Megathread Lolidrama

cunny poster

varishangout.com
Regular
:cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny::lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left:
Cunny poster with a report back from the normalnigger adjacent world, here are the results.
My ban on my main account said "stay on onion farms pedo" as you can see in the second screencap, and the same for the first a standard farewell.
Screenshot_20211117-133401.jpg

:kyoko-smug: :nep-smug2: :smug: :illya-smug: :tohru-smug: :cirno-laugh: :sagiri-laugh: :kyoko-smug: this was my account proper.
1637208368912.png

:cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny::lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny:
R.I.P naught, Long live cunny poster.
 

Hexasheep93

varishangout.com
Regular
:cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny::lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left:
Cunny poster with a report back from the normalnigger adjacent world, here are the results.
My ban on my main account said "stay on onion farms pedo" as you can see in the second screencap, and the same for the first a standard farewell.
Screenshot_20211117-133401.jpg

:kyoko-smug: :nep-smug2: :smug: :illya-smug: :tohru-smug: :cirno-laugh: :sagiri-laugh: :kyoko-smug: this was my account proper.
View attachment 8564
:cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny::lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny: :lick-left: :cunny:
R.I.P naught, Long live cunny poster.

:kekw: well then. was this the same site with the loli discussion thread that got deleted?
 

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
pedophile coping projection 25.png

Awesome Groomer Facts got outed as a child rapist and I'm putting it here just to make sure it's archived.

Some people have tried to claim there's a lack of evidence and this has just bullshit people have easily gobbled up, but I'm more than certain with the available information that this piece of shit is in fact a child rapist.
 

Keolie

varishangout.com
View attachment 8584
Awesome Groomer Facts got outed as a child rapist and I'm putting it here just to make sure it's archived.

Some people have tried to claim there's a lack of evidence and this has just bullshit people have easily gobbled up, but I'm more than certain with the available information that this piece of shit is in fact a child rapist.
its always the ones who speak the loudest against lolisho stuff who r actual predators...
 

Lost Branch

varishangout.com
Regular
Awesome Groomer Facts got outed as a child rapist and I'm putting it here just to make sure it's archived.

Some people have tried to claim there's a lack of evidence and this has just bullshit people have easily gobbled up, but I'm more than certain with the available information that this piece of shit is in fact a child rapist.
This was an interesting one to follow in real time. I watched this nerd go from "it was me" to "it was my uncle" to "it wasn't me at all despite them having the same name, age, facial structure, time frame of arrest, and my proof it wasn't me is a handful of facebook posts" to watching all of their accounts get banned. My favorite part was all the weirdos screeching about defamation of character while simultaneously calling everyone simply questioning the entire thing a pedophile.

edit: Oh right, the best part is that now that all of his accounts are banned, not a single one of those weirdos are anywhere to be found. It's funny how all of them were quick to blindly believe his barely put together cover story but now that he might actually be the guy, they have nothing to say. Also, one other thing that people seem to don't know about bails in the US. There's these things call Bail Bonds, it's basically a contract with a third party who will cover the majority of your bail. Most places have you only pay 10% of your bail and have the remaining tied to collateral. They only take the collateral if you fail to show on your court date, but if you do show, they release the collateral since the bail is no longer necessary. So yes, a random gimmick account can pay a $500k bail, if you only have to pay $50k. It still seems like a lot but in most cases the suspects family helps pay for it.
 
Last edited:

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
This was an interesting one to follow in real time. I watched this nerd go from "it was me" to "it was my uncle" to "it wasn't me at all despite them having the same name, age, facial structure, time frame of arrest, and my proof it wasn't me is a handful of facebook posts" to watching all of their accounts get banned. My favorite part was all the weirdos screeching about defamation of character while simultaneously calling everyone simply questioning the entire thing a pedophile.

edit: Oh right, the best part is that now that all of his accounts are banned, not a single one of those weirdos are anywhere to be found. It's funny how all of them were quick to blindly believe his barely put together cover story but now that he might actually be the guy, they have nothing to say. Also, one other thing that people seem to don't know about bails in the US. There's these things call Bail Bonds, it's basically a contract with a third party who will cover the majority of your bail. Most places have you only pay 10% of your bail and have the remaining tied to collateral. They only take the collateral if you fail to show on your court date, but if you do show, they release the collateral since the bail is no longer necessary. So yes, a random gimmick account can pay a $500k bail, if you only have to pay $50k. It still seems like a lot but in most cases the suspects family helps pay for it.
i feel like i should've made my tweet more aggressive and have the message that "you're next" to all those fucking groomers

there's more than enough proof that one of them is a groomer, and i have more than enough proof that all those fuckers are willing to cover for an actual pedophile if it benefits their narrative

the evidence was called into question, but too many inconsistencies with the defense led me to believe firmly that tewi got their ass bullseye, and would'ja look at that, the truth prevails, those faggots are more than willing to spread bullshit and irrelevant points to cover a child rapist, and i sit unfazed.
 

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
Today, I'm gonna write something stupid.
I'm going to explain as concisely as I can why lolicon isn't child rape nor a catalyst to facilitate it, and how it isn't pedophilia.
Of course, it goes through our usual arguments and all that, but maybe you'll find it interesting still.

Although I try to make it brief, in the end, this issue has been convoluted with various stupid things which I must cover so as to not simply seem like I dismiss it simply because it points a flaw in any of these arguments and I just don't want to admit it, but to prove why it's not only stupid, irrelevant, and pollutes the purpose of this entire debacle, but why such people are truthfully immoral agents doing this intentionally.

The degree of convolution was unintentionally ordered from least to most, and you can tell by the essay length.



Lolicon media isn't child rape because there's no child involved. It's fictional.
Now, people argue so much about how there's no real difference in reality and fiction when it comes to media such as this.
After all, simply calling something fictional or real isn't much of a difference if it's simply that.
The difference is that real things are tangible, and fictional things are not. Obvious, but not to the clinically retarded.
Though, they will argue that "it is tangible!" simply because it exists, the photons on a screen, the concept, and neurons in your brain.
That, of course, is blatant lying and stupidity.
A rock is not tangible if you are unable to interact with it in any meaningful way. It is not tangible simply because the concept exists.
But of course, what they may argue is that in both real and fictional, what is the same is that you're sexually attracted to the conceptual representation of youth; an incredibly abstract relation they made up to try and prove that it's essentially the same morally. I'll cover that next.

Lolicon media doesn't encourage child rape because there is no reason for it.
Simply put, the only inverse argument people have made is that "Lolicon media encourages child rape because they'll want the real thing."
It's the same argument for video games way back then, and how murderers were bred because they would want the real thing, how people were essentially enjoying the abstract conceptual act of taking someone else's life, or many lives.
Of course, people will claim that murder in video games and sexual acts in porn are different because of two things:
  1. Murder is depicted as bad in video games and media in general, and thus deters people from actually doing it, while porn does not.
    This is, of course, blatant lying. GTA is the common meme example, where videos of people enjoying the game have fun murdering NPCs, destroying various structures, and many other crimes.
  2. Murder is a means to a goal in a game or story, while sex is purely for enjoyment, therefore you're committing immoral acts willingly.
    This is, of course, blatant lying. For the same reason above, but also, if it's the fact you have a choice to commit an immoral act and you choose to do it, you have the choice to play games that contain violence, or Tetris, Bejeweled, and so on. By simply choosing to play a violent video game to enjoy it, you're willing to choosing to enjoy fictional murder. Obviously, this doesn't mean a person is immoral, a murderer, or a potential criminal, but under such logic, they must conclude that it's also immoral.
    Though then they might say the stupid thing of "murder is better than child rape," which is wrong, because immoral acts aren't justified because there exists something more immoral, and that's assuming for humor that somehow lolicon is child rape and video game murder is equal in sensation to real murder.
And of course, within both cases, you can say that it's true that both fictional and real murder, fictional and real child rape, both are enjoying an abstract construct of a moral crime.
Thing is, I don't think they understand what the fuck they're even saying, and they should kill themselves. I'm not saying that simply to be a troll or mean, I'm saying that because they genuinely get in the way of truth, justice, and objective morality, by injecting the most intellectually dishonest shit and purposefully propagating misunderstanding of fundamental structures of knowledge are, and shouldn't be permitted to ever fucking speak again until they can prove sapience.
1638401373279.png

To use an example and put it concisely, both real life murder and video game killing are both conceptually murder.
However, what makes them both different is what is concrete; that is, the nuances and details; that is, what they actually are in reality and existence.
No real tangible person with autonomy, sentience, and feelings, is harmed when killed in a video game, and thus under the very fundamentals of ethics, can't be applied to ethical theories; that is, why the fuck would it matter in the grand scheme of things if you killed something which can't be harmed?
But in real life, if you kill a person, that person is tangible, and it's generally common that people have autonomy, sentience, and feelings, and thus making them suffer, such as killing them, is very much so immoral.
It is not because they come from the same conceptual form that makes it immoral, but the fact it actually hurts people.
As for what lolicon and actual child rape and sexualization actually represent conceptually, and whether certain thoughts can be immoral, I'll talk about that in the next part.
However, with simple observation, you can see that literally no one have raped children because of lolicon, murdered because of video games, or any moral crime because of fictional media.
People have claimed that, but all but few have always been unable to point out a single case, and none have been able to point out a valid case.
The Miyazaki case is the commonly used one, and as far as I'm aware, the only one.
It's the case used to argue that it CAN happen, and thus it applies to everyone.
But of course, that singular case is not only cherry-picked, but also incredibly unreliable, due to the fact it's well known evidence was planted to go against Otaku culture in general, as during the era that case resides, Otakus were stigmatized.
Simple observation, as in, simply looking at the world around you, you can tell lolicons don't rape children. Else, why is it that crimes any respective popular media that's considered problematic aren't higher?
No matter how many times they cherry pick certain cases, of which practically all of them had flaws, they can't explain that observation.
People may claim that the legal system deters all such acts, but nevertheless, if it's true that lolicon, or any media, encourages child rape, or any moral crime, then even in spite of the deterrence of the legal system, there still should be an increase in child rape crimes, because it encourages it in some way.
But despite lolicon having existed for a long time, no one who has ever researched it has ever been able to prove a statistical correlation that lolicon media causes crimes.
And of all those articles that have done their own research, any correlation that can be made, even ignoring the fact that there's not enough to even prove a correlation, it is that the statistics say that lolicon media actually correlate with a decrease in child rape rates.
Many studies and articles have been done, mentioned, cited, and paraphrased within this entire megathread, and also can be found if you bother to use the "site:edu" function to actually find credible fucking sources to begin with as a bare minimum, and going on actual websites containing databases of credible and reliable academic material.
In summary, simple primitive observation suggests lolicon doesn't encourage rape rates; if we really want to bring in the facts, it says the same thing; if you want to use whatever little implications the facts might suggest to try and make a point, lolicon media discourages child rape.

Lolicon isn't Pedophilia.
Within the clinical definition of the disorder from the DSM-V, it refers to real, tangible humans.
Most people like to read the DSM-V without any psychology education or understand what it actually means or refers to when it says literally anything, which is why people sometimes like self-diagnosing themselves as psychopaths and other mental illnesses, conditions, and disabilities like complete idiots that anyone who has a bare minimum education in that study will make fun of because you're genuinely retarded.
But regardless, people conventionally use pedophile in the sense of "any sexual attraction to children" rather than the clinical definition, and say that such a thing is immoral in of itself.
I must say my counterpoint first.
Within objective morality, it can be said that certain thoughts, such as wanting to murder your boss, is immoral. However, it is not immoral if the person won't do it because they know it to be wrong morally. It would be wrong if the person won't do it if they'd go to hell or get punished.
What makes something immoral is the act of causing harm and suffering to others, and the desire to cause suffering.
For example, if a person shoots with the intent to kill, but misses, it doesn't make that person moral or doesn't say anything about morality simply because there was no harm in the end, but simply harm was prevented. In the same essence, a person's desire to hurt someone being prevented or inhibited by something like legal punishment or by an afterlife hell doesn't make him a moral person.
However, a person who has the desire to hurt someone, but doesn't, because they know it to be immoral, isn't immoral.
Thought police assume that those thoughts encourage immoral acts, that simply having disgusting thoughts and desires are wrong, and that people who have the wrong desires simply don't act on them because they'll get punished in some way, such as through hell.
But enforcing such beliefs on others really only describe themselves, because they doubt humanity's inherent ability to be autonomous, judge arbitrary on primitive emotions like disgust, and doubt the ability for people to be truly moral without punishment forcing them to act morally in their self-interest.
Whether a person has thoughts or desires that are considered immoral is not what makes them immoral.
The simple reason why people can enjoy problematic media like lolicon without being immoral is because they know it to be immoral if the acts on paper were to be done in reality.
Of course, people like to assume we just don't do it because the law or something prevents us. Guilty of immoral inhibition until somehow proven with concrete science that we don't do it because we're normal moral humans who too have suffered and understand inflicting suffering on others is wrong.
Guilty until proven innocent doesn't work logically because it results in circular logic, doesn't work morally because it assumes and treats people with the worst intent, and doesn't work practically because it's often used to imprison and wrongfully punish those a person of power hates and usurp control over others.
The reason why pedophilia is immoral is presumed to be known for the sake of brevity, but I note that it's actually not well known by a majority of the population because people are idiots.
Hence why no one on this planet seems to be aware what pedophilia often occurs due to family and trusted people, and why almost everyone are willing to accept "They seem mature for their age" as an excuse to justify and forgive pedophilia in the real world clinical sense, and to some extent, what people may even consider to be the fictional variant of it.
Lolis are, in its abstract form, a youthful, petite, and small figure of a female. Shotas are the male equivalent concept.
Most children and teens are the most common instances of that abstract, but certain people with conditions, such as dwarfism and Alopecia, alongside people who are shorter than average and/or have breasts smaller than average, are also instances of that concept.
Alongside that, there exists certain youth who are taller than average, have adult features that come earlier than their peers, who aren't seen or treated as a youthful or petite, innocent or naive, even if they sometimes prove their age through a birth certificate, and are treated as mature, whether that be in spite of or in the wishes of said youth.
The reason I mention this is because it's a common argument Antis use to say that Lolis are essentially the abstract representation of children.
I do not deny this, as there exist lolis which can be clearly seen to act in childish ways.
However, it's dishonest to say all lolis are representation of children.
And I'd argue that even if all lolis are representation of children, it isn't immoral.
To fools who don't actually consume or engage in this type of media, they would claim all lolis are children in essence out of ignorance.
However, various media depict them in various ways, which beyond appearance, detach from the concept of "child" entirely. Obvious examples come to note for regular consumers of Anime, but for people who have not consumed this style of media and false fans who claim to have consumed this style of media, they likely not know of these examples or recognize it as such.
But I will note a well-known loli who acts more as a caring elderly woman than a child: Senko is a foxgirl who acts as a housewife, capable of house cooking, chores, and holds an aura of wisdom regarding how people ought to care for themselves more and various experiences in life related to beauties of the world that she shares, such as beautiful sceneries to relax and rest in. In contrast to real children, who couldn't cook for their life, their chores typically limit to simple tasks, and are generally incredibly energetic entities of chaos who are still learning about how the world works, who although can enjoy beautiful sceneries, they would rather treat it as a playground than as a place to chill.
Of course, I would be dishonest to say that's the only or main way people enjoy media which contains lolicon; This is simply to show that lolis are not necessarily children.
Lolis may also be simply people trapped in a youthful body, whether that be a disorder or a mystical curse, and typically the character may be represented to have problems with that reality, be it treated as a comedy or be used as a catalyst for jokes, such as in the series "My Senpai is Annoying"/"Senpai ga Urusai Kouhai no Hanashi," or as a tragic issue a character deal with, such as in the case of a western work, "Monster Girl" from "Invincible," who has lived as long as an adult, but will never be really treated as if she's one, nor have the same relationships adults crave without people wanting to be on a watchlist or being with people on a watchlist.
That being said, it is now clear that not everyone actually enjoys lolicon media and loli characters because the character is child-like. That again isn't to say that there are those who like that they're childlike, but again, I've stated above that it doesn't matter. No lolicon aside from the few cherry-picked stragglers I've seen actually wants to rape a kid.
As for whether lolicon is pedophilia, simply put, it's not, unless you want to bend the definition of a pedophile such that not all pedophiles are immoral.
Basically, if you wanted to change the definition of pedophile to be attraction to anything child-like, completely abstracting it from actual real children, you include not just lolicons, but honestly a lot of regular people. The essence of youth is a surprising trait of attraction for a lot of people.
If you wanted to change the definition to just adjoin lolicons only, then you essentially are saying not all pedophiles are immoral child rapists and not all of them are actually attracted to real children, which is generally what the common and technical use of the word implies and carries.
Of course, some people might say that technically there do exist non-offending clinical pedophiles who wish to do no harm, and that is true. But they immediately follow up and claim they simply want lolicons to be honest that they're "pedophiles." This is a dishonest trick that people have used to try and get a false admission that someone's a "pedophile," a non-harming person who isn't even attracted to real children, and then promptly spread the fact that person is a "pedophile," through doublespeak, essentially making it appear that that person is admitting that they're sexually attracted to children, and making things confusing.
Lolicon media and its representation, in its abstract, may have some overlap with qualities of children, but they are not the same thing, and are very distinct for various reasons, and calling it pedophilia for those similarities would be akin to calling anyone attracted to anyone with dwarfism, Alopecia, small boobs, petite stature, naivety, innocence, and so on, pedophilia.
And I must mention the fact that these people are mostly claiming that the fact a loli looks like a kid is what makes it pedophilic, while ignoring the age of the character. I mentioned that people have used the phrase "They seem mature for their age" as an excuse to some extent justify sexualizing fictional pedophilia. Various people who have accused lolicons of being "fictional pedophiles" have sexualized fictional minors, such as characters from "My Hero Academia," "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure," and so on.
Beyond that, many of those people are also furries, who have drawn sexual representations of anthropomorphic animals, which have been accused of many things, including zoophilia, and KPop stans, who have no problem fetishizing and sexualizing real tangible idols, some of which are underage.
And I will go further detail into what these type of people are in the next part.

Dishonest Convolution by Theatrical Demons
This wasn't originally part of the stuff I planned to write, but it functions as a summary to all the arguments people have made regarding how lolicon is immoral pedophile enabling media, and lolicons child raping degenerates, and other addendums I want to mention.
"Anti" was a term that originated on by people who wanted to moral filter media of immoral things, which mainly involved shipping characters (you want them to fuck) that shouldn't be shipped together, such as siblings, age-gap relationships, seemingly abusive ones, and so on, by threatening, hurting, or in not-so-rare cases, kill people who they call "pro-shippers" who enjoy that ship. However, this continued to grow, spawning new terms and ideas which polluted the nuance and difference of art and stories, and they began to attack anything considered "problematic," from furry art, and mainly anime, which often contains lolicon and situations that feel like incest, among other things unique to the culture of the media in Japan.
This concept of regulating media and presuming guilt, immorality, and crime from those fiction didn't originate from Tumblr, as regulating "materials with corrupt the youth" back when comic books were around and "video games promote violence" when early video games happened occurred earlier, but "Anti" is the common term used on the internet to describe such people, which I'd assume is because the internet is still recent, and its culture is more well-known due to its very nature of propagating human interaction and knowledge all over the globe with ease.
They often make claims of false intellectual wisdom, like those I've mentioned above. It's identifiable by how they commonly use the words "normalize" and "problematic" in any argument they enter, and the contents making extremely bold leaps regarding how human psychology works and how human nature is; they will claim that a person WILL behave a certain way simply because they enjoy a certain type of work, or even a single work in general, ignoring human autonomy and morality.
They make claims which sound smart by using fancy-shmancy words like "abstract representation" and "influences human behavior because our brains only see conceptual presentation" without any understanding to what they even are saying, and it's very clear they fucking don't and are just trying to sound smart because anyone who actually fucking knows how the world works, whether that be in formal education or simple fucking observation of how things are and work.
Anyone who even utters those words in any literal way, with full certainty, are retards parroting what they hear from some other retard on Twitter or Tumblr, or retarded cunts who think their delusions and folly are reality and wisdom.
But people who do not know how to point out why something is wrong, whether that be because they lack the words or lack the formal knowledge to describe why that's wrong, often are forced to secede or ignore arguments and points which are right to those that are wrong simply because they have enough empty dishonest convolutions to carry themselves with enough charisma to seem as if they're right.
They bring up points and arguments which are irrelevant, strawmen which we must defend or else we're simply "ignoring a point that you hate," forcing us to answer loaded questions or else we're just "dodging the question," and that's only when they decide to try and "humor" us and "debate" with us if they don't outright openly and vehemently dehumanize us and treat us as subhumans promoting and engaging in immoral acts, despite the irony they're doing exactly that.
I call all their arguments "Dishonest Convolutions" because that's what it is; They don't know what they're talking about, yet claim that they do, and that their arguments are truth and psychogically proven fact, despite the fact it's not. They throw points which are irrelevant and assumes guilt without innocence from the offset, making points no moral person would normally argue or defend, throwing shit like "tell your parents" or "shout it in public" or "show your real face," nothing which proves that we're bad people, but convolutions that make it seem like we're monsters with no concept of morality.
And they will always use Dishonest Convolutions, never to prove a point, but I'd call them Theatrical Demons, who spread false narratives, information, and ideas to justify inflicting suffering and cruelty for their sadistic desires by making others look like demons.
I'd like to note that several various western media have also depicted actors and animated characters who are supposed to represent underaged youth are often sexualized in-series, but no one finds an issue with it, and said fans of series only find enough of an issue with eastern works to complain about it and accuse others of pedophilia. They may even sometimes say "just because someone else does it doesn't make it okay," but NEVER complain about the work they're a fan of nor the fans of that work, and SOLELY eastern media.
It's also common to find incredibly racist sentiments and remarks made by various people regarding how all Japanese people, or sometimes Asian people as a whole, should be nuked again, they're all pedophiles, and so on.
It isn't exactly hard to see this issue as simply being this:
1638409735021.png

And finally, I've had the unfortunate pleasure of having to deal with various pedophiles who have raped children and defended their friends who have raped children simply because of the things I enjoy.
pedophile coping projection 1.jpg
pedophile coping projection 2.jpg
pedophile coping projection 3.jpg

pedophile coping projection 4.jpg
pedophile coping projection 5.png

pedophile coping projection 8.png
pedophile coping projection 9.png

pedophile coping projection 12.png
pedophile coping projection 13.png

pedophile coping projection 14.jpg
pedophile coping projection 15.png
pedophile coping projection 16.png

pedophile coping projection 17.png
pedophile coping projection 18.png

pedophile coping projection 19.png
pedophile coping projection 20.png

pedophile coping projection 21.png
pedophile coping projection 22.png

pedophile coping projection 23.png
pedophile coping projection 24.png

pedophile coping projection 25.png
This is not a full list, as I wasn't able to archive other instances which such things happened to me personally, there are other instances where I'm still waiting for proof of child rape to have happened before I make an archive, and there are longer lists on Twitter which sometimes get deleted via exploitation of its system to force suspensions on users that I never got to archive nor have the time to archive.
People who have accused lolicons of being pedophiles have always proven themselves to have raped a child or are a sex pest.
There hasn't been an instance I've found where someone has actively dehumanized a lolicon and hasn't turned out to have raped a child.
They always get found out, one way or another, and I archive many of those moments.
And if you have been following this megathread, or our actual Twitters if you want to become insane, we've had to deal with nazis, communists, child-marriage tradcaths, rapists, murderers, and so on.
Maybe it says a lot that "if even the worst of people hate you, you're probably just that bad."
I personally think it's the reverse.
I don't know why it is that lolicon media and people like me who consume and enjoy it manage to do this, but it is such that we bring out the worst in people, and in that, they admit their own crimes and sins that would've been lost and forgotten, from raping children to murder.



Now what does this writing really mean in the end?
I wouldn't consider this a formal proof of anything, but rather, I think I just wanted to make a statement.

Certainly, everyone is human. Everyone has the capacity for good.
But none of these people are good. Morality isn't something they care about.
They're intentionally willing to ignore and pervert truth and reality to justify their sadism.
And against that kind of enemy, I have to ask, what are you to do?

Many have chosen to continue to argue against such demons, trying to prove something, to their opponent or to the others around them.
But I don't think that's quite the answer.
While you can continue to combat misinformation and blatent lies, I don't believe it solves the inherent issue.

It isn't a problem with misinformation; I firmly believe anyone with a functional brain even if presented with that information, alongside an upright morality, would not engage in the same behaviors nor stand idly by when such harm is inflicted.
Simply having the simple ability to look at how things really are is enough. Maybe not in every case, but I firmly believe in this case.
No one who played a game remotely believed video games caused violence, and we didn't need case studies to know that to be the case. The case studies are just to cement the absolute fact that they don't cause harm to even the duncest of idiots, who even now there exist people who think video games cause violence even in spite of the proven facts.
I think it's the same issue with risque porn and lolicon media.

It's a problem with people who simply shouldn't be allowed to be in control or have a say in anything. People who are sadistic, dishonest; vehemently immoral.
It's a problem with people who shouldn't exist.
To easily believe lies, to easily enjoy the sadistic act of hurting others, to easily fall into becoming a monster.
If that's most humans, then that simply concludes only a select few humans deserve to exist.

No matter how many people you convince of the truth, you have all seen that these people don't truly care.
They don't truly care about getting in the way of saving real children from abuse and rape.
They don't care if they spread misinformation to spur hate and malice towards people.
No matter how much you fight for the truth, these people will not simply disappear.

But what to do with this information? I wouldn't know.
I'm still learning things myself.

Fighting misinformation and malice is a slow way to get rid of all the hate and harm.
Whether it will surely, is something I'm still waiting to see.



But I don't want this longer-than-I-wanted-it-to-be essay to end on some bleak despairing note.
So, I want to praise ourselves a little.
A short lighthearted and humorous poem.
Slightly cringe if I had to be honest, but it'll help engrave itself in your brain.

shizu gay lol a poem by ninja8tyu
We've fought nazis and commies, out pedophiles every while.
Child rapists persist that lolicons feed on kids.
Nazis speak as if they stand on a moral peak.
Commies cry that we are bad guys.
They scream at drawings, steaming with fury, believing they'll prevail with their veil of lies.
While we smile, drawing their mug shot in jail.
Zoophiles whine that we aren't on trial.
Groomers spread rumors that we enter kids beds.
They outcry about lines, flailing and wailing.
All the while, we smile, as we unveil their sins.
Sinners screech, while we cum to cunny.
We've fought nazis and commies, out pedophiles every while.
Admirable, I'd say!


Although it's a tiring thing, having to deal with these sadistic demons, full of lies and bullshit, I want to pat ourselves on the back again.
Even if it's nothing but stumbling on dumb arguments, be proud you're human.
When the world feels full of malice and hate, be proud you're still full of love.

And also remember how fucking hilarious it is every single goddamn time these nutjobs who whine about lolis to get outted as sex pests and predators. :kekw:
"damn, jerking off to underaged drawings man, kinda sus ://"
RAPES A FUCKING KID
We all know they're all child raping shitbags, but god damn when we can finally say it, it's euphoric.
 
Last edited:

Directional Vector

varishangout.com
Today, I'm gonna write something stupid.
I'm going to explain as concisely as I can why lolicon isn't child rape nor a catalyst to facilitate it, and how it isn't pedophilia.
Of course, it goes through our usual arguments and all that, but maybe you'll find it interesting still.

Although I try to make it brief, in the end, this issue has been convoluted with various stupid things which I must cover so as to not simply seem like I dismiss it simply because it points a flaw in any of these arguments and I just don't want to admit it, but to prove why it's not only stupid, irrelevant, and pollutes the purpose of this entire debacle, but why such people are truthfully immoral agents doing this intentionally.

The degree of convolution was unintentionally ordered from least to most, and you can tell by the essay length.



Lolicon media isn't child rape because there's no child involved. It's fictional.
Now, people argue so much about how there's no real difference in reality and fiction when it comes to media such as this.
After all, simply calling something fictional or real isn't much of a difference if it's simply that.
The difference is that real things are tangible, and fictional things are not. Obvious, but not to the clinically retarded.
Though, they will argue that "it is tangible!" simply because it exists, the photons on a screen, the concept, and neurons in your brain.
That, of course, is blatant lying and stupidity.
A rock is not tangible if you are unable to interact with it in any meaningful way. It is not tangible simply because the concept exists.
But of course, what they may argue is that in both real and fictional, what is the same is that you're sexually attracted to the conceptual representation of youth; an incredibly abstract relation they made up to try and prove that it's essentially the same morally. I'll cover that next.

Lolicon media doesn't encourage child rape because there is no reason for it.
Simply put, the only inverse argument people have made is that "Lolicon media encourages child rape because they'll want the real thing."
It's the same argument for video games way back then, and how murderers were bred because they would want the real thing, how people were essentially enjoying the abstract conceptual act of taking someone else's life, or many lives.
Of course, people will claim that murder in video games and sexual acts in porn are different because of two things:
  1. Murder is depicted as bad in video games and media in general, and thus deters people from actually doing it, while porn does not.
    This is, of course, blatant lying. GTA is the common meme example, where videos of people enjoying the game have fun murdering NPCs, destroying various structures, and many other crimes.
  2. Murder is a means to a goal in a game or story, while sex is purely for enjoyment, therefore you're committing immoral acts willingly.
    This is, of course, blatant lying. For the same reason above, but also, if it's the fact you have a choice to commit an immoral act and you choose to do it, you have the choice to play games that contain violence, or Tetris, Bejeweled, and so on. By simply choosing to play a violent video game to enjoy it, you're willing to choosing to enjoy fictional murder. Obviously, this doesn't mean a person is immoral, a murderer, or a potential criminal, but under such logic, they must conclude that it's also immoral.
    Though then they might say the stupid thing of "murder is better than child rape," which is wrong, because immoral acts aren't justified because there exists something more immoral, and that's assuming for humor that somehow lolicon is child rape and video game murder is equal in sensation to real murder.
And of course, within both cases, you can say that it's true that both fictional and real murder, fictional and real child rape, both are enjoying an abstract construct of a moral crime.
Thing is, I don't think they understand what the fuck they're even saying, and they should kill themselves. I'm not saying that simply to be a troll or mean, I'm saying that because they genuinely get in the way of truth, justice, and objective morality, by injecting the most intellectually dishonest shit and purposefully propagating misunderstanding of fundamental structures of knowledge are, and shouldn't be permitted to ever fucking speak again until they can prove sapience.
View attachment 8660
To use an example and put it concisely, both real life murder and video game killing are both conceptually murder.
However, what makes them both different is what is concrete; that is, the nuances and details; that is, what they actually are in reality and existence.
No real tangible person with autonomy, sentience, and feelings, is harmed when killed in a video game, and thus under the very fundamentals of ethics, can't be applied to ethical theories; that is, why the fuck would it matter in the grand scheme of things if you killed something which can't be harmed?
But in real life, if you kill a person, that person is tangible, and it's generally common that people have autonomy, sentience, and feelings, and thus making them suffer, such as killing them, is very much so immoral.
It is not because they come from the same conceptual form that makes it immoral, but the fact it actually hurts people.
As for what lolicon and actual child rape and sexualization actually represent conceptually, and whether certain thoughts can be immoral, I'll talk about that in the next part.
However, with simple observation, you can see that literally no one have raped children because of lolicon, murdered because of video games, or any moral crime because of fictional media.
People have claimed that, but all but few have always been unable to point out a single case, and none have been able to point out a valid case.
The Miyazaki case is the commonly used one, and as far as I'm aware, the only one.
It's the case used to argue that it CAN happen, and thus it applies to everyone.
But of course, that singular case is not only cherry-picked, but also incredibly unreliable, due to the fact it's well known evidence was planted to go against Otaku culture in general, as during the era that case resides, Otakus were stigmatized.
Simple observation, as in, simply looking at the world around you, you can tell lolicons don't rape children. Else, why is it that crimes any respective popular media that's considered problematic aren't higher?
No matter how many times they cherry pick certain cases, of which practically all of them had flaws, they can't explain that observation.
People may claim that the legal system deters all such acts, but nevertheless, if it's true that lolicon, or any media, encourages child rape, or any moral crime, then even in spite of the deterrence of the legal system, there still should be an increase in child rape crimes, because it encourages it in some way.
But despite lolicon having existed for a long time, no one who has ever researched it has ever been able to prove a statistical correlation that lolicon media causes crimes.
And of all those articles that have done their own research, any correlation that can be made, even ignoring the fact that there's not enough to even prove a correlation, it is that the statistics say that lolicon media actually correlate with a decrease in child rape rates.
Many studies and articles have been done, mentioned, cited, and paraphrased within this entire megathread, and also can be found if you bother to use the "site:edu" function to actually find credible fucking sources to begin with as a bare minimum, and going on actual websites containing databases of credible and reliable academic material.
In summary, simple primitive observation suggests lolicon doesn't encourage rape rates; if we really want to bring in the facts, it says the same thing; if you want to use whatever little implications the facts might suggest to try and make a point, lolicon media discourages child rape.

Lolicon isn't Pedophilia.
Within the clinical definition of the disorder from the DSM-V, it refers to real, tangible humans.
Most people like to read the DSM-V without any psychology education or understand what it actually means or refers to when it says literally anything, which is why people sometimes like self-diagnosing themselves as psychopaths and other mental illnesses, conditions, and disabilities like complete idiots that anyone who has a bare minimum education in that study will make fun of because you're genuinely retarded.
But regardless, people conventionally use pedophile in the sense of "any sexual attraction to children" rather than the clinical definition, and say that such a thing is immoral in of itself.
I must say my counterpoint first.
Within objective morality, it can be said that certain thoughts, such as wanting to murder your boss, is immoral. However, it is not immoral if the person won't do it because they know it to be wrong morally. It would be wrong if the person won't do it if they'd go to hell or get punished.
What makes something immoral is the act of causing harm and suffering to others, and the desire to cause suffering.
For example, if a person shoots with the intent to kill, but misses, it doesn't make that person moral or doesn't say anything about morality simply because there was no harm in the end, but simply harm was prevented. In the same essence, a person's desire to hurt someone being prevented or inhibited by something like legal punishment or by an afterlife hell doesn't make him a moral person.
However, a person who has the desire to hurt someone, but doesn't, because they know it to be immoral, isn't immoral.
Thought police assume that those thoughts encourage immoral acts, that simply having disgusting thoughts and desires are wrong, and that people who have the wrong desires simply don't act on them because they'll get punished in some way, such as through hell.
But enforcing such beliefs on others really only describe themselves, because they doubt humanity's inherent ability to be autonomous, judge arbitrary on primitive emotions like disgust, and doubt the ability for people to be truly moral without punishment forcing them to act morally in their self-interest.
Whether a person has thoughts or desires that are considered immoral is not what makes them immoral.
The simple reason why people can enjoy problematic media like lolicon without being immoral is because they know it to be immoral if the acts on paper were to be done in reality.
Of course, people like to assume we just don't do it because the law or something prevents us. Guilty of immoral inhibition until somehow proven with concrete science that we don't do it because we're normal moral humans who too have suffered and understand inflicting suffering on others is wrong.
Guilty until proven innocent doesn't work logically because it results in circular logic, doesn't work morally because it assumes and treats people with the worst intent, and doesn't work practically because it's often used to imprison and wrongfully punish those a person of power hates and usurp control over others.
The reason why pedophilia is immoral is presumed to be known for the sake of brevity, but I note that it's actually not well known by a majority of the population because people are idiots.
Hence why no one on this planet seems to be aware what pedophilia often occurs due to family and trusted people, and why almost everyone are willing to accept "They seem mature for their age" as an excuse to justify and forgive pedophilia in the real world clinical sense, and to some extent, what people may even consider to be the fictional variant of it.
Lolis are, in its abstract form, a youthful, petite, and small figure of a female. Shotas are the male equivalent concept.
Most children and teens are the most common instances of that abstract, but certain people with conditions, such as dwarfism and Alopecia, alongside people who are shorter than average and/or have breasts smaller than average, are also instances of that concept.
Alongside that, there exists certain youth who are taller than average, have adult features that come earlier than their peers, who aren't seen or treated as a youthful or petite, innocent or naive, even if they sometimes prove their age through a birth certificate, and are treated as mature, whether that be in spite of or in the wishes of said youth.
The reason I mention this is because it's a common argument Antis use to say that Lolis are essentially the abstract representation of children.
I do not deny this, as there exist lolis which can be clearly seen to act in childish ways.
However, it's dishonest to say all lolis are representation of children.
And I'd argue that even if all lolis are representation of children, it isn't immoral.
To fools who don't actually consume or engage in this type of media, they would claim all lolis are children in essence out of ignorance.
However, various media depict them in various ways, which beyond appearance, detach from the concept of "child" entirely. Obvious examples come to note for regular consumers of Anime, but for people who have not consumed this style of media and false fans who claim to have consumed this style of media, they likely not know of these examples or recognize it as such.
But I will note a well-known loli who acts more as a caring elderly woman than a child: Senko is a foxgirl who acts as a housewife, capable of house cooking, chores, and holds an aura of wisdom regarding how people ought to care for themselves more and various experiences in life related to beauties of the world that she shares, such as beautiful sceneries to relax and rest in. In contrast to real children, who couldn't cook for their life, their chores typically limit to simple tasks, and are generally incredibly energetic entities of chaos who are still learning about how the world works, who although can enjoy beautiful sceneries, they would rather treat it as a playground than as a place to chill.
Of course, I would be dishonest to say that's the only or main way people enjoy media which contains lolicon; This is simply to show that lolis are not necessarily children.
Lolis may also be simply people trapped in a youthful body, whether that be a disorder or a mystical curse, and typically the character may be represented to have problems with that reality, be it treated as a comedy or be used as a catalyst for jokes, such as in the series "My Senpai is Annoying"/"Senpai ga Urusai Kouhai no Hanashi," or as a tragic issue a character deal with, such as in the case of a western work, "Monster Girl" from "Invincible," who has lived as long as an adult, but will never be really treated as if she's one, nor have the same relationships adults crave without people wanting to be on a watchlist or being with people on a watchlist.
That being said, it is now clear that not everyone actually enjoys lolicon media and loli characters because the character is child-like. That again isn't to say that there are those who like that they're childlike, but again, I've stated above that it doesn't matter. No lolicon aside from the few cherry-picked stragglers I've seen actually wants to rape a kid.
As for whether lolicon is pedophilia, simply put, it's not, unless you want to bend the definition of a pedophile such that not all pedophiles are immoral.
Basically, if you wanted to change the definition of pedophile to be attraction to anything child-like, completely abstracting it from actual real children, you include not just lolicons, but honestly a lot of regular people. The essence of youth is a surprising trait of attraction for a lot of people.
If you wanted to change the definition to just adjoin lolicons only, then you essentially are saying not all pedophiles are immoral child rapists and not all of them are actually attracted to real children, which is generally what the common and technical use of the word implies and carries.
Of course, some people might say that technically there do exist non-offending clinical pedophiles who wish to do no harm, and that is true. But they immediately follow up and claim they simply want lolicons to be honest that they're "pedophiles." This is a dishonest trick that people have used to try and get a false admission that someone's a "pedophile," a non-harming person who isn't even attracted to real children, and then promptly spread the fact that person is a "pedophile," through doublespeak, essentially making it appear that that person is admitting that they're sexually attracted to children, and making things confusing.
Lolicon media and its representation, in its abstract, may have some overlap with qualities of children, but they are not the same thing, and are very distinct for various reasons, and calling it pedophilia for those similarities would be akin to calling anyone attracted to anyone with dwarfism, Alopecia, small boobs, petite stature, naivety, innocence, and so on, pedophilia.
And I must mention the fact that these people are mostly claiming that the fact a loli looks like a kid is what makes it pedophilic, while ignoring the age of the character. I mentioned that people have used the phrase "They seem mature for their age" as an excuse to some extent justify sexualizing fictional pedophilia. Various people who have accused lolicons of being "fictional pedophiles" have sexualized fictional minors, such as characters from "My Hero Academia," "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure," and so on.
Beyond that, many of those people are also furries, who have drawn sexual representations of anthropomorphic animals, which have been accused of many things, including zoophilia, and KPop stans, who have no problem fetishizing and sexualizing real tangible idols, some of which are underage.
And I will go further detail into what these type of people are in the next part.

Dishonest Convolution by Theatrical Demons
This wasn't originally part of the stuff I planned to write, but it functions as a summary to all the arguments people have made regarding how lolicon is immoral pedophile enabling media, and lolicons child raping degenerates, and other addendums I want to mention.
"Anti" was a term that originated on by people who wanted to moral filter media of immoral things, which mainly involved shipping characters (you want them to fuck) that shouldn't be shipped together, such as siblings, age-gap relationships, seemingly abusive ones, and so on, by threatening, hurting, or in not-so-rare cases, kill people who they call "pro-shippers" who enjoy that ship. However, this continued to grow, spawning new terms and ideas which polluted the nuance and difference of art and stories, and they began to attack anything considered "problematic," from furry art, and mainly anime, which often contains lolicon and situations that feel like incest, among other things unique to the culture of the media in Japan.
This concept of regulating media and presuming guilt, immorality, and crime from those fiction didn't originate from Tumblr, as regulating "materials with corrupt the youth" back when comic books were around and "video games promote violence" when early video games happened occurred earlier, but "Anti" is the common term used on the internet to describe such people, which I'd assume is because the internet is still recent, and its culture is more well-known due to its very nature of propagating human interaction and knowledge all over the globe with ease.
They often make claims of false intellectual wisdom, like those I've mentioned above. It's identifiable by how they commonly use the words "normalize" and "problematic" in any argument they enter, and the contents making extremely bold leaps regarding how human psychology works and how human nature is; they will claim that a person WILL behave a certain way simply because they enjoy a certain type of work, or even a single work in general, ignoring human autonomy and morality.
They make claims which sound smart by using fancy-shmancy words like "abstract representation" and "influences human behavior because our brains only see conceptual presentation" without any understanding to what they even are saying, and it's very clear they fucking don't and are just trying to sound smart because anyone who actually fucking knows how the world works, whether that be in formal education or simple fucking observation of how things are and work.
Anyone who even utters those words in any literal way, with full certainty, are retards parroting what they hear from some other retard on Twitter or Tumblr, or retarded cunts who think their delusions and folly are reality and wisdom.
But people who do not know how to point out why something is wrong, whether that be because they lack the words or lack the formal knowledge to describe why that's wrong, often are forced to secede or ignore arguments and points which are right to those that are wrong simply because they have enough empty dishonest convolutions to carry themselves with enough charisma to seem as if they're right.
They bring up points and arguments which are irrelevant, strawmen which we must defend or else we're simply "ignoring a point that you hate," forcing us to answer loaded questions or else we're just "dodging the question," and that's only when they decide to try and "humor" us and "debate" with us if they don't outright openly and vehemently dehumanize us and treat us as subhumans promoting and engaging in immoral acts, despite the irony they're doing exactly that.
I call all their arguments "Dishonest Convolutions" because that's what it is; They don't know what they're talking about, yet claim that they do, and that their arguments are truth and psychogically proven fact, despite the fact it's not. They throw points which are irrelevant and assumes guilt without innocence from the offset, making points no moral person would normally argue or defend, throwing shit like "tell your parents" or "shout it in public" or "show your real face," nothing which proves that we're bad people, but convolutions that make it seem like we're monsters with no concept of morality.
And they will always use Dishonest Convolutions, never to prove a point, but I'd call them Theatrical Demons, who spread false narratives, information, and ideas to justify inflicting suffering and cruelty for their sadistic desires by making others look like demons.
I'd like to note that several various western media have also depicted actors and animated characters who are supposed to represent underaged youth are often sexualized in-series, but no one finds an issue with it, and said fans of series only find enough of an issue with eastern works to complain about it and accuse others of pedophilia. They may even sometimes say "just because someone else does it doesn't make it okay," but NEVER complain about the work they're a fan of nor the fans of that work, and SOLELY eastern media.
It's also common to find incredibly racist sentiments and remarks made by various people regarding how all Japanese people, or sometimes Asian people as a whole, should be nuked again, they're all pedophiles, and so on.
It isn't exactly hard to see this issue as simply being this:
View attachment 8661
And finally, I've had the unfortunate pleasure of having to deal with various pedophiles who have raped children and defended their friends who have raped children simply because of the things I enjoy.
This is not a full list, as I wasn't able to archive other instances which such things happened to me personally, there are other instances where I'm still waiting for proof of child rape to have happened before I make an archive, and there are longer lists on Twitter which sometimes get deleted via exploitation of its system to force suspensions on users that I never got to archive nor have the time to archive.
People who have accused lolicons of being pedophiles have always proven themselves to have raped a child or are a sex pest.
There hasn't been an instance I've found where someone has actively dehumanized a lolicon and hasn't turned out to have raped a child.
They always get found out, one way or another, and I archive many of those moments.
And if you have been following this megathread, or our actual Twitters if you want to become insane, we've had to deal with nazis, communists, child-marriage tradcaths, rapists, murderers, and so on.
Maybe it says a lot that "if even the worst of people hate you, you're probably just that bad."
I personally think it's the reverse.
I don't know why it is that lolicon media and people like me who consume and enjoy it manage to do this, but it is such that we bring out the worst in people, and in that, they admit their own crimes and sins that would've been lost and forgotten, from raping children to murder.



Now what does this writing really mean in the end?
I wouldn't consider this a formal proof of anything, but rather, I think I just wanted to make a statement.

Certainly, everyone is human. Everyone has the capacity for good.
But none of these people are good. Morality isn't something they care about.
They're intentionally willing to ignore and pervert truth and reality to justify their sadism.
And against that kind of enemy, I have to ask, what are you to do?

Many have chosen to continue to argue against such demons, trying to prove something, to their opponent or to the others around them.
But I don't think that's quite the answer.
While you can continue to combat misinformation and blatent lies, I don't believe it solves the inherent issue.

It isn't a problem with misinformation; I firmly believe anyone with a functional brain even if presented with that information, alongside an upright morality, would not engage in the same behaviors nor stand idly by when such harm is inflicted.
Simply having the simple ability to look at how things really are is enough. Maybe not in every case, but I firmly believe in this case.
No one who played a game remotely believed video games caused violence, and we didn't need case studies to know that to be the case. The case studies are just to cement the absolute fact that they don't cause harm to even the duncest of idiots, who even now there exist people who think video games cause violence even in spite of the proven facts.
I think it's the same issue with risque porn and lolicon media.

It's a problem with people who simply shouldn't be allowed to be in control or have a say in anything. People who are sadistic, dishonest; vehemently immoral.
It's a problem with people who shouldn't exist.
To easily believe lies, to easily enjoy the sadistic act of hurting others, to easily fall into becoming a monster.
If that's most humans, then that simply concludes only a select few humans deserve to exist.

No matter how many people you convince of the truth, you have all seen that these people don't truly care.
They don't truly care about getting in the way of saving real children from abuse and rape.
They don't care if they spread misinformation to spur hate and malice towards people.
No matter how much you fight for the truth, these people will not simply disappear.

But what to do with this information? I wouldn't know.
I'm still learning things myself.

Fighting misinformation and malice is a slow way to get rid of all the hate and harm.
Whether it will surely, is something I'm still waiting to see.



But I don't want this longer-than-I-wanted-it-to-be essay to end on some bleak despairing note.
So, I want to praise ourselves a little.
A short lighthearted and humorous poem.
Slightly cringe if I had to be honest, but it'll help engrave itself in your brain.

shizu gay lol a poem by ninja8tyu
We've fought nazis and commies, out pedophiles every while.
Child rapists persist that lolicons feed on kids.
Nazis speak as if they stand on a moral peak.
Commies cry that we are bad guys.
They scream at drawings, steaming with fury, believing they'll prevail with their veil of lies.
While we smile, drawing their mug shot in jail.
Zoophiles whine that we aren't on trial.
Groomers spread rumors that we enter kids beds.
They outcry about lines, flailing and wailing.
All the while, we smile, as we unveil their sins.
Sinners screech, while we cum to cunny.
We've fought nazis and commies, out pedophiles every while.
Admirable, I'd say!


Although it's a tiring thing, having to deal with these sadistic demons, full of lies and bullshit, I want to pat ourselves on the back again.
Even if it's nothing but stumbling on dumb arguments, be proud you're human.
When the world feels full of malice and hate, be proud you're still full of love.

And also remember how fucking hilarious it is every single goddamn time these nutjobs who whine about lolis to get outted as sex pests and predators. :kekw:

We all know they're all child raping shitbags, but god damn when we can finally say it, it's euphoric.
This is definetly the most autistic thing I've read all week. Even though I agree with most of your points, you are still retarded and arguing on the same mental level like twitter's anti loli crusaders.
Because I'm here to start shit I'm going to cherry pick your most retarded takes.
certain people with conditions, such as dwarfism and Alopecia, alongside people who are shorter than average and/or have breasts smaller than average, [have a comparable body to teenagers].
No.

Lolis may also be simply people trapped in a youthful body
That's like saying “yeah officer that file may look like cp but I generated every pixel randomly and only by chance did the image turn out to look like a 12 year old getting raped by a nigger“

Beyond that, many of those people are also furries, who have drawn sexual representations of anthropomorphic animals, which have been accused of many things, including zoophilia
Good point, actually.

Certainly, everyone is human. Everyone has the capacity for good.
But none of these people are good.
I like how you're instantly contradicting yourself.

It's also common to find incredibly racist sentiments and remarks made by various people regarding how all Japanese people, or sometimes Asian people as a whole, should be nuked again, they're all pedophiles, and so on.
It's called a joke you fucking retard
 

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
This is definetly the most autistic thing I've read all week.
i share the same sentiment with your zygote thoughts.

certain people with conditions, such as dwarfism and Alopecia, alongside people who are shorter than average and/or have breasts smaller than average, [have a comparable body to teenagers].
No.
you've never heard of duncan, have you.
that has been in fact an argument you people have made.
feel free to go through this megathread, but i doubt you will.

Lolis may also be simply people trapped in a youthful body
That's like saying “yeah officer that file may look like cp but I generated every pixel randomly and only by chance did the image turn out to look like a 12 year old getting raped by a nigger“
purposeful misinterpretation and complete nonsense.
getting "randomly generated cp" from "trapped in a youthful body" ain't discrete.

Beyond that, many of those people are also furries, who have drawn sexual representations of anthropomorphic animals, which have been accused of many things, including zoophilia
Good point, actually.
that wasn't even a point, what
it was apart of a transition sentence into the next part

Certainly, everyone is human. Everyone has the capacity for good.
But none of these people are good.
I like how you're instantly contradicting yourself.
please kill yourself and stop polluting this world.
you have no understanding of logic even at its basic.

It's also common to find incredibly racist sentiments and remarks made by various people regarding how all Japanese people, or sometimes Asian people as a whole, should be nuked again, they're all pedophiles, and so on.
It's called a joke you fucking retard
considering all the archived sentiment from freaks like you, it's a joke because it would be hilarious if all those people died for being the freaks they are in a freak way.

Even though I agree with most of your points, you are still retarded and arguing on the same mental level like twitter's anti loli crusaders.
Because I'm here to start shit I'm going to cherry pick your most retarded takes.
you say, as if you are one of us.
you joined this saturday, made very few posts which were all antagonizing, and speak exactly like an anti.


don't be mad at us because you're nothing but a child raping scumbag.
maybe if you bothered to improve yourself, maybe you'd be somewhat respected by others.
 
Last edited:

Directional Vector

varishangout.com
purposeful misinterpretation and complete nonsense.
getting "randomly generated cp" from "trapped in a youthful body" ain't discrete.
Are you being retarded on purpose?

that wasn't even a point, what
it was apart of a transition sentence into the next part
You don't even let me talk shit about furries :seething:


please kill yourself and stop polluting this world.
you have no understanding of logic even at its basic.

considering all the archived sentiment from freaks like you, it's a joke because it would be hilarious if all those people died for being the freaks they are in a freak way.
You sound like a tardraging nigger. You didn't even try coming up with an insult



freaks like you

don't be mad at us because you're nothing but a child raping scumbag.
maybe if you bothered to improve yourself, maybe you'd be somewhat respected by others.
When I said you're arguing like a twitter tranny I meant that literally. All you see is “people who like loli to an uncomfortable extend“ (the good guys and saviours of the white race) and “loli hating faggots who will call you a pedo even though they're pedos themselves“ (everyone else)
Normal people who aren't crippled by their autism typically realize in their teens that the world isn't fucking binary.
Sadly you seem to lack the mental capacities (like trannies) to understand this very complex matter.
I mean how did you even get the impression that I'm jacking it to real life children? I'll stick to loli thanks

you say, as if you are one of us.
you joined this saturday, made very few posts which were all antagonizing, and speak exactly like an anti.
Now what? All I did was shout my opinions into the void. AndQUOTE the fact that @cunny poster is a faggot
 

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
Are you being retarded on purpose?
are you?

i said this before, but you're pretty damn obviously an anti really poorly trying to pretend you're a lolicon, or at the very least, a fucking retard who thinks they know anything.

i could go explaining in detail how you're being a troll, day and night, dealing with your subhuman ass, but honestly, that's a waste of time.


but i'll simply quote one thing that literally no one here who respects themselves and has functional critical thinking does.
All you see is “people who like loli to an uncomfortable extend“ (the good guys and saviours of the white race)
good job suddenly involving race, faggot.
that's the quickest fucking tell ever.
 

cunny poster

varishangout.com
Regular
null has been tard raging over cunny, a couple of users have been banned as a result.
cunnies-png.png

b-png.png

a few users have taken this as a challenge, and the results have been pretty funny.
1638566138540-png.png

even better, the chatfags are mad, seething over vtuber scum and banned users alike.
1638531699014-png.18103

It seems as if null may need an attorney to deal with his cunny problem, I have a suggestion.
1638531943255-png.18115
 

ninja8tyu

varishangout.com
Regular
null has been tard raging over cunny, a couple of users have been banned as a result.
cunnies-png.png

b-png.png

a few users have taken this as a challenge, and the results have been pretty funny.
1638566138540-png.png

even better, the chatfags are mad, seething over vtuber cum and banned users alike.
1638531699014-png.18103

It seems as if null may need an attorney to deal with his cunny problem, I have a suggestion.
1638531943255-png.18115
fucking kek :kekw:
 

cunny poster

varishangout.com
Regular
oh, and nulls number 1 enemy vordrak is back and got KF kicked off XF.
1638391321891-png.17971

1638391554956-png.17973

in response to a user mentioning the times null leaked KF users IP's null for some reason brought up the time he leaked Ip's on 8chan users, yet left out the times he would DDoS /v/ for memeing on him.
screenshot_20211202-034040-897-png.18037

let us not forget null is inconsistent af on the lolicon and shotacon issue, likely due to his love of neko shota and only started going after loli once PPP put pressure on Dick Masterson and NewProject2.
1636038623365-png.17949

1636038713125-png.17948
 

cunny poster

varishangout.com
Regular
Today, I'm gonna write something stupid.
I'm going to explain as concisely as I can why lolicon isn't child rape nor a catalyst to facilitate it, and how it isn't pedophilia.
Of course, it goes through our usual arguments and all that, but maybe you'll find it interesting still.

Although I try to make it brief, in the end, this issue has been convoluted with various stupid things which I must cover so as to not simply seem like I dismiss it simply because it points a flaw in any of these arguments and I just don't want to admit it, but to prove why it's not only stupid, irrelevant, and pollutes the purpose of this entire debacle, but why such people are truthfully immoral agents doing this intentionally.

The degree of convolution was unintentionally ordered from least to most, and you can tell by the essay length.



Lolicon media isn't child rape because there's no child involved. It's fictional.
Now, people argue so much about how there's no real difference in reality and fiction when it comes to media such as this.
After all, simply calling something fictional or real isn't much of a difference if it's simply that.
The difference is that real things are tangible, and fictional things are not. Obvious, but not to the clinically retarded.
Though, they will argue that "it is tangible!" simply because it exists, the photons on a screen, the concept, and neurons in your brain.
That, of course, is blatant lying and stupidity.
A rock is not tangible if you are unable to interact with it in any meaningful way. It is not tangible simply because the concept exists.
But of course, what they may argue is that in both real and fictional, what is the same is that you're sexually attracted to the conceptual representation of youth; an incredibly abstract relation they made up to try and prove that it's essentially the same morally. I'll cover that next.

Lolicon media doesn't encourage child rape because there is no reason for it.
Simply put, the only inverse argument people have made is that "Lolicon media encourages child rape because they'll want the real thing."
It's the same argument for video games way back then, and how murderers were bred because they would want the real thing, how people were essentially enjoying the abstract conceptual act of taking someone else's life, or many lives.
Of course, people will claim that murder in video games and sexual acts in porn are different because of two things:
  1. Murder is depicted as bad in video games and media in general, and thus deters people from actually doing it, while porn does not.
    This is, of course, blatant lying. GTA is the common meme example, where videos of people enjoying the game have fun murdering NPCs, destroying various structures, and many other crimes.
  2. Murder is a means to a goal in a game or story, while sex is purely for enjoyment, therefore you're committing immoral acts willingly.
    This is, of course, blatant lying. For the same reason above, but also, if it's the fact you have a choice to commit an immoral act and you choose to do it, you have the choice to play games that contain violence, or Tetris, Bejeweled, and so on. By simply choosing to play a violent video game to enjoy it, you're willing to choosing to enjoy fictional murder. Obviously, this doesn't mean a person is immoral, a murderer, or a potential criminal, but under such logic, they must conclude that it's also immoral.
    Though then they might say the stupid thing of "murder is better than child rape," which is wrong, because immoral acts aren't justified because there exists something more immoral, and that's assuming for humor that somehow lolicon is child rape and video game murder is equal in sensation to real murder.
And of course, within both cases, you can say that it's true that both fictional and real murder, fictional and real child rape, both are enjoying an abstract construct of a moral crime.
Thing is, I don't think they understand what the fuck they're even saying, and they should kill themselves. I'm not saying that simply to be a troll or mean, I'm saying that because they genuinely get in the way of truth, justice, and objective morality, by injecting the most intellectually dishonest shit and purposefully propagating misunderstanding of fundamental structures of knowledge are, and shouldn't be permitted to ever fucking speak again until they can prove sapience.
View attachment 8660
To use an example and put it concisely, both real life murder and video game killing are both conceptually murder.
However, what makes them both different is what is concrete; that is, the nuances and details; that is, what they actually are in reality and existence.
No real tangible person with autonomy, sentience, and feelings, is harmed when killed in a video game, and thus under the very fundamentals of ethics, can't be applied to ethical theories; that is, why the fuck would it matter in the grand scheme of things if you killed something which can't be harmed?
But in real life, if you kill a person, that person is tangible, and it's generally common that people have autonomy, sentience, and feelings, and thus making them suffer, such as killing them, is very much so immoral.
It is not because they come from the same conceptual form that makes it immoral, but the fact it actually hurts people.
As for what lolicon and actual child rape and sexualization actually represent conceptually, and whether certain thoughts can be immoral, I'll talk about that in the next part.
However, with simple observation, you can see that literally no one have raped children because of lolicon, murdered because of video games, or any moral crime because of fictional media.
People have claimed that, but all but few have always been unable to point out a single case, and none have been able to point out a valid case.
The Miyazaki case is the commonly used one, and as far as I'm aware, the only one.
It's the case used to argue that it CAN happen, and thus it applies to everyone.
But of course, that singular case is not only cherry-picked, but also incredibly unreliable, due to the fact it's well known evidence was planted to go against Otaku culture in general, as during the era that case resides, Otakus were stigmatized.
Simple observation, as in, simply looking at the world around you, you can tell lolicons don't rape children. Else, why is it that crimes any respective popular media that's considered problematic aren't higher?
No matter how many times they cherry pick certain cases, of which practically all of them had flaws, they can't explain that observation.
People may claim that the legal system deters all such acts, but nevertheless, if it's true that lolicon, or any media, encourages child rape, or any moral crime, then even in spite of the deterrence of the legal system, there still should be an increase in child rape crimes, because it encourages it in some way.
But despite lolicon having existed for a long time, no one who has ever researched it has ever been able to prove a statistical correlation that lolicon media causes crimes.
And of all those articles that have done their own research, any correlation that can be made, even ignoring the fact that there's not enough to even prove a correlation, it is that the statistics say that lolicon media actually correlate with a decrease in child rape rates.
Many studies and articles have been done, mentioned, cited, and paraphrased within this entire megathread, and also can be found if you bother to use the "site:edu" function to actually find credible fucking sources to begin with as a bare minimum, and going on actual websites containing databases of credible and reliable academic material.
In summary, simple primitive observation suggests lolicon doesn't encourage rape rates; if we really want to bring in the facts, it says the same thing; if you want to use whatever little implications the facts might suggest to try and make a point, lolicon media discourages child rape.

Lolicon isn't Pedophilia.
Within the clinical definition of the disorder from the DSM-V, it refers to real, tangible humans.
Most people like to read the DSM-V without any psychology education or understand what it actually means or refers to when it says literally anything, which is why people sometimes like self-diagnosing themselves as psychopaths and other mental illnesses, conditions, and disabilities like complete idiots that anyone who has a bare minimum education in that study will make fun of because you're genuinely retarded.
But regardless, people conventionally use pedophile in the sense of "any sexual attraction to children" rather than the clinical definition, and say that such a thing is immoral in of itself.
I must say my counterpoint first.
Within objective morality, it can be said that certain thoughts, such as wanting to murder your boss, is immoral. However, it is not immoral if the person won't do it because they know it to be wrong morally. It would be wrong if the person won't do it if they'd go to hell or get punished.
What makes something immoral is the act of causing harm and suffering to others, and the desire to cause suffering.
For example, if a person shoots with the intent to kill, but misses, it doesn't make that person moral or doesn't say anything about morality simply because there was no harm in the end, but simply harm was prevented. In the same essence, a person's desire to hurt someone being prevented or inhibited by something like legal punishment or by an afterlife hell doesn't make him a moral person.
However, a person who has the desire to hurt someone, but doesn't, because they know it to be immoral, isn't immoral.
Thought police assume that those thoughts encourage immoral acts, that simply having disgusting thoughts and desires are wrong, and that people who have the wrong desires simply don't act on them because they'll get punished in some way, such as through hell.
But enforcing such beliefs on others really only describe themselves, because they doubt humanity's inherent ability to be autonomous, judge arbitrary on primitive emotions like disgust, and doubt the ability for people to be truly moral without punishment forcing them to act morally in their self-interest.
Whether a person has thoughts or desires that are considered immoral is not what makes them immoral.
The simple reason why people can enjoy problematic media like lolicon without being immoral is because they know it to be immoral if the acts on paper were to be done in reality.
Of course, people like to assume we just don't do it because the law or something prevents us. Guilty of immoral inhibition until somehow proven with concrete science that we don't do it because we're normal moral humans who too have suffered and understand inflicting suffering on others is wrong.
Guilty until proven innocent doesn't work logically because it results in circular logic, doesn't work morally because it assumes and treats people with the worst intent, and doesn't work practically because it's often used to imprison and wrongfully punish those a person of power hates and usurp control over others.
The reason why pedophilia is immoral is presumed to be known for the sake of brevity, but I note that it's actually not well known by a majority of the population because people are idiots.
Hence why no one on this planet seems to be aware what pedophilia often occurs due to family and trusted people, and why almost everyone are willing to accept "They seem mature for their age" as an excuse to justify and forgive pedophilia in the real world clinical sense, and to some extent, what people may even consider to be the fictional variant of it.
Lolis are, in its abstract form, a youthful, petite, and small figure of a female. Shotas are the male equivalent concept.
Most children and teens are the most common instances of that abstract, but certain people with conditions, such as dwarfism and Alopecia, alongside people who are shorter than average and/or have breasts smaller than average, are also instances of that concept.
Alongside that, there exists certain youth who are taller than average, have adult features that come earlier than their peers, who aren't seen or treated as a youthful or petite, innocent or naive, even if they sometimes prove their age through a birth certificate, and are treated as mature, whether that be in spite of or in the wishes of said youth.
The reason I mention this is because it's a common argument Antis use to say that Lolis are essentially the abstract representation of children.
I do not deny this, as there exist lolis which can be clearly seen to act in childish ways.
However, it's dishonest to say all lolis are representation of children.
And I'd argue that even if all lolis are representation of children, it isn't immoral.
To fools who don't actually consume or engage in this type of media, they would claim all lolis are children in essence out of ignorance.
However, various media depict them in various ways, which beyond appearance, detach from the concept of "child" entirely. Obvious examples come to note for regular consumers of Anime, but for people who have not consumed this style of media and false fans who claim to have consumed this style of media, they likely not know of these examples or recognize it as such.
But I will note a well-known loli who acts more as a caring elderly woman than a child: Senko is a foxgirl who acts as a housewife, capable of house cooking, chores, and holds an aura of wisdom regarding how people ought to care for themselves more and various experiences in life related to beauties of the world that she shares, such as beautiful sceneries to relax and rest in. In contrast to real children, who couldn't cook for their life, their chores typically limit to simple tasks, and are generally incredibly energetic entities of chaos who are still learning about how the world works, who although can enjoy beautiful sceneries, they would rather treat it as a playground than as a place to chill.
Of course, I would be dishonest to say that's the only or main way people enjoy media which contains lolicon; This is simply to show that lolis are not necessarily children.
Lolis may also be simply people trapped in a youthful body, whether that be a disorder or a mystical curse, and typically the character may be represented to have problems with that reality, be it treated as a comedy or be used as a catalyst for jokes, such as in the series "My Senpai is Annoying"/"Senpai ga Urusai Kouhai no Hanashi," or as a tragic issue a character deal with, such as in the case of a western work, "Monster Girl" from "Invincible," who has lived as long as an adult, but will never be really treated as if she's one, nor have the same relationships adults crave without people wanting to be on a watchlist or being with people on a watchlist.
That being said, it is now clear that not everyone actually enjoys lolicon media and loli characters because the character is child-like. That again isn't to say that there are those who like that they're childlike, but again, I've stated above that it doesn't matter. No lolicon aside from the few cherry-picked stragglers I've seen actually wants to rape a kid.
As for whether lolicon is pedophilia, simply put, it's not, unless you want to bend the definition of a pedophile such that not all pedophiles are immoral.
Basically, if you wanted to change the definition of pedophile to be attraction to anything child-like, completely abstracting it from actual real children, you include not just lolicons, but honestly a lot of regular people. The essence of youth is a surprising trait of attraction for a lot of people.
If you wanted to change the definition to just adjoin lolicons only, then you essentially are saying not all pedophiles are immoral child rapists and not all of them are actually attracted to real children, which is generally what the common and technical use of the word implies and carries.
Of course, some people might say that technically there do exist non-offending clinical pedophiles who wish to do no harm, and that is true. But they immediately follow up and claim they simply want lolicons to be honest that they're "pedophiles." This is a dishonest trick that people have used to try and get a false admission that someone's a "pedophile," a non-harming person who isn't even attracted to real children, and then promptly spread the fact that person is a "pedophile," through doublespeak, essentially making it appear that that person is admitting that they're sexually attracted to children, and making things confusing.
Lolicon media and its representation, in its abstract, may have some overlap with qualities of children, but they are not the same thing, and are very distinct for various reasons, and calling it pedophilia for those similarities would be akin to calling anyone attracted to anyone with dwarfism, Alopecia, small boobs, petite stature, naivety, innocence, and so on, pedophilia.
And I must mention the fact that these people are mostly claiming that the fact a loli looks like a kid is what makes it pedophilic, while ignoring the age of the character. I mentioned that people have used the phrase "They seem mature for their age" as an excuse to some extent justify sexualizing fictional pedophilia. Various people who have accused lolicons of being "fictional pedophiles" have sexualized fictional minors, such as characters from "My Hero Academia," "JoJo's Bizarre Adventure," and so on.
Beyond that, many of those people are also furries, who have drawn sexual representations of anthropomorphic animals, which have been accused of many things, including zoophilia, and KPop stans, who have no problem fetishizing and sexualizing real tangible idols, some of which are underage.
And I will go further detail into what these type of people are in the next part.

Dishonest Convolution by Theatrical Demons
This wasn't originally part of the stuff I planned to write, but it functions as a summary to all the arguments people have made regarding how lolicon is immoral pedophile enabling media, and lolicons child raping degenerates, and other addendums I want to mention.
"Anti" was a term that originated on by people who wanted to moral filter media of immoral things, which mainly involved shipping characters (you want them to fuck) that shouldn't be shipped together, such as siblings, age-gap relationships, seemingly abusive ones, and so on, by threatening, hurting, or in not-so-rare cases, kill people who they call "pro-shippers" who enjoy that ship. However, this continued to grow, spawning new terms and ideas which polluted the nuance and difference of art and stories, and they began to attack anything considered "problematic," from furry art, and mainly anime, which often contains lolicon and situations that feel like incest, among other things unique to the culture of the media in Japan.
This concept of regulating media and presuming guilt, immorality, and crime from those fiction didn't originate from Tumblr, as regulating "materials with corrupt the youth" back when comic books were around and "video games promote violence" when early video games happened occurred earlier, but "Anti" is the common term used on the internet to describe such people, which I'd assume is because the internet is still recent, and its culture is more well-known due to its very nature of propagating human interaction and knowledge all over the globe with ease.
They often make claims of false intellectual wisdom, like those I've mentioned above. It's identifiable by how they commonly use the words "normalize" and "problematic" in any argument they enter, and the contents making extremely bold leaps regarding how human psychology works and how human nature is; they will claim that a person WILL behave a certain way simply because they enjoy a certain type of work, or even a single work in general, ignoring human autonomy and morality.
They make claims which sound smart by using fancy-shmancy words like "abstract representation" and "influences human behavior because our brains only see conceptual presentation" without any understanding to what they even are saying, and it's very clear they fucking don't and are just trying to sound smart because anyone who actually fucking knows how the world works, whether that be in formal education or simple fucking observation of how things are and work.
Anyone who even utters those words in any literal way, with full certainty, are retards parroting what they hear from some other retard on Twitter or Tumblr, or retarded cunts who think their delusions and folly are reality and wisdom.
But people who do not know how to point out why something is wrong, whether that be because they lack the words or lack the formal knowledge to describe why that's wrong, often are forced to secede or ignore arguments and points which are right to those that are wrong simply because they have enough empty dishonest convolutions to carry themselves with enough charisma to seem as if they're right.
They bring up points and arguments which are irrelevant, strawmen which we must defend or else we're simply "ignoring a point that you hate," forcing us to answer loaded questions or else we're just "dodging the question," and that's only when they decide to try and "humor" us and "debate" with us if they don't outright openly and vehemently dehumanize us and treat us as subhumans promoting and engaging in immoral acts, despite the irony they're doing exactly that.
I call all their arguments "Dishonest Convolutions" because that's what it is; They don't know what they're talking about, yet claim that they do, and that their arguments are truth and psychogically proven fact, despite the fact it's not. They throw points which are irrelevant and assumes guilt without innocence from the offset, making points no moral person would normally argue or defend, throwing shit like "tell your parents" or "shout it in public" or "show your real face," nothing which proves that we're bad people, but convolutions that make it seem like we're monsters with no concept of morality.
And they will always use Dishonest Convolutions, never to prove a point, but I'd call them Theatrical Demons, who spread false narratives, information, and ideas to justify inflicting suffering and cruelty for their sadistic desires by making others look like demons.
I'd like to note that several various western media have also depicted actors and animated characters who are supposed to represent underaged youth are often sexualized in-series, but no one finds an issue with it, and said fans of series only find enough of an issue with eastern works to complain about it and accuse others of pedophilia. They may even sometimes say "just because someone else does it doesn't make it okay," but NEVER complain about the work they're a fan of nor the fans of that work, and SOLELY eastern media.
It's also common to find incredibly racist sentiments and remarks made by various people regarding how all Japanese people, or sometimes Asian people as a whole, should be nuked again, they're all pedophiles, and so on.
It isn't exactly hard to see this issue as simply being this:
View attachment 8661
And finally, I've had the unfortunate pleasure of having to deal with various pedophiles who have raped children and defended their friends who have raped children simply because of the things I enjoy.
This is not a full list, as I wasn't able to archive other instances which such things happened to me personally, there are other instances where I'm still waiting for proof of child rape to have happened before I make an archive, and there are longer lists on Twitter which sometimes get deleted via exploitation of its system to force suspensions on users that I never got to archive nor have the time to archive.
People who have accused lolicons of being pedophiles have always proven themselves to have raped a child or are a sex pest.
There hasn't been an instance I've found where someone has actively dehumanized a lolicon and hasn't turned out to have raped a child.
They always get found out, one way or another, and I archive many of those moments.
And if you have been following this megathread, or our actual Twitters if you want to become insane, we've had to deal with nazis, communists, child-marriage tradcaths, rapists, murderers, and so on.
Maybe it says a lot that "if even the worst of people hate you, you're probably just that bad."
I personally think it's the reverse.
I don't know why it is that lolicon media and people like me who consume and enjoy it manage to do this, but it is such that we bring out the worst in people, and in that, they admit their own crimes and sins that would've been lost and forgotten, from raping children to murder.



Now what does this writing really mean in the end?
I wouldn't consider this a formal proof of anything, but rather, I think I just wanted to make a statement.

Certainly, everyone is human. Everyone has the capacity for good.
But none of these people are good. Morality isn't something they care about.
They're intentionally willing to ignore and pervert truth and reality to justify their sadism.
And against that kind of enemy, I have to ask, what are you to do?

Many have chosen to continue to argue against such demons, trying to prove something, to their opponent or to the others around them.
But I don't think that's quite the answer.
While you can continue to combat misinformation and blatent lies, I don't believe it solves the inherent issue.

It isn't a problem with misinformation; I firmly believe anyone with a functional brain even if presented with that information, alongside an upright morality, would not engage in the same behaviors nor stand idly by when such harm is inflicted.
Simply having the simple ability to look at how things really are is enough. Maybe not in every case, but I firmly believe in this case.
No one who played a game remotely believed video games caused violence, and we didn't need case studies to know that to be the case. The case studies are just to cement the absolute fact that they don't cause harm to even the duncest of idiots, who even now there exist people who think video games cause violence even in spite of the proven facts.
I think it's the same issue with risque porn and lolicon media.

It's a problem with people who simply shouldn't be allowed to be in control or have a say in anything. People who are sadistic, dishonest; vehemently immoral.
It's a problem with people who shouldn't exist.
To easily believe lies, to easily enjoy the sadistic act of hurting others, to easily fall into becoming a monster.
If that's most humans, then that simply concludes only a select few humans deserve to exist.

No matter how many people you convince of the truth, you have all seen that these people don't truly care.
They don't truly care about getting in the way of saving real children from abuse and rape.
They don't care if they spread misinformation to spur hate and malice towards people.
No matter how much you fight for the truth, these people will not simply disappear.

But what to do with this information? I wouldn't know.
I'm still learning things myself.

Fighting misinformation and malice is a slow way to get rid of all the hate and harm.
Whether it will surely, is something I'm still waiting to see.



But I don't want this longer-than-I-wanted-it-to-be essay to end on some bleak despairing note.
So, I want to praise ourselves a little.
A short lighthearted and humorous poem.
Slightly cringe if I had to be honest, but it'll help engrave itself in your brain.

shizu gay lol a poem by ninja8tyu
We've fought nazis and commies, out pedophiles every while.
Child rapists persist that lolicons feed on kids.
Nazis speak as if they stand on a moral peak.
Commies cry that we are bad guys.
They scream at drawings, steaming with fury, believing they'll prevail with their veil of lies.
While we smile, drawing their mug shot in jail.
Zoophiles whine that we aren't on trial.
Groomers spread rumors that we enter kids beds.
They outcry about lines, flailing and wailing.
All the while, we smile, as we unveil their sins.
Sinners screech, while we cum to cunny.
We've fought nazis and commies, out pedophiles every while.
Admirable, I'd say!


Although it's a tiring thing, having to deal with these sadistic demons, full of lies and bullshit, I want to pat ourselves on the back again.
Even if it's nothing but stumbling on dumb arguments, be proud you're human.
When the world feels full of malice and hate, be proud you're still full of love.

And also remember how fucking hilarious it is every single goddamn time these nutjobs who whine about lolis to get outted as sex pests and predators. :kekw:

We all know they're all child raping shitbags, but god damn when we can finally say it, it's euphoric.
sorry for the doublepost, but this seems like a cope.
are you going to deny there's no crossover between lolicons and paedophiles?
and some artists like bubuuka and rust do use real LG's as a reference, in specific candydoll.tv's Laura B.
 
Top