Estás usando un navegador desactualizado. Es posible que no muestre este u otros sitios web correctamente. Deberías actualizar o usar un navegador alternativo.
Lolicon/Shotacon Defense Force - The people who jerk off to cartoon children and won't ever shut up about it
Another fag made a video defending lolicon, saying that censoring it is nazi behavior or some shit. Also, surprise, surprise, its a tranny who made the video.
1:32
If you need to make a 14 minute long video DEFENDING loli porn. It doesnt make you look brave, it makes you look like a loser.
For some, sure. For others, their central argument is "there is no victim" not necessarily "it's not a child". The dangerously obsessive ones. The ones who candidly admit they would absolutely rape a kid if they weren't worn out from gooning to pornography of them all day. They argue that lolicon is a victimless alternative to them committing real world crimes, which is how they morally justify their indulgence in child pornography as virtuous.
"It's just a drawing... she's a computer sprite... you're getting mad over pixels bro... yeah it's as close to photoreal AI as can be, yet none of it ever happened... etc etc... better this than the real thing, no?....You say you want to protect children, that's what we're doing with lolicon... etc etc"
It's reddit-tier pseudo-logic, yet that's something social media excels at being duped by...
It is quite literally a toss up between larping nazi pedofaggots and woman larping niggerpedoes over who can be the most pedophilic when it comes to defending lolisho.
I could see Mint's model be considered pedobait-y, but it's kind of a stretch, never saw trve lolicons lusting over her. And she's officially "forever 19 years old". But FNAF groomers liking you isn't good publicity either way, yeah.
His other crimes include being a general jackass who seems unpleasant to be around, but I mainly wanted to focus on his loli vtuber controversy as that's what kickstarted all of this.
I remember this faggot, what a shame. He documented this FNAF spic mod author nonce back in the day when I was a teen and was edgier compared to his contemporaries, but he hung around troons which ends here. Insufferable faggots, fork found in kitchen.
For the longest time, I believed it to mean that lolicons were attracted to fictional, very stylized representations of characters who looked very young, and that the characters actually being young was correlation rather than causation. This was very gullible on my part, but this misdirection is something that actual lolicons will push. Here are only a few examples:
I always find the argument disingenuous. Sure, maybe there is some loli fans that are just into smaller woman, and would be aghast at the more "conventional" loli.
But. while I'm never going to fucking check, I'd imagine if you're trying to look up loli pictures, its much more drawn cp, and not anime characters who are just petite woman. This group would have to be disabused of that notion, pretty fucking quick when they see the mounds of drawn cp.
But all of them seem to ignore the fact that the term is literally a reference to pedophilia. Lolita is about a grown man grooming and sexually assaulting a young girl. Lolita is a diminutive of the girl's name.
Whenever I see the, "its just a drawing/fiction" the obvious argument, is, "of what?" and of course than it breaks down into retarded semantics, or asking why I'm okay with violent video games. Of course that falls apart for multiple reasons. For example, if someone is cranking it to GTA V, they're also a deranged gooner. But, then we have other questions, for example, if it doesn't matter if the picture is a kid or not, why not jerk it to a picture that isn't of a child. Either there's no reason not to and the lolicon should be condemned for choosing to pick a picture that is showing a kid, or there's something about it being a child that is necessary, and the person should be treated with contempt.
Notorious twitter lolicon gimmick account "Bad Blue Archive Memes" A.K.A. CryingEmojiman with over 114,000 followers has been withheld for "Violating the X Hateful Profile Policy".
Frankly, this is one of the weirder cases of X's ToS enforcement I've seen in a while. At first the account appeared to be completely suspended, which you can see in several posts made on this topic [1][2][3]. However later, some users began reporting that the account is only withheld for violating the Hateful Profile Policy, and one user claims that the account has been withheld "In response to a legal demand". This means that it is possible that Nexon, the south korean company behind Blue Archive sent a DMCA Takedown request against the account. CryingEmojiman reportedly made hostile posts towards Nexon because of the recent controversial Blue Archive update, which could explain Nexon's potential legal action against the account, given its massive following of over 114k people.
The current status of the account is unknown, as CryingEmojiman (or TheUOHMAN on his non-withheld account) has not addressed the situation yet.
Don't you think that the "addiction" argument comes in here?
Are people wildly gooning to awful adult porn tendencies toward sex not similarly deranged?
I don't mean to say these are similar in extent of given paraphilic tendencies, just that, necessarily:
1. The consequences may be bad or worse, depending on the given case;
2. The root cause may be bad or worse, in either case;
3. It is hard to distinguish whether sexual desire causes addiction to porn;
4. Porn enables gateways into addiction to exploring more and more paraphilias;
5. It is ultimately fruitless to specify it clinically unless we're actually conducting medical inquiry into a specific case.
Overall, I think it makes sense that addiction simply develops so suddenly that the given object of desire becomes undeterminable for a non-professional case-study.
In actuality, studying the example of a given paraphilic subject will tell you how certain ideas develop a narrative about pedophilia, in this case, being in a way not much less of a "fetishized object of perversion", nor more a "narrative", but rather a "special kind of disorder". This than would then concretely display that an examination of the individual's tendencies must be performed on the grounds that the subject is willing to be researched and honest as to how the addiction really started.
Here? We have none of that. We just have the public evidence of all the possible connections leading up to some kind of crescent spin across the table, bouncing off to continue its journey into the needles attentivity of it spinning around and across the floor of: "why would I even find an excuse to care about how it all developed, if I am simply so much different and polished with platitudes towards children, as they are faithfully genuine and honorable to me; I would not hurt my own misconceptions, so I'd rather partake in those that clearly display perversions and actions that clearly shouldn't be present either to the public eye or in the private bedroom".
They argue that lolicon is a victimless alternative to them committing real world crimes, which is how they morally justify their indulgence in child pornography as virtuous.
There's also the curious case of people who use this argument along with the "it's just fiction" defense, and can't realize how these arguments contradict themselves.
If it's just meaningless fiction that can't affect reality, it can't be strong enough to psychologically affect the consumer into not offending.
If it can prevent someone from offending, that means it is strong enough to have a psychological affect on the user, both good (unlikely) and bad (more likely).
All this to say lolicons are really shit at arguing, and must deploy swarm tactics when people call them pedos.
