LemmyNSFW annouced that they would allow loli/shota and people on other instances did not react positively
3y 16d ago by lemmy.world/u/a_crappy_pirate in lemmydrama
there was an update from the admins of lemmy.nsfw where language barriers got in the way and the wrong impression was made, which was quickly addressed by the instance's other admin as well as edited by its' original author.
this got people in this instance concerned until the edit was made, however in two threads about it on kbin social the anime PFPs came out to play and the head admin of dataterm was obligated to comment as well
the funniest part is, it really demonstrates the truth of stereotypes about people with anime loli PFPs. at least a couple of the commenters in those threads are going to end up on watchlists.
ITT: people who don't know that "loli" derives from the Nabokov novel "Lolita", about a man who kidnaps and sexually abuses a 12 year old.
My favourite explanation of this book comes from Cracked.com:
And he wasn't sure if he at all was going to publish it. I believe it was his wife who convinced him. Unfortunately people didn't/don't understand the point with the book, ie this is a bad thing to do.
does he kidnap her or is he just someone who is paying board to live in their spare room? i'v seen the 1962 movie but haven't read the book
He is a tenant, than marries the mother, than it is implied he kills her, now has legal custody over the girl, and takes her on a road trip.
At least, that is my memory of how it played out.
As I understand it he starts out just living with them but then kidnaps the girl after the mother dies
He boards at her house, marries her mother to get closer to her, and after her mother dies he kidnaps her, yes
While I mostly agree with the no victim statement (some artists were caught using illegal references), it's important to know that the loli fandom is the most toxic element of the whole anime community, and also it's illegal in many countries, including the very one that hosts this instance (Poland).
I think they call themselves Ephebophiles
what a clusterfuck. after the beehaw bullshit it really looks like "defederation" is going to be the battlecry of the popcorn consumer, huh? well, maybe not so much "battlecry" as "call to the decadence couch" but whatever
can you please at least attempt to not spray crumbs everywhere this time tho? someone's gotta clean that
What do you expect when most of these idiots come from Reddit. They are used to bandwagons and echo chambers. A true Federation is a foreign concept to these morons.
Unlike "le me" who is absolutely immune to groupthink and mob mentality š
It's reasonable not to ban ambiguous stuff where the character looks like they could maybe be 17 or 19. You're not protecting anybody by banning a drawing with no real age.
However calling it "irl loli" is absolutely disgusting and that combined with the casual attitude in the post is also disgusting
"irl loli" ??? Is that some way of downplaying CP? It's fucking CP?!?! Holyshit. I can't believe they switched the term to try and not sound so bad.
EDIT: Just read the post and they say IRL kids. Still, the terminology feels like it stems from replacing drawings with photos, like it's just another medium of expression, not an act of wicked abuse to the subject.
Are we doing r/drama again?
It was a very popular sub. I can't imagine they'd fail to make the jump.
What's going to be really crazy is the pedo instance having their own catty "these losers don't understand she's a 10,000 year old dragon in a 9 year old's body" threads.
r/drama already jumped off reddit years ago. They had IRC, then discord, then rdrama.net.
Thereās also our (un)official lemmy community at drama@lemmy.world
hahahaha seems that way
Idk what loli/shota means
You know how weebs are always making absurd claims like "well she's really a 3000 year old dragon in the body of a 12 year old, so I'm not a pedo"?
Loli/shota dispenses with that. It's about romantic relationships between adults and children. It's pedophilia. Full. Stop.
Loli is underage girls, shota is underage boys.
The Japanese term "Loli" is a shortened version of the English term "Lolita," which itself is a Spanish nickname for the female Spanish name Dolores.
In English, "Lolita" is the name of a novel written in 1955 by a Russian American author which is famous for its incredibly controversial theme: the male protagonist's obsession and sexual attraction to a 12 year old girl, who he kidnaps and abuses. The protagonist calls this girl "Lolita" in private.
In Japanese / Anime culture, the term is used to refer to any character that has a very young appearance, and often displays traits similar to that of young girls, such as innocence or airheadedness. The age of such a character is not relevant, as the author can pick any number arbitrarily. Three, three hundred million, doesn't matter because the term only refers to appearance.
The term "Lolicon" is a portmanteau of the term "Lolita Complex," and originally in the 1970s and 1980s, was used to refer more generally to feelings of love for cute things and cute fictional characters, which came from the anime of the time portraying Japan's "ideal young girl." This original meaning is now known as "moe." The current meaning of "Loli" and "Lolicon" which began to appear in the 1990s, is much closer to the source material of its name, being a specific attraction to characters who appear to be 15 years old and below.
It is important to note that in Japan they do not use the same word as "pedophilia" nor any equivalent Japanese word. There is apparently some distinction between the two, but since I am not an expert in Japanese language I would not be able to tell you the difference. It seems the nuance is very difficult to communicate though, as "loli" has been conflated with "pedophilia" for a long time and while that has been denied as the English equivalent, no suitable alternative explanation has been given. It is very likely no exact English equivalent exists, as there is a major disconnect of culture between Japan and English speaking countries. Thus the term "pedophilia" is used.
"Shota" is the male equivalent of "Loli." Thus, "Shotacon" is the male counterpart to "Lolicon." In Japanese media, "shotacon" are often depicted as women, however the authors of such media are often men.
My personal opinion on this: Its pretty disgusting.
There's quite a few Japanese artists that use the "pedo" tag to label their work besides of the "loli" one. Don't know how well the Japanese loli fandom treats it (they at least called AI generated CP demonic), all I know that the Western ones forgot to adapt the "yes loli, no touch" slogan, and often like to talk about the possibility of children consenting if they're not harassing "normies" in the anime fandom.
Parts of this comment squeezed me out. o.O It reminds me of an encounter I had with someone who confessed they were a closet pedo, who did not act on their fantasies but wanted to. At the time I was studying psychology with the goal of helping pedophiles not offend or reoffend, but after this particular encounter my entire career choice was shaken. This person ended up finding a community of pedophiles who told them they were not wrong for their desires, or acting upon their desires so long as children were consenting (which obviously required GROOMING). There was nothing I could say to convince this person that this was illogical and wrong. I was so sickened by it, and remain sickened by it. What particularly hurts is that law enforcement did nothing, even when I warned them and his family that there was a girl he had his sights on. I am very upset now thinking about it, as this would not be my first encounter with corrupt or inadequate law enforcement or judges.
I don't know anything about the loli community - but any community that labels their work pedo, and starts talking about the possibility of children consenting are not just sick, but dead to me. I'll play devil's advocate and argue that people can wank off to a fake drawing of a fake person and I don't give a damn. But my personal line is when people start talking about the possibility that a child can consent and start advocating for that.
The worry of course is if this content is out there, it draws people into it and reinforces whatever urges one might have toward it.
The use of the "pedo" tag is most certainly a modern phenomena. Probably less than 3 years ago that tag didn't even exist.
I am not Japanese and don't live in Japan, so I cannot speak to the opinions of Japanese people. However, historically speaking, Japan has basically stonewalled modern Western "progressive" thinking, especially when it relates to anime. Consistent efforts by Westerners to "cancel" VTubers and various anime online have always been met with extreme ridicule by Japanese. There are a few that have more Western thinking, but ultimately I think its just a major difference in culture.
"loli" is underage girls, and "shota" is underage boys? not 100% sure tho
What a terrible day to be literate
It's drawings, calm down
Drawings of some of the most heinous crimes humans commit, and thoughts they have. Itās natural for people to be disgusted by them.
So you never watch a movie with murder? I'm sorry I can just differentiate between fantasy and reality and know that drawings won't hurt people.
Youāre starting an argument about something I never said. I said itās natural for people to be disgusted by drawings of child porn. I donāt know why my statement made you so defensive.
You jump into an argument about whether something's morally wrong with a comment that very heavily implies that it is, and wonder why I'm defending my argument?
No one's saying people don't have a right to be disgusted with it. Just like people can be disgusted with any other type of porn, like rape or incest. But that doesn't mean drawings with no victim are immoral
Thatās not the conversation I jumped into, are you paying attention to who youāre replying to? Someone said āwhat a terrible day to be literateā when they were told what loli and shota meant, because they were naturally disgusted, and you told them to calm down. I told you their reaction was natural, and you keep trying to drag me into a different conversation. I really donāt understand the argument youāre trying to start with me. People are naturally disgusted by child porn, whether itās real or fake. None of the comments Iāve replied to have been about morality, and Iāve made no judgements one way or the other. Your interpretations of my comments are a reflection of your mindset.
undefined> Your interpretations of my comments are a reflection of your mindset.
How? Because I'm in the middle of an argument with someone else, and I didn't ignore all the ongoing context of that other side thread when replying to you?
I'm not really starting any argument with you. You posted in the same thread as other arguments I'm having.
I posted on your first comment when there was no argument happening at all. You chose to interpret my comment as an attack on your morality, which is a reflection of your mindset.
No where in his reply did he say anything about you attacking his morality, what are you talking about?
Drawings made specifically for paedophiles to get sexual satisfaction, fuck off.
So you'd rather have them hurt real people than jerk off over drawings? Yikes
I, and many others, find the use of āloliā content in this context to be morally questionable. The key concern is the normalization of such behaviors, which can perpetuate and potentially endorse harmful desires. Moreover, even though it involves drawings, it still fosters an environment that is fundamentally based on the sexualization of underage characters.
undefined> The key concern is the normalization of such behaviors, which can perpetuate and potentially endorse harmful desires
This is the same exact argument that violent video games "normalizes" violence. It was wrong then and it's wrong here.
Absolutely, people do not commit major crimes just because they saw them on TV or read it in the newspapers. They do it because they want to.
I don't know if I agree with that. Porn I watched has definitely affected what I want in real life. Even if its a fantasy world, its definitely made me think "huh this might be hot in real life". Thankfully its nothing harmful but nonetheless. I can definitely see how the abundance of certain porn enforces the thought that a certain fetish is common, normal.
That's pretty different from wanting to fuck kids. Wanting to try an activity is pretty different from changing who you're attracted to. Unless you think gay porn's existence will make people gay.
Stop comparing video games to very real sexual gratification you fucking nonce.
Why not? The comparison is identical.
People are into things in fantasy that they're not into in reality. And not everyone who defends victimless activities are into them. I'm not into loli, but it's fucking fantasy. People fantasize about being raped, that's a huge fantasy. But that doesn't mean they want to be raped. And most "loli" anime shit look absolutely nothing like real children. If you want to talk about photo-realistic AI generated porn, ok fine. But seriously, what's wrong with a "3000 year old dragon" in the body of a child? Can they consent? That's all that really matters here, consent.
No it's not, and you fucking nonces need to stop saying that getting sexual satisfaction from underage representation is the same as playing video games constantly, it's a bad fucking look.
Just because you enjoy one and don't enjoy the other doesn't mean they're not the same. It's concerning that you have a hard time distinguishing reality from drawings, and then try to accuse people who are saying that there's simply no victim here of being pedophiles when no one is even talking about any living person, let alone a child, is pretty telling.
The "reality" is that a paedophile is getting very real sexual gratification from these images, and indulging nonces is fucked up. If you can't differentiate that from video games, you're the one with the fucking issue.
undefined> The ārealityā is that a paedophile is getting very real sexual gratification from these images, and indulging nonces is fucked up.
What? So anything a pedophile enjoys should be banned? Pedophiles probably enjoy violent games too. And I'm sure murders certainly do. What's your point? I'm perfectly fine with anyone getting sexual gratification over any drawing. Who does it hurt?
Holy fuck, indulging their fucked up sexual desires. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really that dumb? Stop trying to defend fucking paedophiles.
You're making really specific distinctions just so that what you enjoy isn't covered by your outrage. If we're talking about pedophiles specifically, their fucked up sexual desire is wrong because their victims can't consent. If they could consent, there wouldn't be a problem. Now, if they instead want to jerk off to fictional depictions (however realistic or not) of children, why is that bad? No one is hurt, they get to get off, and a potential victim is spared. So unclutch your pearls.
lmao, fucking nonce defenders. They should be getting help to either stop jacking off to that shit, or get chemically fucking castrated so they don't have those desires any more. Fuck off with your paedo indulging.
undefined> They should be getting help to either stop jacking off to that shit
Clearly you don't know shit. Just telling people not to jack off. Wtf.
get chemically fucking castrated so they donāt have those desires any more
Also not really how it works.
It's pretty sad that you'd rather see children be abused just for your own righteousness drawings. I think you're the one that needs help here.
lmao fuck off nonce defender.
I feel like people minimize video game violence as if it is any less bad then getting off on a drawing. People minimize the violence in games where we glorify killing people and don't talk about the repercussions of war and the violence - real war with refugees and results of total annihilation like Syria.
War is no joke, violence is no joke, and killing people is just as bad as pedophilia - REAL pedophilia. But just like shooting someone in the head in a video game or burning a village down in a video game doesn't translate to someone in real life wanting to hurt other people, looking at drawings does not mean someone is going to act out on the drawings they see. Fantasies do not equate to hurting others. There are plenty of people out there who have rape fantasies, they may write about it, they may roleplay with their partner, but that does not mean they WANT to be raped or assaulted in real life and it gives no one a license to do that to them against their will. Fantasies are fantasies, that is all they are, and the few sick fucks who act on their fantasies are 100% different from the people who never do.
The sexualization of minors, even in fictional contexts like āloliā content, is where I believe we cross a moral line. Children are a vulnerable and protected group in our society, and any content that even implicitly sexualizes them can contribute to an environment that trivializes or normalizes such exploitation. Itās about maintaining the inviolability and innocence of childhood, a value deeply ingrained in our society.
can contribute to an environment that trivializes or normalizes such exploitation.
Explain how. What does this "normalization" look like? What examples are there?
Itās about maintaining the inviolability and innocence of childhood, a value deeply ingrained in our society.
Yet we're totally fine showing violence to children? Even violence perpetrated on children, as long as it's not sexual? Is this also why you don't support sex ed for children?
I just find it really weird that you can't distinguish fantasy from reality.
I get where youāre coming from with the video games comparison, but weāre talking apples and oranges here. The two just arenāt the same. Violent video games, sure, theyāre a problem, and Iām not a fan of those either, especially when kids are involved. But this loli content? Thatās another level for me.
Weāre dealing with stuff that inherently sexualizes minors, albeit in a fictional realm. When something like this becomes just āanother thingā, a part of everyday life, people may start shrugging off the real-life equivalent too. And thatās what worries me.
Sex education, by the way, isnāt even in the same ballpark. Itās about teaching kids the facts of life, about relationships, about consent. Itās about protection, not exploitation.
As for telling reality from fantasy, most people, sure, they can do that. For me, the lineās pretty clear. Anything that makes it okay to sexualize kids, real or not, thatās a step too far.
undefined> but weāre talking apples and oranges here. The two just arenāt the same.
They're by definition not the same because they're different things, but I don't see why the argument is different.
Violent video games, sure, theyāre a problem
Why are they a problem?
When something like this becomes just āanother thingā, a part of everyday life, people may start shrugging off the real-life equivalent too. And thatās what worries me.
Is there even 1 shred of evidence that this has happened or is even about to happen?
Iāve come across some studies on this stuff. One study I found actually found a connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior in teenagers. Now, it wasnāt a massive correlation, but itās something worth keeping an eye on (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1850198).
As for evidence of normalization, itās tricky. The concept of normalization doesnāt necessarily imply a direct cause-effect relationship, like āXā content led to āYā real-world behavior. Itās more about subtle shifts in societal attitudes over time. Itās challenging to directly measure these shifts, but there are sociological studies that suggest media consumption can influence perceptions and attitudes.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22223200_Living_With_Television_The_Violence_Profile)
So, my concerns about Loli arenāt pulled out of thin air. Itās about the potential shift in our societal attitudes towards child exploitation. Itās not easy to put hard numbers on these effects, but given what we know about the impact of media, I think we should avoid it.
undefined> Itās more about subtle shifts in societal attitudes over time.
Has there been any evidence whatsoever that society has gotten more permissive with regard to being sexually active with actual children?
So, my concerns about Loli arenāt pulled out of thin air.
But you just described how there's no evidence.
but given what we know about the impact of media, I think we should avoid it.
Lol what? That's not how any of this works. We should only be banning things that we can actually say are harmful.
Keep moving the goal post.
In case no one got the memo the world is run by pedophiles and human traffickers. Top politicians, entertainment industry, corrupt judges, bankers, the elite. Our entire world is morally questionable. I'm just not going to get worked up over fake children in fake worlds, when there are real children being hurt who need my outrage more.
As a side note, do video games normalize violence? Because if we are going to use the argument that people looking at drawings normalizes and endorses harmful desires then we really need to have the discussion about video game violence.
I'd rather them not fucking jack it to anything resembling children you fucking imbecile.
I would also rather you not glorify blowing anyone up/putting a bullet in someone's head who resembles a real human being in addition to people not jacking off to someone resembling a child.
They are not just drawings. They are admissions of a crime.
What crime exactly? Is grand theft auto admission of a crime?
Jacking it to anything that resembles a child is illegal in a lot of places you fucking moron. Indulging nonces in any way is morally fucking wrong.
So is being gay. So while you're right, some countries have banned visual depictions with no victim, it's not a crime here and I'm not interested in places where it is.
Fuck off comparing paedos to gay people you abhorrent cunt.
Unclutch your pearls and read my comment again. If you think I'm comparing pedophiles to gay people that's telling on you buddy.
What's really telling is you not being interested in places where you can't jack it to images of children lmao
What does that even mean? I'm not on lemmynsfw at all. But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion. I also don't do drugs but I don't think drugs should be illegal or are morally wrong.
@Falmarri, I agree with a lot of your points. I don't think it is that there can't be opinions separate from the norm, but that pedophilia is a very sensitive and painful topic - and anything that reminds people of something that is that painful will trigger namecalling, rage and illogical conversations that just go nowhere because there is that much emotion involved. I would be somewhat caught off guard if people as a whole weren't emotional about it. I know as a survivor of SA, who has been receiving treatment for PTSD since I was in single digits, that the conversation is a difficult one for a lot of people, myself included. I strongly feel based on my work trying to prevent SA and supporting survivors, that there are things for me to be angry about in this world...a person wanking off on a drawing, who NEVER offends, is not something I am going to get worked up over.
IMHO People are going to have fantasies. But there is a very big difference between having a fantasy and acting on those fantasies, and most of society cannot see that difference, or the hypocrisy when they make their arguments. To say that a rape fantasy or game violence is somehow not as abhorrent as fantasizing with someone underage. Really? That disconnect to me is disgusting and vile, that people would honestly argue that even looking at a drawing of someone underage is evil (which in their rightful opinion is), but a bullet to the brain, or assaulting a cop in a video game before hijacking a vehicle isn't equally sick. At that point their argument loses a lot of merit for me, and I have to work really hard to listen.
To say that a rape fantasy or game violence is somehow not as abhorrent as fantasizing with someone underage. Really? That disconnect to me is disgusting and vile, that people would honestly argue that even looking at a drawing of someone underage is evil
I think you're bringing a lot of your own judgement and assumptions here. A drawing of "someone" underage, meaning a specific person, certainly is much more problematic. But in the fantasy loli world, my understanding is often the characters are written in such a way that they can consent. Because they're written by adults for adults. Yes it's the "3000 year old dragon in the body of a child" argument, but is that really a bad argument? If in the fantasy world they really are an adult that can consent, is that not all that matters? Sure it's weird that they're drawn in a style that vaguely resembles a child, but if you seriously look at most anime and think attraction to that necessarily translates to the real world, I'm not sure what to tell you. I'm not that into anime, but I am a furry. And I can tell you that attraction to anything drawn really has no meaningful translation to real life.
I also know that many people fantasize about being the loli in these types of porn. The same way people fantasize about being raped.
but a bullet to the brain, or assaulting a cop in a video game before hijacking a vehicle isnāt equally sick.
I'm not sure. I guess I find it hard to say murder or assaulting a child is worse than the other, depending on the circumstances.
It's still a depiction of CP. Changing the medium doesn't change the definition.
Engaging with this content is engaging with CP, fictional or not.
Except it's not. Is furry porn bestiality? Is a drawing of a drugs possession of drugs? Can a drawing murder? There's no child, so it can't be child porn.
Do you not play video games where you kill anyone? Engaging in that is murder, fictional or not.
go to https://kbin.social/d/lemmynsfw.com and hit the block button if you don't want posts from there in your feed
that's good advice for those who might be bothered by legal nudity or are in a place where it's inapproprate to view it, but if people filter by subscriptions then it shouldn't be much of a muchness. for example i haven't subscribed to any communities on that instance and the only times i see their posts is when people on other instances link to them. once this place picks up enough traffic for people to no longer watch the all page then that problem will go away
agreed. lol much of a muchness
swordfish...
Just because we've decentralized doesn't mean we should start accepting pedophiles.
... nobody's saying that we should tho?