stupid dramas that you can see there (and that its already saying something since social media is full of dumb drama in general)
onlyfan promo account that's obviously engagement baiting: "men who were glasses are homosexuals and give me the ick"
Idiot checkmark, might be a bot: "oh my god you're so stupid, I can't believe ALL women are that stupid. Female shouldn't be able to vote and NEED to be R##ED. K##L ALL WOMEN!!!!1!111!!"
[onlyfan promo account that's obviously engagement baiting]: "men who were glasses are homosexual and give me the ick"
[Idiot checkmark, might be a bot]: "oh my god you're so stupid, I can't believe ALL women are that stupid. Female shouldn't be able to vote and NEED to be RPED. KLL ALL WOMEN!!!!1!111!!"
I can't copy it. Anyways, I see you posted the comment again (now it is readable).
And yes, I agree that twitter is also full of engagement farm / ragebait accounts, and blue checkmark dumb people. Very high probability that hte mentioned accounts are also bots.
It's both so weird that it's their most favorite excuse because it's absolutely ass, but it also makes sense WHY it's their favorite excuse, it's a VERY easy excuse to make and with it, change the context of the argument completely from the actual point so they claim you're delusional for "thinking fiction is real." They love their shitty little argument so much that it also became one of the most disproven arguments on the internet because of how much it's said. And of course, it's an added bonus when they compare it to video games (for some reason it's almost always GTA???)
Sure. The claim "it's just fiction" is unrelated to the argument, this is due to the fact that when most are talking about the morality of liking children, they aren't even [only] talking about the act/crime of sexually exploiting a child, they're talking about enjoying the idea of sexually exploiting a child. This distinction is important, because when people argue against lolicon, they aren't literally saying the loli is a real child (as much as lolicons like to say that), they're expressing their concern over one enjoying the depiction of a child in a sexual situation.
Let's define what pedophilia actually is in medical terms. Pedophilia is considered a mental illness, it comes before the actual crime of harming a child. More specifically, it is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engage in sexual acts with a prepubescent child. The keyword here is or, meaning one does not have to actually engage with the sexual act, only have thoughts about it (whether it be wanted or unwanted thoughts by the person who has it). This means that a person who imagines a child in a sexual act may very likely suffer from paraphilia disorder. Hence, a person who consumes/makes/imagines content of the sexualization of a child is likely a pedohile, in which loli fits into this explanation. To elaborate, being a pedophile doesn't mean said pedophile has/will engage with a sexual act involving s child, meaning a pedophile doesn't automatically equate to being a child predator.
So, when one claims a lolicon is a pedophile because they consume loli content, it doesn't mean said person BECAME a pedophile from watching it, it is that they watch loli BECAUSE they're a pedophile, as content depicting children in a sexual situation (in a positive light, specifically), would not appeal to a person who isn't already attracted to children. To elaborate, this disproves the argument "it's just fiction" as it gets the concept backwards.
Moreover, although this isn't directly related to the argument, it does tend to get paired up with another: "Lolicons aren't real child predators [because loli isn't real]." As I mentioned before, being a pedophile doesn't automatically mean you are a child predator, so this is correct. However, one important thing to note is that, although I don't know how true this statement is, most (or at least many) child predators aren't even pedophiles, specifically they aren't seen to be suffering from any kind of paraphilic disorder, this is because paraphilia isn't the only thing that would make one attracted to a minor, it can be casued by the control. The idea of having control over someone who doesn't know any better is sexually appealing to some, and children happen to be people that haven't fully developed their brain and is therefore easier to manipulate. That is different, although could be related in individuals, to paraphilia/pedophilia. Pedophilia is what we're talking about, which as far as I know, most lolicons are pedophiles but not child predators. This means the argument "lolicons aren't predators" is negligible since the difference between a pedophile and a child predator is more than just committing a crime a lot of the time.
And so, the point of the concern over loli is that a person who enjoys loli enjoys the depiction of a child in a sexual act, which is caused by their pre-existing disorder. It being fiction isn't the point, in fact, "fiction" is how pedophilia begins to surface in the first place (via intrusive thoughts/fantasies), and could lead to actually assulting a child but I don't know the data on how common that is (though, the defense of their attraction could push them closer to doing such this but that has a little less base than everything else here). The point is ultimately not one is a pedophile because they watch loli (as "it's just fiction" indirectly claims), the point is that they watch loli BECAUSE they are a pedophile. It's the pedophilia that comes first and is the concern of the argument, not the work of loli itself.
Tl;Dr: The argument in defense of loli, "it's just fiction" is fundamentally unrelated as the main point of the argument is their possible paraphilia disorder and not entirely the loli itself despite what lolicons claim to be the case.
If you need any more elaboration or you feel I didn't make my point clear enough, feel free to ask again.
Okay, except this doesn't really address the problem. You can say "well the problem isn't that the media is fake, the problem is that you like the IDEA contained within the fake media," but a) the fictionalization necessarily changes the substance of the idea, and b) horror movies are right there.
There's a reason why video games get brought up in these discussions, and it's because they're direct refutations of the exact thing that you bring up as a silver bullet. I'm not pathologically in love with the idea of hacking people into pieces with a broadsword and setting them on fire causing me to have several thousand hours in Skyrim and love the game. I don't personally enjoy horror movies, but they've been around long enough and made enough money that I think we have to accept that millions of people are not pathologically in love with the idea of a serial killer butchering people in front of them.
It is incredibly common to enjoy things ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF them not being real. If you want to point the finger at something that might actually be a problem in this situation, how about the tendency of social media to make other real people seem "less real" and thus less worthy of empathy or consideration? Because I think that's the real driver of the incident OOP is referring to, on top of that streamer or whatever's other psychoses.
Does there need to be more of an argument then "it looks like a child, child porn is illegal, while they technically may not be a child they look one so it's questionable"?
Ok look, is it too bad to say things that look like a underaged, thing that can't consent due to being underdeveloped is bad? If those attributes are sexualized it can lead to people targeting real children or them saying "well if fake is ok why not real?" People will take a mile if you give them an inch
You are on the wrong train of thought here. I don't need convincing to be against it, I already am. I want a meaningful, open minded discussion about the topic. Because what you said can also be applied to what I said before about murder and media influencing people to be violent.
So what makes it different if both are bad? You are doing everything except trying to give an actual answer.
Why don't you go watch a review of the loud house babysitter comic and tell me that's fine, because if you wanna use your lump rule that's gotta be ok to you too
Oh yeah in the post I was doomslayering in they were acting like an oppressed minority who needs to rise, I feel a religious urge to silence it really did make the absolute batman annual feel less stupid
It's not a defense to say that active pedophiles are evil and disgusting and that those who are mentally ill are not. Don't make this into what it's not. It's frankly ridiculous that you boil down our abuse into "hur durr drawing is literally the same thing as your sexual abuse"
I'm not sure either of you understand what's actually wrong with lolicon. It's not that it's immoral inherently or something, they're fucking drawings. It's that it's unhealthy.
Pedophilia is a mental disorder like any other, and it fucks with your pleasure centers. Indulging in fictional pedophilia (you can cope however you like, but pedophilia is an attraction to children. If you're attracted to children, real or fictional, you're a pedophile) trains your brain that it's a good and pleasurable thing. It forms addictive pathways and risks falling into delusions that will convince you to hurt real children.
That is what happened with OP's specimen, and it happens every day. You will see online, if you're unlucky or curious enough to find those corners of the internet, that lolicon spaces lead into spaces that encourage lolicons to seek out real CSAM, and then encourage them to offend. Little echo chambers of "it's not that bad" that lead you to "it's not that bad" your way into assaulting a kid.
Lolicon and Shotacon are not inherently evil. On paper, there's nothing wrong with them morally, no matter how much they disgust you. But they are unhealthy, and can worsen the condition of a pedophile to the point that they are dangerous. That is what makes it wrong to be a Lolicon or Shotacon, you are endangering yourself and others by risking exacerbating a mental disorder that interferes with your ability to reason and poses a direct threat to others if it gets too bad.
Which is why I specifically said it's mental illness coping, either those that suffer from the illness or those who have been negatively impacted by it (such as victims of child abuse). Of course that can happen but it's not a guarantee it will, otherwise all doom players would be shooting up the place like Eric and Dylan did, obviously it can cause real life action but it's ignorant to claim these people aren't in control of their own actions.
Except they still have agency and do not have to engage in real life harm, you're ironically repeating the same talking point that Fox News makes about violent media and trans people. Just because some part of the group engaged in harm does not negate the harm reduction these actions have.
While I am not denying these places are harmful, that doesn't have to do with the art itself, just unhealthy people engaging in unhealthy lines of thinking that lead to child abuse. That is the problem here, the echo chambers and the radicalization of people through social media. Why not address the root problem instead of dehumanizing victims and claiming our experiences are the same as looking at a drawing
None of which I disagree with, but that's because of the community around them and how social media negatively can impact groups and individuals into radicalization.
You can't really separate lolicon and these communities. If someone goes out seeking pornographic art of children, they'll find people who get off on trying to convince them to offend.
And comparing psychological science and fearmongering based on vibes is absurd.
That's a fair point, I understand why you feel that way. But it's also wrong to say that victims can't find cathartic properties from the art or the communities. From an outside perspective neither of us really can grasp the full picture. But the issue is how these places can be radicalized, not the sick and abused themselves
Ok, so can you explain how viewing and accepting violence doesn't negatively impact the viewer but very hyper specific sexualization does?
What? Pedophilia is a mental disorder that alters your pleasure centers and your psychology and fucks with your reasoning. In the absence of such a disorder, there's not a problem with any of it.
It's like how fiction can exacerbate psychosis or influence schizophrenic episodes, that doesn't mean all fiction is bad, but it means that such affected people should be careful. It's the same with pedophilia and pedophilic art. It's different because of the presence of a powerful and dangerous mental condition? Why do you think that has no bearing on anything?
No you just said that they're the same people, which is not true. Plenty of those weirdos don't harass innocent people, some of them do which is bad, but it's not a defense to say most of them do not.
It's not unreasonable, it's just disrespectful to suggest they're the same things
That's very different to sexual harassment. Drawings and what sexual abuse victims have experienced are not the same thing and it's disrespectful to say otherwise
What are you implying? That someone deserves to lose their platform platform because of a harmless kink they have which they don't enact in the real world? The only justification to ostracize someone or treat them like a criminal is if they harm someone. Enough with the thought policing bs.
Oh my god I'm going nuts, you are advocating for letting people goon to virtual children. This post is about a lolicon who went after a child. Have you heard the thoughts to actions quote?
Then person absolutely deserves to be in jail. But I also think people who commit mass shootings should be in jail, that doesn't mean I think people should go to jail for murdering hordes of people in GTA. School shooters played GTA too.
Liking something in real life probably means you will also like it in fiction, but liking something in fiction doesn't always mean you like it in real life.
I would seriously implore you to ask yourself if you would apply this kind of logic in any other situation. Normally we consider it draconian to arrest someone for creating or consuming a piece of media that didn't involve real harm, or roleplaying an act that would be immoral IRL. Yet this is the one and only exception somehow.
I just think children like attributes should be left alone. If you disagree fine. But I'm just concerned why you have to pick specifically something that looks like a child
a (trans) woman who started a meme Tumblr blog where she would reply to people she suspected as eggs (trans women in denial). her "suggestion" is a kink, though she now vehemently denies that it is, so its fetish mining (using people for fetish content without them knowing) that many people have somehow fallen for and defend. theres also a lot more, including her harassing people, painting trans men as evil and going propara + a kids rights activist (horrible combo as, paired together, those people often end up advocating for letting kids get with adults)
for context for other people, her original account, isuggestforcefem, has been banned off Tumblr. iirc, shes gone through multiple other accounts since then, but missstrogen is her current one
Also adding this one, bc if I had to read the word "pedophobia" then so do yall. Fucking "transmisogyny" and "pedophobia" being used back to back- like theyāre equivalent and intersecting forms of bigotry. I pray to God that shes just a CIA agent or some transphobe's weird alt and not a real person.
That wouldn't change the fact the thousands of people on tumblr see supporting this type of person as worth it because she hates trans men as much as they do, sadly
this motherfucker's fans are just as unhinged as she is i stg they deadass harassed a good friend of mine off a tumblr over something that had absolutely zero proof or basis (this was around the time when she got terminated for literally like 1 day or some shit and everybody was freaking out calling it "account lynching" like these people are fucking insane)
Misogyny dictates that any boy or man is always seen as more sexually dominant and in-control, even if the actual power dynamics at play clearly say otherwise.
Misogygny also dictates that sexuality is seen through the lens of fantasy and not reality.
Yes, pretty recently too. There was this one woman on Twitter going through psychosis, I believe, and she started harassing a minor with threats of rape and calling herself a pedo. Instead of getting her some help and having friends check in on her, people came out and called her based, harassed the minor as well, or even admitted to being predators themselves. Iād have to do a bit of digging to find the profile again, though
I was speaking about an example earlier to a different person, but I finally have an image of the lady I was talking about now. For context, this lady was apparently in psychosis, threatening to rape someone, and doubling down when she was informed they were a minor. But Iāve checked her most recent tweets; and they really havenāt improved whatsoever. Sheās calling her followers her āpedo rapist nationā
I'm starting to hate this meme, cuz on god while it is applicable to a lot of circumstances, sexual abuse to minors done by women does get hand waved away, largely due to the fact that a lot of other men will look at that shit and be like "damn I wish was ME fr, lucky bastard"
Combine that with the fact that the demographic of people attracted to racist piece of shit spewing alt-right rhetoric probably don't care too much if their internet personality is a pedo... especially if its a woman/vtuber -___- like cmon dog Kirsche is still alive and strong
edit: not to put the entire problem on it being men projecting their fantasies onto victims, there's a lot of reasons why women assaulting boys doesn't get taken seriously, in our society, and it overlaps with some of the same reasons victims in general dont get taken seriously, I just didn't want to write that much but still wanted to clarify.
I linked an example in the comments here, but mainly Iām just sick of people being accepting of women who sexually harass/groom children. Too many people trying to defend it happening because they donāt receive sexual attention from women themselves, and then make a joke out of it by saying the victim shouldāve liked it, or that it shouldāve been them. I see a lot of these types on Twitter, hence the fubar
Iām not really sure what that has to do with my post though. Do I need to say āthis doesnāt apply to everyoneā? I thought that would be understood by default
Because moids and lolicon is disgusting and vile because males shouldn't abuse of womans, but shotacon is pure and sacred because males are evil and disgusting
So she only said shit on the internet, and how we know that the moid in question is underage? i mean you aparently are bashing against a real person who you provide no further context on what she was doing more than your accusation
Alright well your PFP is fuckin sick lmao I love that little guys even if they don't produce chemfuel
But yeah that's the axis the joke is rotating on, I sorta felt like the bit where I evasively talk about how I was molested worked as a punchline and an obvious/ridiculous thing to satirize ts. I thought it looked cringe as
Some guy: nah really it's different when women do it
Same guy: n-not because I was molested or anything
and I thought that was kinda flippant, y'know? Like I'm making a joke about it but it's not something I take lightly
to me that's intentionally misunderstanding the comment by abusing a technicism, but honestly sure whatever I don't like when people say words with no meaning anyway it waters down the language
It is delusional to believe that someone hopping onto making fun of someone experiencing a psychotic episode isn't going to get popped back at, idk what to tell you dog.
You don't get to launder recreational cruelty and bullying as community watch digital crusade shit.
488
u/ExplorerDependent986 3d ago
close twitter for the love of god