This has been slang on 4chan before Nil ever became infamous on lolicon twitter. Please. All of these arguments have been had before.
i really don't see the point nor really care enough about what's being said
i'm simply completely confused to what point this brings exactly
like what, exactly, is "lolicons are more closely related to pedophilia" supposed to be significant towards in the grand scheme of things
you all can argue about whatever the fuck pedophilia is like the retards on twitter thinking attraction to a 500-year old grandma
is somehow pedophilia, because that term has lost all its meaning
no one ever makes that point as-is besides antis
because they want lolicons to admit that they're a "pedophile;" the attraction to the abstract properties related to youth, but not necessarily within the category of youth, because glasses are minor-coded now and beyonetta is actually a JC
and via double-speak, call them a pedophile; a child-raping monster who traumatizes children for life and may even kill them after their done using them as nothing more but a tool for their own pleasure
the fact you seem so utterly shocked that everyone here is calling you a pedophile projecting onto lolicons is rather a surprise, because i genuinely can't believe there's a person who's capable of communication yet so low-functioning that they fail to realize that simple thing and the general stigma related to that term, alongside carelessly accusing comic LO artists as pedophiles with only the reasoning that antis typically use rather than any firm proof.
and making bold claims like "lolicon artists are open about their pedophilia" without proof is pretty fucking much what antis always do
and i even doubt it's actual pedophilia either.
feel free to reiterate the fact that these ideas have been talked about in the past as if it has a point.
it doesn't change the fact they're just as stupid then as they are now.
you're rather insistent on making everyone agree on your notion that there's a giant overlap, but have no point beyond that
which leaves us to fill in the gaps
of all the possible connotations that presumes your unproven premise is true, and your attitude the entire time, it's either "we're also all technically pedophiles (already have/will develop an attraction for real children) for liking fictional children and that's okay," "utilizing minors as reference for adult works is not unethical (do i even need to explain this?)," and "we're hypocrites for (implied to be knowingly) supporting 'pedophiles' but not pedophiles"
so of course, people would get mad, because that presumes quite a bit about all of us individually and as a group, which is false.
feel free to call us idiots for being unable to comprehend the ideas created by your 177013-dimensional mind capable of abstract thought beyond mortal comprehension if you want
but it certainly won't change the fact we see you as a giant fucking retard who is without any reasonable doubt an anti, and if somehow not, still leaves several negative implications to what you are like in terms of personality, intelligence, wisdom, and ability to convey information.