how do you respond to this without sounding mad
'It's AU where she is 16'
>>7242506That's my own original character, Blilda
skill issue.
>>7242506That's some automated classification ridiculousness.Which one could use to springboard one's profile, redrawing her when she's 90 (same outfit) and post wherever you can.
don't engage with aislop websites
>>7242506So it begins...
>>7242506"Aight, I post it on Pixiv then."
>>7242506just appeal and use a disclaimer that says "all characters depicted are 18+" bro
>DeviantAISLOP
>>7242506Is gore okay?
I was under the impression that the protags from black/white were 18
>>7242506Nice hands OP.
>>7242576kek
>>7242576thisshow us her hands OP
>>7242576You DO know how to draw hands, right OP?
>>7242532>BeginsIt beens like this since 2014. Ten years ago
>>7242608i saw lots of people drawing thicc and nude hilda on dA before the 2016 elections
>>7242608Shadman got popular due to the degenerate as fuck art he posted on deviantartshit aint like that anymore
>>7242506Remove all your art from DA and post a notice with your Pixiv link.
shes an adult now
>>7242971She never existed. It all comes to that.
>>7242506Just draw a shitty drivers license that says they're 18 and post it in the corner of every piece of sexual work.What are they going to do, say that the fictional drivers license for the fictional character they're trying to protect means nothing?
>>7242984ima try this this better work
>my version is 18simple as
>>7242509I've always wondered about the legality of this.Lets say someone host their site in Nigeria for example, where the age of consent is 11.Can they post what they want, or is there some kind of international internet law?I'm sure the loli general has asked this
>>7243086It's not that complicated. A website will follow the laws their domain provider abides by. The servers would have to be hosted in Nigeria for Nigeria's laws to apply to the server. It's why so many online gambling casinos are hosted in Malta and that area of the world.
>>7242506>becoming a pedophile has changed from liking people with child proportions to liking people with adult proportionsHOW THE FUCK DID IT END UP THIS BAD
>>7243088Yeah, but that doesn't mean you can always sign up for those sites. I'm not sure about now, but they used to be region locked, or at worst, your bank wouldn't honor their transactions. But I mean I guess with crypto that's a work around, but still, they are applying their rules.Maybe it's changed, I haven't tried to gamble online for about 8 years
>>7243092Concern trolling has never been about the niggers or the women or the kids. It's always about how much power they can wrestle out of you by calling you buzzwords you don't wish to be called by.
>>7242506The Pokémon protagonists don't actually have any canonical age in the games, even though their counterparts in other media usually does
>>7243086Those types of definition aren't determined by age of consent, even in places where age of consent is lower than 18 it's still illegal for minors to do pornAnd in countries that don't have specific laws against cp pornography in general is illegal
>>7242506Dear Deviantart,I fully understand your decision and will be re-uploading this piece shortly under a different name claiming it's a different character.It will be called "My new OC cosplays as Hilda from pokemon with a really fat ass" specifically. I hope you look forward to it!//Chad
>>7242506Your fault for still using Deviantart after all the stupid bullshit they've done kver the years
>>7243282>It will be called "My new OC cosplays as Hilda from pokemon with a really fat ass" specifically.Kind of makes it easier for them to find and delete, no?
>>7243319Can't you readIt's his adult OC COSPLAYING as Hilda from Pokemon
DeviantArt is run by actual Jews now.
>>7243081nobody cares about your headcanon
>>7242509>>7242512>>7242562>>7242616>>7242630>>7242971>>7242978>>7242984>>7243081>>7243154Not how it works. Their actual policy is retardedly-strict. I screencapped the relevant portion but here is the full article:https://www.deviantartsupport.com/kb/en/article/what-is-deviantarts-policy-regarding-the-age-of-fictional-characters-in-mature-or-explicit-artAlso of note, you can't simply have underage characters existing, non-interacting, in fetish/mature art. That means your "muscle mommies playing volleyball with a nip-slip" may end up verboten if you have some kid in the background staring at them slack-jawed with too much emphasis. Some guy who does giant lolis (as in, godzilla-sized) had some picture where his loli OC is staring in a window removed for the same reason. Obvious fetish art.Shit's all retarded but you can kind of get around it for media characters by just not indicating/tagging who they are. It drives down views a touch, but dA's system is entirely based on user reports.Yes that means that any time some artists are screaming about getting banned, it means some retard with nothing better to do went around on a crusade.>>7243282The only line of logic that might actually work but would require some indication it's a cosplay in the image itself unfortunately.>>7243092>>7243343>>7242608Longer even. People who were born when that rule was made are able to vote. It's just entirely enforced via reporting and people didn't used to give as much of a shit. If you draw less-popular characters there's a chance it can stay up for forever.It's kind of ironic since dA is heavily built on fanart, but the dumbfuck rules actually encourage OC work way more than places like twitter.
fictional characters are FICTIONAL. they can't consent or actually have sex.
>>7242506gg ez
>>7243455>Give the character massive fucking tits, child birthing hips, and a big fat ass>"It's still the same child like design"Fuck off.Meanwhile they still probably host so much sonic and mlp smut that's far more dangerous to children than a fat tittied poke' girl.
>>7243455im so tired man
>>7243455And all this because one of Jeffrey Epstein's party buddies and billionaire got called online and intead of hiding like the others, decided to start a crusade to clear his name.It'll past though, eventually, they're losing money and capitalism had no room for morals, only (barely) legality.
>>7243616>speaks only in vague termsWhich person?>shoehorns in "muh capitalism" at the endOh I see, attributing your malaise to vagueness is the only way you can cope since it means never needing to address anything concretely or solve personal problems.Newsflash: The US Government has been interfering with various forms of legitimate business in order to crush competition for a long time. The 2 most recent big efforts are Operation Choke Point and its replacement SESTA/FOSTA. OCP ratcheted up the financial risk for a laundry list of things, the majority of which are outlined in the "you can't do this" list paypal has in their TOS. SESTA/FOSTA is what killed Craigslist's Backpage and caused Pornhub to have to scrub a whole ton of user-content away, due to the risk to the sites such BS imposed.dA's shitty rules predate all this but I'm sure they were given legal advice to instill said policies because of similar bullshit in the 2000s that didn't make as much noise.
>>7242506Oh hi allbeatnig, i thought you hanged yourself already.
>>7243677go kill yourself first retarded bitch nigger
>>7243616I think its foolish to assume laws regarding this aren't going to change. Public sentiment against drawings is growing daily, its once again being riled up thanks to the Mr. Beast tranny situation. People are more focused on the drawings and "loli" in general than him actually grooming a kid.I get being upset about Shad drawing a real persons kid, dude went well beyond the line with that, but anything fictional I feel is pure posturing, but is definitely changing public opinion
>>7243672>muh daddy billionaires and their monopolies are defending us against the ebil gubernmint
>>7243685The arguments against it are also solidifying to be honest.The baseline logic of anti-loli/shota tards, if they don't block immediately, is always a circular loop of>It's weird.With no further elaboration. Even in another thread on here someone refused to explain what the fuck he meant by that. It's like arguing against creationists.My own observation led me to the conclusion that these kinds of people are paranoid of actual-pedos, are of the "willing to throw 9 innocent men in jail if it catches 1 pedo" type of authoritarian, and are struggling against the reality that there's no way to determine if someone is only an actual pedophile without evidence of their participation in CSAM or (god forbid) actually touching of a child.It's the same mental state as someone playing fucking Amongus.
>>7242506How did California get to determine AoC for the entire world?
>>7243535Yeah, its also those disgusting furry deviants who most cry out about 'pedo artists' when they draw the most degenerate shit ever
>>7243761Individual power is most important in the face of stupid government-sanctioned monopolies which lock out competitors (this includes private via corruption, nationalized, and oligarchical/fascistic party-controlled industries). 90% of the time this is all because some people just want to be able to delegate massive aspects of their lives to be handled by the government "for free." France keeps doing this and then gets mad when people they give power to abuse it.>>7243768Unimportant for the topic. Age of consent doesn't apply to objects. You can build a life-sized card captor sakura doll with onahole built in and this isn't (and shouldn't) be illegal. The same applies to drawings.
>>7243762Yeah, I'm not a lolicon myself, but I'm rather indifferent to it. I just don't look at the art. But I am quite concerned about the growing sentiment of anime girls and actual pedophilia being the same thing.The weirdos who cannot separate fiction from reality will be in charge one day soon. Its not going to be good for artistic expression to say the least. Even if you think this only applies to porn/hentai art, laws like that would absolutely extend beyond as most of the time its left to interpretation.
>>7243455>It's on YOU to watch all 25 seasons of Pokemon and find legal Dawn.
>>7243092you must be new
>>7243778They really won't be in charge. They struggle to maintain positive interactions and generally will be stuck in lower positions due to their inability to regulate their emotions.
>>7243781I do genuinely think him, and people like him contributed to this.
>>7243781>It's the youthful faaaaaace!
>>7243762>>7243781>>7243786It's so tiresome
>>7243777>stupid government-sanctioned monopoliesThe government does not originate this idea, people inside the government are corrupted by capitalistic interference. Billionaires who feel treated unfairly because other billionaires are allegedly treated better will not advance the causes of normal people. It's a cruel joke that we live in a time where people like you sympathize with the richest people who have captured whole industries. Their individual power does not equal our individual power.
>>7243799>What matters is how you feel about it.Ah there it is.
>>7242506>>7243455Seriously why do devaintart even bother to with this policy? What would be the consequences of not having these policies? will FBI come knocking on their door? wouldn't that be a direct violation of the first amendment?>advertisers are turned off by thisthey don't have any issues with horrible companies like nestle and disney. so doubt it. Also no one gives a shit where their money comes from. would openly advertise my pizzeria on porn sites if I could and had a pizzeria, coomers gotta eat too, as long as they have the cash I don't give a shit.
>>7243814It's not advertisers. See >>7243672
>>7243781>a retarded post that people can easily assume as a shitpost or a retarded faggot trolling for attention has now become the reality we live inpoggers
>>7243785You say this, but these people are already seeping into corporate America.
>>7243672>Capitalism has nothing to do with thisLol look at this retard, you think people pay servers because of the kindness of their hearts? As long as it's legal and people want to pay for it the market will find its way.And I think I know what billionaire the other anon is referring to, but I'm not completely sure he's behind this, it just happened at the same time and he tried to somehow claim some merit.
>>7243828I think we're in agreement. The other tard is just ignoring that authoritarian shit is the problem, not the ability to own things and freely transact. And by "authoritarian" I don't just mean people who are power-hungry, but also people who seem to just live to act as simps and servitors, sucking the cock of some big leader they hope will fix their lives (or hurt their enemies) instead of seizing agency for themselves.
>>7243685AI doing "photorealistic" cp and porn pics about celebrities is what's going to justify the crackdown, because the AI weirdos lack any kind of self awareness and seem to be engaged in a collective effort to be the most obnoxious online group, they just can't shut the fuck up or keep a minimum online etiquette.The EU is already preparing a crackdown btw.
>>7243841AI retards being retarded. What else is new?I can understand cracking down on AI images of celebs and AI generated images of kids that you can't even tell whats real. Its a shame that they are absolutely going to extend this into clearly stylized drawings and other such things though. The UN has been tryin to kick down Japan's door for years for loli art, and hell even just ecchi anime.
>>7243837>people who seem to just live to act as simps and servitors, sucking the cock of some big leader they hope will fix their lives (or hurt their enemies) instead of seizing agency for themselvesThis is you, motherfucker.>the ability to own things and freely transactI think every sober real human being knows who is trying to force "free transaction" as a law of nature onto society. It's your authoritarian daddies, bootlicker. Your holy market does not regulate itself, it only puts the most greedy and morally abhorrent people in god-like positions of power. Daddy won't save you dogs.
>>7243799>implications on those who masturbate to the contentOkay should we arrest vanilla porn watchers? who knows maybe one day that is not enough and they go and commit rape.If you play doom or far cry it's an implication that you are a very violent person, one who might commit a massacre one day because someone looked at you wrong.What one person fantasies about doesn't mean anything if they are unable/unwilling to make it real. How many people do you think actually fantasies about beating up their berating boss and actually does it? In all work places I have been to, everyone just talks behind their back how much they hate, insults their bosses or wish to give their hated bosses a good beating, but no one does anything.Seriously what a retard. Then again he use the word "y'all" which implies he is a nigger, so no surprise.
>>7243821zoomzoom
>>7243762Those people are actual pedophiles who think it's wrong to not rape children if you in any way find the concept arousing. They think lolicons are "weird" for being into drawings because drawings aren't real. They view the fact/fiction distinction as delusional and schizophrenic because they can't comprehend the difference.
>it's only coincidence that most school shooters were addicted to violent first-person shooters
https://x.com/allbeatnik?s=21
>>7243867>21+heh but also weh
>>7243866
>>7242506He's like 20 years old with a cock up his ass, I don't know where they invented that he's a minor.
>>7243841>>7243854>porn pics about celebritiesEuro gentry still seething after hundreds of years that the common folk can mock and lust after them. There's nothing unique about this that people haven't been able to do at varying points. Picrel was just one example of people mocking Marie Antoinette. When photography was so bad people edited shit together all the time because it was indistinguishable, and then when digital editing became a thing the doors were thrown open. People have been making "celeb fakes" for decades...>>7243865The best I can tell is that they actually see real crimes as equivalent to fiction, not the other way around. As in, it appears that they view pedos as having an intrinsic nature that makes them evil, rather than them being pedos and bad because of their actions. So when one actually touches a child it's more like >"Aha! Now we have enough evidence to remove you from society, because you have outed yourself as a Bad Person."Rather than>"How could you do this? You have ruined someone's life, and for that you need to be removed from society."
>>7243890Its less the celeb fakes really and more so the indistinguishable CP that I think is the real issue. Deep fakes of celebs and whatever, yeah that sucks but its not on the same level.
>>7243896That part is actually up for debate. Different countries have different laws regarding photorealistic, but fictional art of underage characters. In the US, if it's indistinguishable from an actual child it's illegal due to the combo of it straining law enforcement resources investigating false leads, and this closing a potential loophole where a pedophile might be using an actual child they are exploiting as reference, among other things CSEM peddlers go through to be awful. But I've heard some other countries don't care as long as it's not an actual identifiable child depicted, and there is some argument that it's possible for pedos to not fuel the actual-CSEM smuggling if they have AI fakes to get off on. Of course that wouldn't matter if the pedo is sick enough that they get off on the particularities of actually harming a child.Just two sides of it that I've seen.
>>7243908Yeah, I can understand that.My only issue is coming for clearly fictional characters. Anime art, etc. Its weird and does nothing to help any actual kids who have been harmed by mentally ill fucks and traffickers.
>>7243915This thread made me realize that on some level it's not >people who have difficulty telling the difference between reality and fiction but >people who have difficulty telling the difference between authentic art and propaganda art
>>7243918Elaborate.
>>7243921It's from the "all art is political" school of thought. Part of social constructionism. Meaning every little thing is a fight of competing narratives, and they see any NSFW art as inherently advocating for things depicted within it, making anything unsavory equal to being evil unless it's depicted in a way to blatantly say "this is bad and I am using the depiction as a vehicle to teach you it's bad." I've seen people actually say that things like rape and gore are only fine - in even writing - if it's "clearly not glorifying it," or if they can handwave it as happening to bad people or as vent art.It does make sense as these types tend to get very neurotic over what they draw, stuff their character sheets with labels and buzzwords, and delete things at a moment's notice, even if it gets popular, if they feel like it's not causing the "right effect" for whatever their beliefs are.
>>7243684can't cry about how karu doesn't RT you so you're back here to try to shill yourself again, maldraw?
>>7243933Ah I see. Yeah I've seen those types as well, I've always chalked it up to the in ability to separate fiction from reality, but you may be correct.
>>7242506I can't feel empathy for any deviant art user in the year of our lord 2024.
>>7243942I would agree, but this sentiment is definitely spreading far beyond deviantart.
>>7242506I just hope Nintendo keeps delaying the Black and White remake until the worlds issues with fiction calm back down again.
>>7243841It's not only the CP and the celebrities, is the kids asking ai to x-ray or hotglue their classmates, teachers, sisters, mothers. I kind of understand the impulse behind the crackdown because as for now the only application of AI is producing garbage and commit crimes while wasting humongous amounts of energy... but the EU is going through it's on puritan wave with several countries about to pass laws requiring electronic identification to acces adult sites, and I can see a complete loli ban.
>>7242506people should draw whatever the fuck they want
>>7242506is westernslop immune to this?
>>7242506
>>7242506this one despite looking like a teen, is 20k years oldbut thousand years old vampire lolis are no good
>>7243964>>7243965I just don't get "western" fetishes and how it got like this.Also no its not immune.
>>7243968depending on the style, some western characters can be appealinganimu is much much more appealing, less tranny friendly and hence why it gets attacked that much
>>7243455I'm usually indifferent towards platforms that don't allow loli stuff, I get it and I'll probably just fuck off somewhere where they do but, not even letting clearly aged-up shit in your platform is absolutely bonkers.I'm glad that only AI shitters use that site now.
>>7243455What about "legal lolis" like pic related? She is actually 900 years old(in the manga).
>>7243799I always find lolishitters attempts at their usual tranny-like semantics incredibly pathetic.>"uuuuuuhm pornographic material depicting a child-like person who has the body of a cutting board, a pre-schooler uniform, a randoseru or otherwise very obvious annotations to prepubesency isn't simulating cp..... because [insert semantics here] hehe im sooo hecking witty haha outsmarteded!"Lean body =/= loliYou just know they're into kids because they act and talk like one.Maybe they even think they got more in common with kids than with adults, and that is how they justify going after them.
>>7242506>off model
>>7242506>gets to draw asuka being raped on patreonTypo is based
>>7244060Its also very weird how arbitrarily people are chosen to cancel over it. I love that he keeps drawing Asuka though.
>>724405719 at most
>>7243995>being this mad about loliDo you also detest people into eroguro, quad amputees, ferals, or popping inflation? What about hucow slavery or bleached hentai? Or petrification? How about object TF or flattening?Or does this "what you like in hentai extends to what you actually want to do to a real person" line of logic only apply to loli/shota?How about >>7243890 or >>7243933 , do either of those fit your worldview?
>>7244091>Do you also detest people into eroguro, quad amputees, ferals, or popping inflation? What about hucow slavery or bleached hentai? Or petrification? How about object TF or flattening?and how!
>>7242506da is deadjust upload elsewhere you retardor if you want to upload a cropped version and link to pixiv or another site(if the image still gets taken down just post the link)
>>7243933youre right, politics is fake and morals toowe are all brains in vat who live in isolated bubbleslets all become ai artists uwu>>7244091>eroguro, quad amputees, ferals, or popping inflation? What about hucow slavery or bleached hentai? Or petrification? How about object TF or flattening?i has no idea what most of this means. petrification is fine...i think? but people into violent shit like voluntary amputees are sick in the head and so is the society who is allowing it.
>>7244093You're on the wrong website then faggot.
>>7244112Japan seems to be doin well honestly.
>>7244112You have to be 18+ to use this website
>>7244091>accusing others of being mad>whataboutismoverconsumption of porn has fried your reading comprehensionI don't have a problem with anybody or anything as long as they call things for what they are.I detest dishonest people.
>>7244133Then quit being dishonest.
>>7244134How am i being dishonest? By pointing out that if you jerk off to clear fictional depiction of prepubescent girls, then you're clearly attracted to kids, but you don't agree with it because it would mean admitting to that, which is objectively true?I'm not a fed, we're all friends here.
>>7244136I don't care for loli. But I can tell fiction from reality.
>"i jerk off to extreme accurate depiction of children.... but as anime.">"N-no that doesn't mean i find kids sexually arousing.. because loli is fictional!"Do these niggas believe they're not real themselves or why do they always argue that everything is ok and non-influential to a person as long as whatever they consume is fictional?If you weren't a weirdo in the first place, you wouldn't find shit like that appealing.>>7244143>witty one liner to just shut down any conversationThis is what peak honesty looks like?
>"i jerk off to gay anime porn. NO IM NOT GAY BECAUSE THE GAY PORN I JERK OFF TO IS FICTIONAL! I CANT TELL FICTION FROM REALITY!! CHECKMATE"If the arousal is real and you ejaculate to it, wouldn't that make you real gay?
>>7244144It wasnt a witty one liner. Its just fact.I'm not into loli, but I'm not gonna freak out over it either. And I can see where censoring loli leads down the line.>do these niggasyeah you're a retard.Back to twitter.
>>7244133Not whataboutism, just asking if you apply your "logic" to similar things. IF you don't, it demonstrates that you are inconsistent.I don't subscribe to your logic (heck I don't even like loli), so all those things are equivalently benign.>>7244144You're posting a reply to a thread on a thai lucid dreaming website which features an anime girl whose ass cheeks each are bigger than her torso.Calling someone here "weird" means nothing. This is not twitter.>>7244145There are in fact a nonsignificant amount of dudes who jerk to astolfo hentai and actively dislike irl femboys.
>>7244151>no but MENo one cares about you, faggot.Either stop being unreasonable or shut the fuck up.>>7244152>it's not whataboutism>describes whataboutismYou're testing the messenger in an attempt to discredit his previous arguments.That's whataboutism.>Calling someone here "weird" means nothing. This is not twitter.Are you fucking offended or what? I don't care.The point is that if you're attracted to something, whether it's fictional or not, it still has to do something with YOU.>There are in fact a nonsignificant amount of dudes who jerk to astolfo hentai and actively dislike irl femboys.Ok? Jerking off to gay porn still makes you gay.Saying others to go back to twitter but behaving like virtue signaling trannies i.e.>"UHM AKSHUALLY IM NOT A MURDERED BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE KILLING THAT PERSON. HEHE fucking OWNED!"What the fuck is wrong with you?
>>7244156>Either stop being unreasonable or shut the fuck up.Back to twitter.
>jerk off to anime scat>someone calls me a shit eater>tell them i only jerk off to fictional scat so they're wrong and i dont even like scat in the first place>accuse them of actually being Croprophobic>epic own them
>>7244161>twitter.com
Where the hell should artists post their shit now?Dont say pixiv im not gonna pixelate my art because the nips are uppity about it
>>7244163The west is nuking pixiv anyway.
>>7244163If you hate censorship so much why don't you post your art irl?
>>7243995>>7244133>>7244136>>7244144>>7244145>>7244156>>7244161Shut the fuck up Kyle, we know your kind! You are just projecting and trying to feel better about your own disgusting behavior!BTW any luck on finding a lawyer that can weasel you out of your child porn possession charges?
>NO U!!!Ok, Kris.
>>7243995>"uuuuuuhm pornographic material depicting a child-like person who has the body of a cutting board, a pre-schooler uniform, a randoseru or otherwise very obvious annotations to prepubesency isn't simulating cp..... because [insert semantics here] hehe im sooo hecking witty haha outsmarteded!not the argument he's making, are you a ESL or just a typical Zoomer with horrible reading comprehension. TheDudeParone talks about how being a lolicon have some implications of you, which he tries to frame like they are destined to abuse a child sooner or late. which >>7243861 debunks.>>7244156>The point is that if you're attracted to something, whether it's fictional or not, it still has to do something with YOU.And that is a problem because? you are attracted to women or/and men which carries the implications that you might try rape a man or woman under the right circumstances. You also play GTA which implies you have a deep desire to commit crimes. from this we can draw the conclusion that you are a nigger and a danger to society.
>keeps making dishonest arguments>keeps being unreasonableWhy do anyone jerk off to loli? Because they're into it.Simple as.Stop trying to argue around it like the jewish rat you are.No one buys that.
>>7244200Yes, they are into loli. No ones arguing they aren't.
>>7244156>That's whataboutism.Whataboutism is when you say "But X is worse, why don't you care about X?">You're testing the messenger in an attempt to discredit his previous arguments.Yes. Because your argument means shit if it's just baseless. Now if you had the same principle attached to everything else, it would mean something. Speaking of->it still has to do something with YOU.What is that "something"? What the fuck does this mean? I have seen not just you but OTHER people say this shit and never qualify it, never explain it. Never expound on what the accusation of being weird or "it says something" or so on means. Because from my perspective it has some meaning to the people saying it, but I am not of the same fucking subculture you and the other cunts that have said this are from, and so it has no meaning to me.>Jerking off to gay porn still makes you gay.Not if you're not attracted to real human flesh and blood dudes.>"UHM AKSHUALLY IM NOT A MURDERED BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE KILLING THAT PERSON. HEHE fucking OWNED!"Are you ok? NSFW art isn't a poor subsitute for actual sex lmao it's a fucking hobby. There are couples who enjoy hentai together.If you want to make comparisons to insufferable people I could point out how you're basically just rewording the old feminazi talking points about "hentai is objectification of women" but in a more abrasive way and somehow only applying it to loli/shota art.>>7244200People can coom over things that don't exist without it extending to real life. Why do you think some people get off to pokemon skitty feral art but don't see actual cats as attractive?
>>7244057>>7244078could easily be a woman in her 20s. maybe your brains have been fried to think all women have fat asses and balloon titties. Women with a more slim figure is not hard to find. pic is amy thunderbolt cosplaying as that character, she was 24 when the picture was taken.
>>7244204I always thought that was Sarah Fong.Weird. Good Hilda though. Best Pokegirl.
>>7244204Isn't the reference character underaged though?
>>7244206Bro sees anime girl with fat ass and huge tits. first thought is to check the wiki and see if shes old enough to consent. Amazing.You gonna e-mail the artist and ask him to draw her saying "yes anon, I consent." if the artist decides that she is of age?
>>7244203>Whataboutism is when you say "But X is worse, why don't you care about X?">>You're testing the messenger in an attempt to discredit his previous arguments.>Yes. Because your argument means shit if it's just baseless. Now if you had the same principle attached to everything else, it would mean something. Speaking of-Gotta love when dishonest niggas out themselves and they don't even notice.>rest of the post is argument from ignorance and retardation and schizophrenia>"HEHE YOU THOUGHT YOU HAD ME??!?!? BUT WHAT IF I FEIGN IGNORANCE AND CALL YOU STUPID??!?! CHECKMATE"How come calling loli as what it is always warrants this much inane damage control?>UHM AKSHUALLY EVERYTHING IS A-OK IF FICTIONALOk lolishitter.
>>7244203>People can coom over things that don't exist without it extending to real life. Why do you think some people get off to pokemon skitty feral art but don't see actual cats as attractive?Someone should fictionally shoot you.
>>7244208>niggasYou have got to be 14 years old.
>>7244210lurk moar, melaninius
>>7244212Ive been here longer than you've been alive, faggot.
>>7244208>dishonestI legitimately am asking you what the fuck going >weirdo>it has to do something with YOUmeans. This is not arguing from ignorance, this is me asking you to explain, clearly and plainly, what it is supposed to actually mean.If you can't be bothered to explain it then you might as well stop posting. I'm too fucking tired and autistic to play "guess what vague moral judgement I'm levying against you" with a normie or potential sociopath.
>>7244213>"iM oLdFag">has a problem with wordsNow, aren't you going to say how i should go back to xyz because i use reaction images?>>7244215>UHM IF YOU CANT AGREE WITH ME WHEN I DO NOTHING BUT INSERT MY OWN SCHIZOPHRENIA INTO ARGUMENTS WHILE BEING COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE MAYBE YOU'RE WRONG>HEHE CHECKMATEDo you like slurping up your own cum? Seems like you do, you bot.
>>7244218>twitter.com
>hey i jerk off to furry porn>oh you must be a furry if you jerk off to furry porn>NO WTF I DONT FILL ALL VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIAS TO BE CONSIDERED A FURRY LIKE GOING TO CONVENTIONS AND GROOMING KIDS ON DISCORDS AND THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS IM A FURRY FOR JERKING OFF TO FURRY PORN!! FUCK YOU YOURE A FURRY FUCK YOU! checkmate!completely sane reasoningnot that any of your computer generated posts will understand any of this shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd8vzIRQLLM>average porn addict
>>7244224>"I ejaculate to loli but masturbate with my own hand! I'm not a lolicon!"
>>7244206according to official Pokemon lore? yes.It's fiction however and can be anything you want. with that body can easily be passed as an woman in her early 20s.let me guess if she clearly looked like a loli but official lore stated that she was 20, you would still cry underage due to clear appearance? make up your fucking mind should we go by appearance or official lore? you guys always complain about the 1000 year dragon loli argument, yet bitch and moan how people are pedos for finding Yoko Littner attractive. Who is 14 according to lore but build like an voluptuous woman. since when did any 14 year old look like Yoko Littner?
>>7244209They have, plenty of times. In videogames and RPGs - and potentially someone has written a story where I die in such a way, if I pissed them off enough. Fiction is amazing,>>7244218All these words and still no explanation of what your accusation is supposed to mean.>>7244222The definition of a pedophile is someone who has an attraction to actual children and has or is at risk of touching a real child.The equivalent is calling an AI artist a "painter" over and over again when both pro- and anti-ai people will tell you that they're not painting at all, and then going>Oh yea then why does the picture look painted??
>>7244168real life censors everythingisnt that's why the internet is a thing?
>if it looked like a loli then you would say its a loli, uh? fucking checkmateHoly mental illnessIf you ain't farming (you)s you should consider suicide, fictionally though>>7244235>and what your accusationAccusation? All i ever said that if you jerk off to loli, you must be a lolicon.What is so untrue about that statement that it warrants so many bad faith arguments to disassociate loli porn consumers from what they are?>akshuall a pedophile is someone who is attracted to children>makes retarded analogySo, don't lolis abstractly reflect or portray children? >b-b-b-but it's fictionalOk? You're still jerking off to a depiction of a child.This is an objective and true statement. Why do you fight it?Why do you need to introduce boogeymen and strawmen about feminazis and puritans and whatever the fuck you can come up with to try and discredit anything others have to say?It don't make logical sense.
>>7244218>>7244222>>7244208>When your IQ is around 85man niggers truly lack abstract thinking>>7244235he cannot explain because those opinions are not his own. they have been groomed into him by public school. now he's brain short-circuit and he goes on full damage control since he cant comprehend the idea of the opposition having a point.
>>7244232>>7244235Its pretty clear the dudes trolling at this point. He was literally posting to himself for a bit there.>>7244243Couldn't rotate an apple in his mind if he tried.
>>7244243>>7244244Please do keep going.Lolisisters, we are so winning and owning puritans rights now.
>>7244239nigger did you miss >>7244202 or are you intentionally ignoring it to maintain your narrative of lolicons?
>>7244248The latter.
>>7244248>they are into loli>so they like children?>NO WTF FUCKING PURITANSYou kiss women and suck dicks but you're not gay?
>>7244252
>>7244238Sure, but most people deserve to get shot on sight or beaten the mental illness out of themfictionally and in minecraft though ;)))))
>>7243092It became just numbers, if not that, mental state. So as long as a 50 year old women felt like they been "manipulated", bye bye men. It's going out of hand.Mental state makes sense for teenagers, not adults. At that point it's your fault for not pursuing how to become a proper mature adult.
>>7243092when obama stopped being president the retard circus was released to the public and it infected everyone with mental retardation
>>7243970>anime>less trannyAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
>>7243970>anime>less tranny friendlyIs this gaslighting still going on?trannies just hate the truthCall them porn addicts and groomers and see them squirm into oblivion
>>7244267>stoppedI don't know. The more I look back on it, now that I'm old enough to really be more aware of shit, he stoked a lot of it.>>7244270We were here before the mentally ill.
>>7244271You are the mentally ill, nigger.
>>7244272I have no desire to cut off my penis.
>>7244274You cut the penis inside your soul.
Wasnt loli general made to keep away this obnoxious closeted pedos from everybody?
>>7243970there are infinitely more trannies and crossdressers in anime/manga than western cartoons and comics
>>7243814>advertisersIt's the consumers. Consumers don't give a shit if nestle literally kills children, they manage to sweep it under the rug and force people to not talk about it, because it's something nestle is doing and can manage the information about it, but if someone finds out you're advertising on a platform that allows people to post "questionable" content, consumers will riot and crusade against you for financially supporting pedophiles or some shit, and the only thing you, as a company can do, is to control what people can post in those platforms you decide to advertise on. This is more specific to credit card companies, (that essentially rule the entire internet, without them, you can't make money), and not necessarily advertisement, but the point is the same. The only way I can somehow see a fix to this is a widespread sensitization campaign about fiction and freedom of speech, even in porn, but some people, high up, don't want that, they want the masses to fight each other in useless battles.
>>7244399lmao what a fucking retard
>>7243762>Throw 9 innocent men into jail if it meant catching 1 actual pedo.This is pretty much what's tiresome with all of these prude nonsense. Like holy shit why spend so much energy getting angry over a cause. Real investigators are actually catching that 1 actual pedo, you don't have to waste everyone else's time with your twitter tirade for the rest of the 9.
>>7243841>>7243854Why is AI images against celebs such a problem? I know the whole Taylor Swift thing actually ruffled feathers in the government but why the fuck do they care? Why are they simping over these court jesters?
>>7244515politician porn made them buttmad and pretend it's some women's struggle while ignoring the trump porn
>>7244269>>7244270we are talking about sexualized designsthey unironically feel moe threatened by OP pic than this>>7243970 >>7243966 >>7243965 >>7243964
>>7244533yes anon, cute overload is a thing but that doesn't only target trannies, it triggers low IQ individuals i.e. small amygdala (low in consciousness/npcs)Same reason why most often than not the same type of people confuse finding something cute with sexual arousal. They can't tell the difference because that would require the ability of introspection and critical thinking, which amygdalalets cannot physically posses.cant find the imagehave pic related instead
>>7244210Either a lot of black retards are starting to enter this site/twitter as of late, or zoomer whitoid kids are starting to copy how they talk. Eitherway it's obnoxious and needs to stop.
>>7244528>muh AI porn>muh cartoon porn of toddlers>muh jerking off to random people on the streetyou sick incels need to be removed from societysince you clearly dont want to live in society
>>7244399>It's the consumersNo it isn't, it's the US Government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Pointhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOSTA-SESTA
I keep saying furry is the future. No one will care about the age of consent if it's an animal. The depravity of wanting to fuck animals nullifies any other potential moral debate. You're already the lowest of the low. It's a loophole in the system. What are they gonna do, arrest you for bestiality? You guys better get a head start now before the thought crime reaches its peak.
>>7244528>VAWAaaaaaaaaahahahahahalmao
>>7244835It happens rarely, but sometimes the government works for the people.>>7244958Bestiality is outlawed everywhere and it only makes sense to outlaw the promotion of bestiality too. Pedos-in-denial have lost.
>>7244996it's not even illegal in all the states, let alone "everywhere"
>>7244958Except didn't the biggest furry site just ban that stuff?
>>7244996>sometimes the government works for the peopleAdmitting you didn't read the links and are too young to have remembered the opposition to FOSTA-SESTA means your opinion is shit.>promotion of bestialityTERFs and Proglodytes are two sides of the same tie-dyed pixiecut overweight coin
>>7245035They banned "young-looking humanoids" which netted ralts and kirlia in the collateral damage, but cub is still allowed.You can still post art of an elf woman with huge tits slobbering on shota cock or a big burly orc wearing that rabbit loli from Made in Abyss as a condom. It's so fucking silly but the problem is it opens the door for further content bans down the line.
>>7245043>shota cockMeant furry shota cock*
>>7245035"human" stuff.
>>7244958Disney probably quietly went to Congress and told them how much money they could tax off furry commissions.
>>7243397Can one not draw aged up characters?
>>7245035Is e621 really the biggest? Everything furry they have is on FA.
>>7242506>deviant art user>draws fanservice of minors>can't draw hands>can't read toslol, get fucked.
>>7245228Exactly, what did that perma /beg/ retard allbeatnik expect? He made this thread to bitch about the consequences. Hope his twitter gets nuked next
>>7244204dressing like a fictional minor, what a sick pervert
>>7245228>>7245232Not that anon, that that you'll believe me I guess, but I don't really see what some twitterfag shilling himself has to do with this growing sentiment that the anime girl can't consent.
>>7244958No. Furries is choke full of prudes.
>>7245100dA has a very aggressive stance on it, as explained here >>7243455
>>7245345Hilda was 14 in 2010. She's 28 now.If "aging her up" is not valid then we can't draw anyone because everyone was underage at some point. And of course this bullshit doesn't apply to flat, skinny adult women. We can't draw them either because they're "loli coded".All because we let women vote and now they're trying to destroy human sexuality by supporting troons and criminalizing the fact that men feel attracted to young, fertile women not barren hags that wasted their 20's and 30's wageslaving.
>>7245370Your entire rant is retarded and plays into fuckwits' dumb logic.Fictional characters don't have human ages, because they are objects.Simple as.
>>7245345Their site is losing relevancy yet this is what they chose to focus on? I found a bunch of bugs in their system like you can't select multiple messages in notes and archive/delete/group them, and surely there's a bunch of functional issues with their site. But oh noes, those poor drawings!
>>7245370No, you're just an incel whose brain got fried by the algorithms.>>7245372>Fictional characters don't have human ages, because they are objects.They are representations of reality, symbols that are standing in for something real.
>>7245372Exactly. Fictional characters aren't protected by the law. I thought it was already over when DA was actively promoting AI garbage, and now they do this shit. I'd rather pixelate vaginas on pixiv than posting on deviantart
>>7245384Pixiv is gradually shifting to the same thing thanks to western Credit Card companies denying them payments if they don't comply.Japan seriously needs to get their own payment systems or credit cards. Card companies should not be dictating what people can and can't purchase. They are there to facilitate the purchase, and it seems that they have completely forgotten that.
>>7245382>woman logiclmao get wrecked, the only one not getting what they want is you
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copycat_suicide#History>Pedos will still tell you that their bodies dematerialise and become fictionalised when they are fapping to fiction
>>7245389They literally banned western payment processors. All the lolisho content is still there you just got filtered for being a filthy gaijin.
>>7245394there are retards who'd call you pedo for dating a girl half your heightfiction is fiction, it might be morally incorrect for some, but it's not illegalcope
>>7245405Short, slim, young, beautiful girls CAN'T BE LOVED OR HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS what don't you understand you fucking chud! You have to date ugly old feminists or you're a PEDO!
>>7245395Last I checked those rules were shifting.Good that they banned western payment processors.I also barely use that site, but good attempt at making aggressive assumptions on someone who probably agrees with you I guess.>>7245405>but it's not illegalYet. Till these screechers take positions of power anyway.
>>7245409>Yet. Till these screechers take positions of power anyway.Then all porn should be illegal as well. The girl isn't consenting to you masturbating to her video. If we are blurring the lines between reality and fiction, fictional women and kids shouldn't appear anywhere. There are burka fetishists, anyone can get off to anything, nothing is safe
>>7245377>>7245384That policy has been in place for 15+ years, they just have no reason to roll it back and only recently reworded it slightly to make it more clear. Shit sucks. I wish they would remove it but it is what it is.>>7245382Anon not everyone is an incel or - worse - a hookup addict who is using porn as a substitute for when you can't get laid. Stop projecting your maladaptive coping onto other people.Honestly you would get less mad if you just accepted that a lot of people are - allowing a concession to place myself into your perspective - mentally ill in that they want to fuck drawings, to the point a decent chunk are repulsed by real flesh and blood humans.There's a reason lots call IRL women "3DPD" - 3D Pig Disgusting.>>7245415Oh they get even more retarded than that, picrel.If someone says "I think people should be free to do X" but also says "I think it causes harm" with that logic, then they're just wanting freedom for themselves til they can gain power.
>>7245418Pic proving >>7245407 right lmao. Women are so fucking vapid and worthless.
>>7245418>Drawing "sexy" women harms all women who are not "sexy"holy mental illness what the fuckthat's 100% a trannoid
>>7245432Nah, it's a femcel. They have it so retardedly easy all they have to do to fuck is spread their legs, but they exclusively want the 0.01% of men and lash out on everyone else for not getting what they want and don't deserve. Art can't exist because Chad won't pamper her and her alone. Fucked up pos.
>twitter retards will cry about thisgood, let them cry and seethe
>>7245460I wish I understood how to draw good sweat. Why is the highlight and shadow for the droplets on the same side
>>7245487rim light and ambient occlusionalso, rule of cool
>>7245487Put that image in your ref folder then, as well as this one.You... do keep a reference folder organized by kind of reference (such as materials-textures for this one), right anon...?
>>7244399Even posting adult content on social media can be ruled as illegal, hence why a platform like twitter has to shadowban and deboost nsfw accounts.The depiction of what can be clearly ruled as being children in adult/lewd situations is against federal law.Porn isn't protected under freedom of speech.Porn will never be good for you and the ever increasing porn consumption can directly be linked to the decline of our current society.You fags are this relentless about doing mental gymnastics so you can get 5 bucks for a commission and normalize even more abnormal fetishes.I was right about the government trying to get involved into the banning of adult material; i will be right if i say that if retards keep pushing to normalize fetishes involving even fictional kids, you will start seeing pornographers getting dragged out their houses by cartels.Uh, actually, this would eliminate all the brown 3rd world pornfags undercutting prices and spamming the internet with cheap shonen porn.Maybe you should be relentless.
>>7245512>Even posting adult content on social media can be ruled as illegalNot if you have a wall that says you must be 18+ to enter the site. Twitter also prevents minors from unticking the sensitive content filter, as does dA.>The depiction of what can be clearly ruled as being children in adult/lewd situations is against federal law.Incorrect, has to be indistinguishable from a real child.Obscenity laws are extremely wishy-washy, likely unconstitutional, and the fed has pared back to rarely invoke them (save as an additional layer on top of people being charged with tangible, victimizing sex crimes,) because the moment they are the primary charge the ACLU and EFF are going to throw their weight in to get them finally removed for good.>Porn isn't protected under freedom of speech.It indeed is protected, just as hate speech is. Plenty of legislation going back to when Al Goldstein of Screw Magazine and Rene "The Best Artist" Moncada fought to keep and cement porn as legal back in the 80s.>normalizeOh, one of those. See >>7245039 >remainder of the post is some schizo fantasy about mexicansPleas ser u must wait for ur turn for work visa u r not incompetition with mexico, india has its own quota
>>7245490Do you mean rim light for the "light reflection" highlights or rim "light" shadows? AA makes sense I think though now I'm confused why it isn't on the left side, maybe because the light shining past the highlight into the sweat is strong enough in that direction to remove it from that side? Idk I love the sharp lines for the anatomy such as around the heel/toes with appropriate softness in areas like where the legs crease into the torso (big inspiration for improving my line weights) or the lips/face outline. Based picture.>>7245499I don't because usually the styles are painterly and I'm trying to do clean cut cel shading style. This fucks me out of a lot of YT tutorials too. Should I start anyway?
>>7245520Can you show loli porn to a judge and jury and convince them it doesn't look like a child?
>>7245522As long as you understand the play of light and shadow you can turn it into cel shading by reducing the gradient to hard transitions.>>7245533Yea it's pretty easy. The judge always give the jury instructions that they must follow the the wordings of the laws the charges are under and so on and so forth.I'm also the wrong person to place in that position because I don't take settlements or plea bargains, and I know precisely who to contact (for mutual benefits in overturning shitty laws) in the event I am targeted with judicial harassment.
>>7245543>yeah its pretty easy>but im also the wrong person>i know peopleI accept your concession.
>>7245546I'll try to reexplain it to your midwit IQ:If someone wants to targetted-harass me via abuse of the legal system (trying to get me charged with crimes I didn't commit) because of drawing some anime characters, I will be able to win so hard that the vague laws get either overturned, or at least severely limited thanks to setting precedent. Because I know I can contact the ACLU and EFF for assistance. Those two groups who are VERY interested in getting those laws overturned, and would be willing to back me up with lawyer resources.By "I don't take plea bargains or settlements", it means that should such a thing happen I will fight it tooth and nail without accepting offers to end it early by accepting some "lesser sentence", as overturning laws or setting new precedent is in my interests.
>>7245546nta but the letter of the law doesn't protect drawings. And the spirit of the law is only evoked by commies. That's why it's actually easier to get away with rape than assault. The later is simply an easier crime to prove to the letter's satisfaction.
>>7245554>but i can call upon people who will try to exploit every loophole to get the outcome i desireThat's a lot of semantics that objectively don't mean shit.Can you show naked loli and convince people it's not the depiction of a child they see?You're doing the equivalent of a tranny trying to legally force everyone to call them a woman or else they're committing hate speech.
>>7245603>Can you show naked loli and convince people it's not the depiction of a child they see?Correct, the only people I seem to be unable to convince are:>those who either use hentai as a poor substitute for fucking someone IRL and have no ability to empathize with people who don't do that>those who think "All art is propaganda" and go off on unproven rants about things they detest "promoting", "normalizing", etc >those who don't believe in innocent until proven guilty>those who don't actually understand what they're arguing and are just acting in the way they're "supposed to" according to peer pressure
>>7243092When people started treating fiction as if it was reality
>>7245382>They are representations of reality, symbols that are standing in for something real.Then violence and gore should be treated the same as literal murder since it's "a symbol for something real" retarded nigger
>>7245640>>7245642Some normies treat everything someone shares as carrying some sort of subtext, and they have to insert their own context into the conversation in order for it to make sense to them.As some seem to only use hentai as a cheap replacement for not getting IRL sex, they cannot imagine someone who would not do that, and the hentai one produces or posts, to such a fuckwit, then is read as an advertisement of desires in IRL partners.It's difficult to get someone like that to let go of their wrongly-assumed context and subtext. I assume because doing so would be an admission of retardation and thus they would feel like shit, damaging their egos and personal-evaluation of their own status.
>anyone that doesn't agree with me must be my ideological enemyYou can't convince someone who sees things as they are.You show me a car, that's a car, no matter if you call it a turbo box on wheels.You show me a a depiction of a prepubescent child, that's a child, no matter if it's fictional and you dematerialize yourself from reality when cumming to it.You show the picture of a dog, but call it a cat, that's still a dog.Trying to avoid calling things as what they are is the mark of deceit and now why would you try to avoid calling things as they are? Because truth would instantly show the fallacies and make you guilty of what you're trying to avoid being even suspected guilty of.If someone accused me of being guilty of something, why would i need to lie, cheat and shift the meaning of words if i can prove my innocence by being honest and objective?>inb4 more of the tired semantics and non-sequitursThe critical difference compared to what your usual go to fictional comparisons are is:Something like fictional violence is more often than not "part of" a bigger work and not created for the sake of, whereas what is porn part of? Nothing. Porn is the content, the focus and the created for the sake of being consumed for the sexual gratification.Gore and Violence by themselves get the same treatment as porn. You can't show both and call it wholesome cat videos when some PoW gets his head blown to bits.Even when those are "part of" a bigger work, and happen to be way too graphic, because graphic violence and gore do have effects on the human psyche and it would be disingenuous to claim porn doesn't have the same effect. This isn't a matter of ideological crusading, but simply objectivity.If you need to preemptively claim that anyone who disagrees with you is an "enemy", so that you don't need to logically defend anything you say, that's another red flag.
>>7245646You are artistically illiterate.Magritte destroyed fags like you decades ago and yet you still pop up like zombies.
>you are wrong because [insert argument from authority here]and there you gounable to defend anything they say without resorting to tricksi accept your admission of defeat
>>7245655You are wrong because art is inherently deception, you fucking moron.The image pictured says "This is not a pipe."Because it's not. You cannot hold it like a pipe. You cannot put tobacco in it. You cannot smoke it. You cannot clean it. If you took it out in a "no smoking" area nobody would say "hey you can't smoke here."The title of the work is "The Treachery of Images" and it in and of itself soundly rips apart your entire baseless argument above.This isn't argument from authority (you are SUPER fucking bad at recognizing fallacies), as I am pointing to his actual argument, as it's a well-known one among people who have even basic levels of art history knowledge, so if you had any understanding it would have saved me the effort of this entire fucking post explaining it.But it also was a trap because I KNEW you had no clue what you were talking about, and you simply exposed yourself as having not put any effort into understanding art at all.
>things that are fictional are not real>here let me draw a picture of a child getting fucked by horse>it isn't a picture of a child getting fucked by horse because it's a drawing and drawings are not real>so there is no child in there nor horse>and if you say so you're insaneYou know maybe violence, mass reportings, cyber bullying and censoring against lolishitters is the only viable solution.btw these are just words and actions on the internet, which are not real actions and if you say anything against this you're insane.
>>7245660>slander>lies>gaslighting>takes philosophications literally because it's convenient to his bad faith arguments>"the pipe is not a pipe because you can't smoke it"So, do you stop existing when you jerk off to porn?
>>7245660NTA you are arguing with.You are dumb. This >>7245649 is not a pipe, but it is a representation of a pipe. If you fap to it, you fapped to the idea, the thought, of a pipe. This means that the idea of a pipe sexually arouses you. The idea of a pipe is also present in a real pipe.
>>7245661Yes, until you actually do something in reality it doesn't fucking matter. Correct.There is no child, there is no horse. The loli in the picture is eternally there, the horse is eternally there. They will not grow old. The horse will never cum. Hell, a second panel showing the horse cumming still doesn't affect the first panel, you just have 2 images. You cannot intervene in the situation, because it's not real.I'm sorry to tell you this but none of your favorite characters are actual people, they are illusions made up of objects people made, set in whatever ways they want.>>7245664The hentai girl you imagine fucking and the "you" you imagine fucking her never existed. They are mental constructs you create, objects.>>7245666Not necessarily, because the pipe there doesn't even look like a real pipe. There's no 3-dimensionality to it. Now it's possible that someone imagined an actual pipe, using the image as inspiration. But since we can't read minds, we can never know if that's true or false unless a person says so. And since we can't verify that information, you have to decide whether they're trustworthy or not on that! So it's not really possible to tell if someone is imagining a cartoon pipe they stick their cock in, or a realistic one.Regardless, in either case the person using the pipe art to get his rocks off isn't actually violating anyone's rights. He may be weird but that means nothing special - hentai is already weird, and weird doesn't mean bad.
>>7245673>the pipe there doesn't even look like a real pipe. There's no 3-dimensionality to it.Denial of reality, I will ignore this.>Now it's possible that someone imagined an actual pipe, using the image as inspiration.They don't have to imagine a pipe, the image of a pipe is right in front of their eyes.>Regardless, in either case the person using the pipe art to get his rocks off isn't actually violating anyone's rights.Very smart argument again, obviously I was arguing for banning pipe drawings and all kinds of drawings actually.
>reality is subjective because it fits my arguments>everything is a-ok as long as it doesn't matterSo, if i were to round up and organize to remove certain people from any sphere, whether irl or online, and people wouldn't care; would it matter if you were targeted by it?You don't exist anymore, and people don't care so you might as well not physically ever existed because you are just pixels on a screen at the end of the day.>hehe im sorry to tell you this but your fav characters are not real hehe You know the more you rely on insulting the opposition the more credibility you lose?I mean, i personally do not care nor do i feel offended, but it seems rather strange that you go this far just to hurl insults.>as long as anything doesn't violate rights, it's okSo, if i take your drawings, change the colors slightly, sell them on t-shirts or whatever; are those drawings still yours? I mean, pictures are not real, so no one can own them.
>>7245661>>so there is no child in there nor horse>>and if you say so you're insaneCorrect.You are insane and willing to lose rights to act upon your deranged vengeance against thoughtcrimes, not realizing it will utterly ruin your life giving corporations precedent to litigate against thought theft, and governments to jail you for thought treason.
>Inane strawmanNo, i'm just curious why one would go this far to avoid calling things for what they are.If i see a picture of a child being fucked by horse, that's a picture of a child being fucked by horse.Why deny reality?
>>7245678>Denial of realityYou cannot see the pipe from different angles and different lighting>They don't have to imagine a pipeThey do have to actually think about the pipe, yes. The pipe they are thinking about and the pipe image are two separate things. You're implying someone has actually 0 thoughts.>Not arguing for banningSure, I just followed things to it logical conclusion, since most people arguing the same shit will go on to say "because X that makes lolifags pedos and they should be [list of cruel punishments]." In any case, the thrust of "it shouldn't be illegal" is still on the grounds of: There is nothing wrong with it.>>7245682Never said reality was subjective. Fiction isn't reality, imagination is not reality. Actions can violate someone's rights, but imagining scenarios and drawing fictional scenes of such (as long as you use your own property or that you have permission from the owners to make such pictures of course) cannot at all.I don't care if you imagine genocide, or draw art of it. >Hurl insultsOnly the sarcastic tone was an insult. It was a true example of how things work.>So, if i take your drawings, change the colors slightly, sell them on t-shirts or whatever; are those drawings still yours? I mean, pictures are not real, so no one can own them.I release all my art as CC0 because I do not believe copyright is legitimate and want to prevent anyone from restricting the use of my art.I do in fact tell people they can do whatever they want, including put them on tshirts. I have my physical originals and my own local copies. I do not give a shit.My ethics are consistent, can you say the same?
>>7245685Because fundamentally I - and many others - disagree on "what they are."Sure, you see us as delusional. But we also see YOU as delusional. To me the entire category of "fictional depiction" means it's outside the realm of ethical and moral relevance. Does not matter if it's lolis or someone's lurid and highly descriptive gorey death rape fic or a cute comic about a frog that looks like a pebble.
>>7245686OK? Your own subjective beliefs and ethics are irrelevant.How is this another attempt at trying to discredit your opposition without making sound arguments like you've been doing since the beginning?The depiction of a thing is still what it tries to depict.There is no reasonable arguing about the metaphysics of this, because you are just denying reality and reason, which should be the basis for a genuine argument.Again, i accept your concession.
>>7245700>Your own subjective beliefs and ethics are irrelevant.Ethics aren't subjective. Morals are, not ethics though.>The depiction of a thing is still what it tries to depict.This is where we disagree. They are not equivalent. And they are even less-equivalent when there is only a tenuous connection between how something is drawn and what someone associates it with, as well as it not being a depiction of any particular thing that exists.The only sense i can make of your reasoning would be if you are approaching this from some kind of platonic idealism. Which I disagree with, I do not think reality works that way and I believe your view is flagrantly wrong and makes little sense when you get down to it.If you are not arguing for platonic idealism, then you need to actually explain your conception of "reality and reason" since it's obvious that we have completely different worldviews and having to play guessing games is annoying.
>>7245731>Ethics aren't subjective.Ethics chance upon different dogmas, regions, religions, countries, etcetera.You don't know what that word means.>i disagreeCool.>realism is now idealism>and in case this other buzzword didn't work [insert more unreasonable shit here]pic related is an apple
>>7245753You hold no actual positions and have no ability to communicate what you believe to others. Your understanding of art and philosophy - the realm where the answers to this shit is found - is so deficient that I am now convinced you have no actual position beyond disgust-based reasoning. There is absolutely no way you can go beyond /beg/ tier, because your conception of how art fundamentally works at a base level is so far off the mark that you're going to struggle with pretty much every fundie until you either quit or it breaks your ego.
>>7242506The crux of this whole issue is people's perceptions of pedophilia.1) They think that being a pedophile in and of itself is immoral.2) They think that all pedophiles are ticking time bombs when left around children.3) They think that anyone under the age of 18 is a child, therefore your attraction towards them constitutes as pedophilia.If these things are never sorted out, we'll keep living in this loop of "Does it hurt children? Does it help children?", without ever asking whether it's fair to censor a pedophile's right to the only sexual expression without raping a real child or supporting the child rape industry by purchasing CP.It's impossible to discuss these nuances in a censored environment, and virtually all of clearnet is censored at this point.In fact, someone is probably going to report my post and get me banned, and if 4chan can't host my opinions, then nowhere else you can.
>>7245765>slanderI accept your concession.
>>7245766Picrel summed things up properly, your post has holes in it. Namely, most lolicons aren't actually pedophiles. "Pedophile" is a term strictly applied to people who have either: stated they have a compulsion to commit sex crimes against a child and should be seeking mental assistance for it before they act on such compulsion, OR have already committed sex crimes against a child, OR have acted on such compulsion via secondhand sex crimes against a child (CSEM).
>>7245766>it's impossible to discuss the nuancesMore like because pro-loli arguments always boil down to semantics, self-referential arguments, denial of reality and demonizing/slandering anyone who does not agree with completely insane mental gymnastics.Pedophilia is the attraction towards children, that's the objective definition.That pedophiles try to reject the label as dishonestly as they can and try to argue about laws as if it mattered, is pretty obvious.If you killed someone you are a murderer, even if the law hasn't punished you for it and even if you still haven't been found out.
>>7245771Your moralizing doesn't mean anything when it's not built on any coherent foundations.Case in point: killing someone in self-defense isn't murder. Your statements are built on nothing but whether something disgusts you personally or not.
>>7245769>"Pedophile" is a term strictly applied to people who have either: stated they have a compulsion to commit sex crimes against a child and should be seeking mental assistance for it before they act on such compulsion, OR have already committed sex crimes against a child, OR have acted on such compulsion via secondhand sex crimes against a child (CSEM).You have it backwards. Pedophile is strictly applied to someone who has a primary attraction to pre-pubescent children, and nothing else.Any dictionary definition or clinical definition will say as such. The criminology aspect has little to do with the medical definition. In fact, there are several studies showing that up to 50% of hands-on pedophilic offences are not actually perpetrated by clinical pedophiles.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252710000191?via%3Dihub>It appears unlikely, however, to ever know how this proportion compares with the 25 to 50% found amongst detected offenders of child sexual abuse (Marshall, 1997, Marshall and Fernandez, 2003, Seto, 2008).I will agree with you that many people who enjoy lolicon do not have a primary attraction towards children, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking we know how many.>>7245771So, I agree with you in spirit, as the rest of my reply obviously shows, but your analogy is not very good because murder is a physical action with subjective interpretations, whereas pedophilia is an objective state of being. A better analogy is someone looking at homosexual porn and telling you "I have no interest in men." Even if you would never fuck a real man in real-life, it is correct to say that you are at least somewhat sexually interested in men.Pedophilia is probably a spectrum not much different from the Kinsey scale.
>like cars>wow i must be a car lover>like jerking off to depictions of prepubescent children>uuuuhm okay i am a lolicon btw and no that doesn't mean i am a pedophile because the law says i must commit a crime pls don't call me a pedophile because i am attracted to fictional drawings because drawings are not real and you must be a puritan albino bigot who hates sex and actually you are a pedo! checkmate!>>7245773>killing someone in self-defense isn't murder>BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF THE LAW SAYS SOYou still killed someone.And you still can get jail time depending on the situation, which would make you a murdered, BY LAW.Stop fucking trying to hide behind the megaautistic meanings of words, man.>>7245777>pedophilia is a spectrum>pedophilia is an objective state of beingMake up your mind
>>7245786It's both a spectrum and an objective state of being in that we can measure a pedophile's response to pedophilic stimuli through techniques like phallometry, whereas what constitutes as murder differs by culture and law.
>>7245791>whereas what constitutes as murder differs by culture and law.there are second and third degree murder which the definitions are pretty much consistent everywhere, if you want to be this fucking autistic about it.You can still act in self-defense and be guilty of muder/manslaughter, if you kill your assailant.>inb4 but "castle laws", "honor killings", etceteraYou still murdered, killed, offed, deleted, unalived someone. The legal definition don't matter.
>>7245786No, killing someone in self defense is ethically justified because responsive force is not unethical. If someone attacks you, they have violated your rights (specifically your self-ownership) and you are justified in ending the threat as swiftly as possible.It doesn't matter what the law is, unethical actions are still unethical.>>7245777You can put "commit sexual child abuse" in place of "sex crimes against children" in this post here if it makes it more understandable to you >>7245769The fact is that a non-offending pedophile still has a compulsion to commit child abuse, because ANY sexual contact with a child is child abuse. Our definitions are not in conflict. Pedophilia and loliconism (or shotaconism, or cub furries) are not the same thing remotely.To be clear, sexual attraction is in fact a compulsion, just not a bad one normally (drinking water is a compulsion too). I will also point out that someone who is into yaoi is not necessarily gay either, it's highly highly variable, as fictional characters are not the same as, nor a substitute for, real people. I disagree on it being a scale or spectrum - If someone would fuck a man irl, even if the qualification for it is super narrow (such as "only if a cosplayer is super feminine and indistinguishable from a girl from the neck up") then that guy is gay or bi.
>>7245800>IF THE LAW ARGUMENT DONT WORK>JUST USE ETHICSAre you done?
>>7245786>all sex is rapeshut the fuck up retard psychopath
>I KILLED SOMEONE>ETHICALLY THO>well, doesn't that mean you killed someone?>ASKHUALLY NO IT WAS ETHICAL AND THE LAWS DONT MATTER >BUT THE LAWS SAYS ITS NOT KILLING IF I ACT ETHICALLYgod fucking dammit this is the funniest shit everholy loli fucking horses
>>7245802>all sex is rape>but not all cp is cp>but not all pedophiles are pedophilesplease talk more very mentally stable individual
>>7245801>>7245803At no point was I intending to make legalistic arguments.I already said ethics are objective. Natural law is a thing, which is where said ethics come from, and how we determine what actions are justified or unjustified. "Killing" isn't unjust inherently. It's the act of aggressing on someone else that makes said killing wrong.You've repeatedly failed to explain any of your foundational principles which give you a coherent and consistent way to determine what things are bad and - most importantly - why they are bad. So I am already just assuming you have none and are going purely off of an emotional gut disgust-response, like a neanderthal.
>>7245804op pic is neither c or p
>>7245805>At no point was I intending to make legalistic arguments.But you did>"If someone attacks you, they have violated your rights (specifically your self-ownership) and you are justified in ending the threat as swiftly as possible.">I already said ethics are objectiveAnd you're wrong. pic related>natural lawappeal to nature fallacy>muh right and wrongNo one ever said anything about it, it's all you who has been talking through your own schizophrenia.If you kill someone, you killed someone. Why do you try to deny and weasel out of absolutely objective and truthful statements?Are you retarded?>"i still am unable to be reasonable so i will accuse my opposition of whatever i can come up with to slander them"It would work if you weren't just grasping and pulling out these insults out of your ass and making shit up.If i were to insult you and still be valid about what i say; i would just point out the absolute mentally ill dogshit you post. I wouldn't need to psychoanalyze you and make up schizophrenic scenarios about you.You should honestly consider suicide.
>>7245800>The fact is that a non-offending pedophile still has a compulsion to commit child abuse, If I have a crush on a hot celebrity who I know is 100% going to reject me because I am ugly and poor, and I masturbate to her, does that mean I have a compulsion to rape her? That's what you're saying. Any attempt at having sex with her is going to be "rape" by definition, so by your logic, I have a compulsion to rape someone by having a non-reciprocated crush on someone.>because ANY sexual contact with a child is child abuse.The way you phrase these things is needlessly morally loaded. Pedophilia has nothing to do with abuse.In a universe where sex with children is not abusive, you would still be calling these people pedophiles from your universe. In a pedophile's fantasies where they have sex with imaginary children, the children are unscathed (unless their sexual interest follows abuse), because in their mindscape, children don't get traumatized from sex.>To be clear, sexual attraction is in fact a compulsion,This is the semantical bullshit that makes this conversation infuriating. A sexual compulsion implies that I am at a high likelihood of acting out said compulsion. That's what "compulsive sexual behavior", an actual medical term, is approximated to.Your example actually goes into that direction, because you compare sexual compulsion to the compulsion to drinking water, which every human does.If I tell you "person X has a compulsion to rape children", my mind doesn't go to "they are a pedophile who may or may not have a likelihood to endanger children", my mind goes to, "they are a danger to children everywhere and must be stopped ASAP">Pedophilia and loliconism (or shotaconism, or cub furries) are not the same thing remotely.I agree that they're not the same thing, but even if exclusive-lolicon were the majority, the discussion would still be centered around lolicon who are also pedophiles, because all you did was take out an unnecessary party
If i kill a pedophile and get heralded as a hero and the law doesn't punish me, did i still kill someone?Using pedo-logic; apparently not.
>>7245816Pedophiles aren't people.
>>7245800>I will also point out that someone who is into yaoi is not necessarily gay either, it's highly highly variable, as fictional characters are not the same as, nor a substitute for, real people. I disagree on it being a scale or spectrum - If someone would fuck a man irl, even if the qualification for it is super narrow (such as "only if a cosplayer is super feminine and indistinguishable from a girl from the neck up") then that guy is gay or bi.i can't take this underage nigger not even slightly seriously anymore
Rule of thumb for all of you guys:If there is no victim there is no crime!A drawing isnt real, it at best depicting it.Or else we could frame people for all kind of crime by just drawing them doing the deet.
>>7245808Rights are inherent to humans, they are not granted by law. They exist independent of whether there is a legal system or not. This is objective. Ethics derived from this are also objective. The only true unethical action is aggression, which involves initiating force or the coercion against someone's property (including his own body, because your body is your own inalieable property). >another incorrect fallacy claimEven without that, you are simply making a fallacy fallacy, especially if you don't provide proof of your claim what you replied to is a fallacy.>>7245814>does that mean I have a compulsion to rape her? Adults are capable of consenting to sex, so no. Not unless you had an actual compulsion to rape her.>In a universe where sex with children is not abusive, you would still be calling these people pedophiles from your universe. This is a strange hypothetical. If there were for some reason multiple universes with their own different laws, then sure it would be different in each because they would follow fundamentally different laws of reality. I don't see what relevance this has. We exist in the reality where any sexual contact is inherently child abuse because children cannot consent to sex under any circumstances. Their mindscape is creating imaginary people and situations. If those extend into real sexual desires about actual individual children they know of, then they should 100% seek professional help in order to ensure that they DO NOT act on that desire, no matter how how idealistic they are imagining it to be.>my mind goes to, "they are a danger to children everywhere and must be stopped ASAP"Yes, pedophiles are an actual danger to children everywhere. Obviously if they haven't actually touched a child then there is no justification in attacking them.I don't care about "lolicons who are pedophiles" because my entire set of arguments is about the lolicons who AREN'T.>>7245822Do you deny that wanting to fuck a man is gay?
>>7243672The guy who owns MasterCard. He's been on a crusade to moral police every company he can buy threatening to ban them or their owners from using his shitty service and somehow has the guy who owns Visa backing him up, too Nevermind the fact that he instructs his customer service reps to not report financial abuse for VIP clients
>>7243685It really is wild how people are more upset about the drawing than the actual kid. I think it's because: "real life is hard" so they retreat into their fictional media.
>>7245827>Adults are capable of consenting to sex, so no.This is your line of logic.>Children can't consent -> Therefore thinking about fucking children is a compulsion to rape.And this is my challenge to that, >Taylor Swift won't consent -> Therefore thinking about fucking Taylor Swift is a compulsion to rapeYou have to establish why the difference between "can't" and "can, but won't" is so significant that the challenge doesn't work, because right now the differentiation seems very arbitrary, since both qualify as rape when acted out, objectively.>This is a strange hypothetical. It's not strange, at all. All I did was change 1 factor. >If there were for some reason multiple universes with their own different laws, Children getting traumatized by sex is not a law of physics, it's just a commonly observed behavior among current statistics. We don't know why and how many children get traumatized by sex. >I don't see what relevance this has.The relevance is that your moral loading of the terms caused your definition of pedophilia to not align with academia. The DSM-V doesn't conflate pedophilia with pedophilic disorder and explicitly states their differences.>If those extend into real sexual desires about actual individual children they know of, then they should 100% seek professional help in order to ensure that they DO NOT act on that desire,I am not convinced by this. We're both going with gut instinct here so you can't be "100%" sure that they should seek professional help.I've had sexual thoughts about my 12 year old cousin when I was 18. I never acted it out and I never even came close to it, despite being left alone in my room with her several times.>Yes, pedophiles are an actual danger to children everywhere.Do you have any semblance of proof for this? Some pedophiles are obviously very dangerous, but estimates for pedophilia go up to 5% of the US population, and estimates for non-pedophiles with pedophilic interests is much higher.
>>7244958some dudes wife got arrested for having werewolf mods on skyrim.
>>7243455>>7243282>>7243781>>7243799>>7243861>>7243762>>7243865>>7243958>>7244091>>7243537>>7243616>>7243685>>7245838Guys, I think there is a remoralization project going on[PICTURE RELATED], it's either this or collective mental illness coming from the zoomers.Everything seems more like it's being done by design and worsened after COVID-19 lockdowns.Notice that the bulk of this push against drawings is done by young people with time to cry 24/7 online[Zoomers] while older people[previous generations] and artists have no time to be arguing because they're workers and don't care enough.First they came to attack loli artists by equating drawings with reality. Most people are understandably and rightfully disgusted by loli/shota content therefore they don't care too much about the censoring regarding it. But once the loli/shota category is shrunk enough, maybe they will come after Vanilla NSFW art as well.I don't care about coomers, loli/shota shit, but as someone that was invested in art for years, It's not in my best interests to lose possible incomes.If the intent of war is true, we will soon watch 4K KINO Videos of zoomers being drafted and blown to pieces by drones in the upcoming wars.Reminder: Israel just killed 10.000+ Kids in gaza, zoomers don't give a shit about that, but your heckin drawerino is the worst atrocity ever. This is how they fight, the illusory victory, by not attacking the real enemies because reality it's too hard for zoomers.
>>7245533didnt that already happen in the uk over Simpsons porn? dude got a slap on the wrist because it was only one and it clearly wasnt real.
>>7245827>rights are inherent to humansNo.Rights are granted by other humans that are willing to respect those rules imposed by other humans for the sake of continuing the function of a society.Ethics are a set of rules also set by humans, which are more or less philosophised through a basis of morality, also with the sake of achieving a functioning society.An individuals cannot have ethics, he can act ethically based on rules made and philosophized by other people but it cannot reach true objectivity.The concept of property is also a human rule.Out in lawless zones i can do whatever the fuck i please to another person and get away with it. Who is to enforce ethics and morality but from a subjective or majority rule perspective, that is based upon personal beliefs whether personal or the present majority?Still, even in lawless zones, lolis are still depictions of children, because that's what they inherently are and depict and cannot be sanely or reasonably argued otherwise.Now fucking stop trying to introduce shit and arguments no one ever said. You're pathetic and desperate.>>7245859he lost
>>7245858>now arguing about things is actually a psyops by the government to draft zoomers because anon is financially invested in this and totally unbiased because he read a meme>and not worshipping porn at every mention of it is actually le zoomer puritans crusaders >btw anon doesn't care about coomers pls believe himit's over boyos, they figured us outall units pull out the threadi repeatall units pull out the threadshut it down
>>7245862he lost but the judge still recognised that no harm was done so it's progress compared to the last simpsons case where they said they have souls or something.>lolis are still depictions of children, because that's what they inherently are and depict and cannot be sanely or reasonably argued otherwise.what makes a child a child is their mental maturity based on age, the body of a child has no bearing on whether or not a child is a child.if a child that is somehow born with an adult body straight out of the womb, they are still a child till they reach the age of 18. and no reaching the age of 18 doesn't automatically mean they are mentally ready for sex, nor does it mean they aren't mentally a child, but it's the best thing we have right now.
>>7245870Please, attack Israel. Grow some balls.You can't into reality, you need a very small fictional fight.
>>7245871>but the judge recognised no harm was doneirrelevant>age is just mentally bro>if a child that is somehow born with an adult body straight out of the womb, they are still a child till they reach the age of 18. and no reaching the age of 18 doesn't automatically mean they are mentally ready for sex, nor does it mean they aren't mentally a child, but it's the best thing we have right now.Sure is a convenient argument, isn't it?Still doesn't make depictions of prepubescent children, not children like depictionsThere is a huge difference between the 9000 year old demon loli, your average lolibaba and your typical preschooler loli archetypeThe first two have implications that they are older and act older than they are, at that point the body proportions don't matter;the latter, on your other non-existing hand, is purely straight up what is depicts to beSo, if you present anyone with a standalone picture of a loli, what do you think their first thought is; "wow how wonder how old she is"?No, it's straight up; "that looks like a child".
>be based lolichaderino>show epic loli porn to normie friends>he looks disgusted>"wtf anon is that a child. Are you a pedophile?">start explaining how this loli is actually the reincarnation of a goddess who is 45 million years old and how our based anime culture doesn't see it as problematic so it's totally fine to jerk off to lolis because they are also fictional drawings and not real an no one is harmed in the process>my friend still isn't convinced and calls it a child>call him a bigot transphobe puritan zoomer>he calls the police on me>police gives me a court date>stand before judge and jury>explain to them all the nuances and ethics and morals>get put in jail>cell mate asks me what i'm in for>explain to him how it's completely morally justifiable to jerk off to 60 million year old lolis because age is mentally bro>he kills me>cellmate goes to court>"Your honor, i killed my cellmate because he wouldn't shut up about wanting to fuck kids"
>>7245888Victimless crimes knows no punishment.Drawings arnt real and dont need law enforcement.If you disagree explain how bruning art is helping.
>>7244958yiff in hell
>>7245898>smugsoijak.png
I know all this comes because of money laundering laws and all that, but to me it was bound to happen because lolitards can't shut the fuck up. For several years now, I've seen people on twitter or some random site/forum just talking about a random topic, and here it comes, the fucking retard with a loli avatar, ready to show everyone how based he is, laser focused on derailing the discussion towards how it's perfectly normal to jack off to little (fictional) girls, ready to unload the pedantry and mental gymnastics.Just shut the fuck up retard; jacking off to kids or ponies, furrys, scat, guro, ryona... is not normal or acceptable by society, period. It is, by definition, a fetish. Shut the fuck up and keep it for yourself as the other fetichists do, or get ready for the crackdown.>>7242506Also, opShitty art that could pass for AI and da user... I hope you get aids.
>>7245877>The first two have implications that they are older and act older than they are, at that point the body proportions don't matterIf only. I have plenty experience with cunts saying I'm loli-coded because I'm skinny and I'm 36 with a crackhead face.
>>7245904>laser focused on derailing the discussion towards how it's perfectly normal to jack off to little (fictional) girls, ready to unload the pedantry and mental gymnastics.e.g. this thread, a couple hundred post defending lolicon because a retard can't read a tos.
>>7245904>>7245910you type like you're underage
>>7245911are you getting horny?
>>7245904lolishitters can't help themselves because they crave attention and validation by pretending to either by victims or playing semantics games, so that they can get close to anyone and lure you on to their discords to "argue".You don't call them predators for nothing.
>>7245904lolishitters have the biggest victim complex complex out of any fetish/group. Furfags used to be the same as lolishitters, but after being bullied and trashed on they fixed themselves and learned to behave(somewhat). lolifaggots didn't get the memo and fucked themselves in a deeper hole.
>>7245904Nah it wasn't until the anime became mainstream, which lead to more moral fags complaing about loli in anime and NSFW art. No one cared when a loli artist worked on a game back in the day but now they'll try to get it removed. eg fire emblem. Now people use loli to gate keep series from moral fags from their series.>>7245877>what does the judge think>actually it doesn't matter>So, if you present anyone with a standalone picture of a loli, what do you think their first thought is; "wow how wonder how old she is"?No, it's straight up; "that looks like a child".No one cared with frieren. Most thought she was hot.
>>7245904when did "society" go from a group of people to one singular being that everyone is supposed to be? covid era?
>>7245923>frierenFrieren is not a loli, neither in body, nor behavior.You're a fucking normie, a tourist or an unironical pedo.The cockroach finally shows its true colorsholy shit
Are there people on this board actually arguing for censorship of art? LOL
Coward artists like these should be rounded up and hanged
>>7245934Western artoids have always been obsessed with working to destroy their own industry for 5 minutes of attention (someone might sub in their patreon in that timeframe)
>>7245943It's pure retardation, man. Lolifags are some of the most insufferable people I've ever met but at the end of the day it's never going to be more or less than drawings. "Ummm drawings of what?" Doesn't matter. It's drawings. We don't do thoughtcrime here.
>>7245945*anything more or less
>>7245927>Frieren is not a loliit depends on how you draw her>>7245936>artists like thesewho don't want to get banned?
>>7245862>No.>Rights are granted by other humans that are willing to respect those rules imposed by other humans for the sake of continuing the function of a society.This is why they pushed atheism so hard in the last twenty years. When people believed their rights came from "Invisible Sky Daddy" they were willing to fight and die for them.
>>7245914>>7245922How is that the same thing? People didn't enter furry spaces and try to kick the furries out, whereas now, there are a bunch of people that have entered the anime spaces and tried to kick the lolicons out of that space dispite the main content of that space being anime/manga being made by lolicons.
>>7245956>they were willing to fight and die for themThat's the point, if rights are "agreed upon by the people" it's easy to convince resentful losers and weak willed yes men to give up our rights for nothing.
>>7245955>it depends on how you draw heryou made me post the wojakthis is entirely your faultactually you posted the wojak and if you say otherwise you're just insane
>>7245958>He doesn't knowThere is a reason furfags are still resented to this day, there will be a reason why lolishitters will be resented in the future.And those reasons have absolutely nothing to do with the fetish itself, just the "people".It's the same with mlpThe show and franchise is absolutely fine; the "fandom" is aidscancer.>that space dispite the main content of that space being anime/manga being made by lolicons.So, it's not ok to brand all lolishitters as pedophiles, but now lolishitters are the heroes who built anime spaces? You can probably lurk old /b/ archives and see furfags having posted the same shit.
>>7245927>Frieren is not a loliyes she is. frieren is barely taller than fern when she was a kid while being petite and cute>neither in body, nor behaviorloli only applies to body types and that's it, not the behaviour or personality of the character you retard.
>>7245972petite =/= lolilurk moar, tourist
>>7245972>loli only applies to body types and that's it,everything you draw can be considered as loli, when someone wants to ban you
>>7245973To a discerning man of culture, you're right.To a normiefag and the disingenuous bugmen we're arguing against both OP and Frieren are lolis. Canon age doesn't matter, body type doesn't matter, all that matters is that they can browbeat you into giving up more rights.
>>7245979>normies and bugmenYou'd only need to cross reference with an irl equivalent.If anyone would call this a loli, they're fucking retarded.Anon, you can only beat a lie by revealing a truth.
>>7245927Freirein is what these animals call "safe horny"I really DESPISE safe horny and everyone of these creatures shpuld be hanged .>>7245955>worrying getting bannedI adorely love this fictional young chinese child. That is my answer.
>>7245973she's not just petite though, she's short and cute you retard.>>7245978depends on how you draw them, and canon age seems to be more important for some reason, since aging up in fan art isn't always enough. >>7245985loli doesn't apply to real people it only applies to fiction and again it's not only the pettiness that makes a character a loli you retard. this same denial happened with rebecca and tatsumaki>>7245971>So, it's not ok to brand all lolishitters as pedophiles, but now lolishitters are the heroes who built anime spaces? You can probably lurk old /b/ archives and see furfags having posted the same shit.at this point why join a community full of them. lolicons didn't build it entirely but they've been a part of it since the beginning. these guys should at least be consistent, its like when dbz tards complain about loli when dbz has some "pedo" shit and even out side of that like when toriyama draw a stip of a loli getting raped and becoming a prostitute, but when you bring this up they go silent, they should either shut up or consistent with there morals.
>>7245998You're a genuine fucking retard.>Frieren>Tatsumaki>Cyberspunk girlNot Rori. By a longshot.>bb-b-b-but they make jokes in the anime about them being loli!It's a joke.You also call your friends shitheads but their heads are not actually made of shit, no?Calling them loli should be insulting to them, not actually a nudge or epicbasedironicbutuniroc fanservice to your gooning ass.How come i ain't into this shit but know this shit better than the average lolitard? Ah, yes, i've been on this godforsaken shithole for nearly two decades.>b-b-b-but this is RORI communityNo, it never was, faggot.There ain't no cUmUnetEh, never was, just a bunch of autistic fags talking about anime until retards like you showed up trying to develop their personality around the slop they jerk off to.>b-b-b-but le epic jokes about the 12 y.o. and fanta>and the epic posts about roriYou shouldn't be on the internet.Look at this bitch ass nigga trying to claim anime as loli territoryGit the fuck back to your furry erp discord, you quadruple nigger
>>7246011>There ain't no cUmUnetEh, never was, just a >bunch of autistic fags talking about anime until retards like you showed up trying to develop their personality around the slop they jerk off to.>Look at this bitch ass nigga trying to claim anime as loli territoryGit the fuck back to your furry erp discord, you quadruple niggerretard, i'm talking huge creators in anime/manga like toriyama making loli shit and not caring. gainex/trigger are loved but still sexualise underage characters some times lolis, these types of anime/manga creators have been here since the beginning you retard. are we gonna pretend the underage sexy high school girl isn't a anime staple? ye they aren't always lolis but the people that complain about loli also complain about the sexualised underaged high girl trope regardless.>>7246011>It's a joke.?You also call your friends shitheads but their heads are not actually made of shit, no?>Calling them loli should be insulting to them, not actually a nudge or epicbasedironicbutuniroc fanservice to your gooning ass.murata the artist of the one punch manga referred to tatsumaki as a loli. trigger referred to Rebecca as a loli.
>>7246043And you're genuinely, not trying to insult you or anything, but genuinely fucking retarded or an actual summernigger.Stop posting.
>>7246051>insults, doesn't refute
>>7244252>they are into anthropomorphic furries>so they are into zoophilia as well?>are you fucking retarded do any animal look like pic related?>b-but they are both animals, s-so checkmate!You niggers are so dumb and lacking in abstract thinking it's unreal.
>>7245237>you are a sick prevert for dressing in a tanktop, tight shortpants, vest and wearing a capNo woman have ever dressed liked this before Hilda from Pokemon existed. while not the common attire of your average woman, they are just as easy to find like women in corporate suits. You are just a jelly hambeast who know you would look hideous if you worn the same clothes as her, so you cope by calling her a pervert.
>>7246077>pls refute my retarded ass irrelevant point that shows how fucking retarded i am>THEY ARE RORI BECAUSE MURATI DID SAY THEY ARE EPIC LOLI SO IT MUST BE TRUE AND ANYTHING I SAY IS RORI MUST BE BECAUSE----- BECAUSE IT JUST IS OKI didn't insult you, you're genuinely retarded.>>7246090>so you jerk off to anthropomorphic animals?>they jerk off to animals then>UH NO AKSHUALLY ITS NOT THE SAME THEY ARE PEOPLE ANIMALS WHO RETAIN HEAVY ANIMALISTIC FEATURE SO NO I DONT JERK OFF TO ANIMALS >WTF JUST THINK ABSTRACTLY AND STOP MAKING ME FEEL HECKIN NOT VALID ABOUT WHAT I JERK OFF TOLook, another fucking porn addict who is unable to self reflect or be truthful because the truth would make his trash taste look bad
>>7246044That's an adult child
>attracted to animal features like fur and snouts>no bro i don't get hard with animals>yetEvery furfag eventually tries to rape their pets
>>7246115>>7246127>your brain on public school education(or rather brainwashing)
>>7246115but he didn't just say she's a loli, he also DREW her as one which i already posted. >>7246090
>>7246090what about the people that draw or like animal genitalia on their anthros, is it fair to say furrys are attracted to dog dick or horse dick?
>>72461243 is what you need to escape legality
>>7246147>he also drew her with a one piece so it validates my own head canon and because it's convenient to my arugmentAgain, you're fucking retarded and you don't draw, nor do you own an ounce of imagination.Yeah, of course he would draw the lean character with childish clothing, that's a no brainer.Oh, he called the 34 year old who is short and has a lean body a loli? Yeah, totally fucking means she is.I also cannot understand irony, Anon.
>>7246155>a few normies like to touch their nieces, is it fair to say all normies are pedos?
>>7246173>retarded equivalnce>huuur durr does the exception make the rulethe majority of furries jerk off to animals, is it fair to theorize that a majority of furries have intense zoophilic tendencies and will likely molest their pets?Yes, because those aren't the exception, they are the norm.
>>7246179You don't see normies claim they would never molest their nieces when a pedophile does.On the other hand you always see trannies, furries and lolishitters trying to virtue signal that they are different from their kin.EVERYSINGLETIME
>>7246179>>7246183>the logic applies to you not to me, because... eh.. look it's just different okay?>the majority of furries jerk off to animals, source I made it all up
>presents exceptions as the rule>wants to be seen as reasonable>"uhm no furries who jerk off to animal people don't jerk off to animals because they're animals but as people"ok retard
i'm so glad loli faggots are getting exterminated. Their garbage being banned left n right, modes of payment being decreased, and some of them even killing themselves. You deserved this happening to you for not shutting the fuck up and keeping your fucking fetish to yourself.
>>7246195>zoophiles overlaps with furries, therefore all furries are zoophiles>presents exceptions as the rule>Some normies sexual assaults their nieces or own kids, therefor all normies are pedos>WTF you can't do that, we are the exception and you are not allowed to use our own logic against us because..... look you just can'tnigger go back to school, hopefully a private one that will actually teach you instead of indoctrinating you. oh wait you can't afford that, never mind.
>>7246196
>>7246201>absolutely illiterate>"hehe go to school BUT YOU HAVE NO MONEY CHECKMATE!"holy concession
>>7246165she's not lean the in the images he drew of her, pic related is lean. clothes don't matter so why bring that up? the irony doesn't stop her from being a loli.
>>7246196>first they came for the ones i dont cared but i remained silent.>then for the ones i hated, and i cheered.>and in the end they come for me and nobody saved me.4chan of all places should be a bation of all none harmfull fetishes.Banning animal(tourcher) and child porn is fine by me but generalising border fetish like furry and loli just becouse they are close to them just courses more harm then good.Furrys and loli fans are well aware of the dangers next door and removing the stickma could help them to throw out there trashy bits for good.But nooooo we need to ban ban ban without reason and name a victim out of thin air in a victimless crime.
>>7246173i was just curious, it's not just furrys some futa artist drawn dick girls with horse cocks
>>7246183they don't, its usually when they are provoked.
>>7246214>4chan should be a bastion for all pornAnd that's the problem. People just come here to jerk off and talk about jerking off and the >bastion of free speechend where any porn addict doesn't get validation for their abnormal fetishesPorn should unironically get banned for a bit and see where that takes us.>>7246213>she's not lean in there>but in here>clothes dont matter>she's a loli because i say soOk are you willing to autistically elaborate on how that makes her a loli or are you just going to keep making hollow statements and arguments from authority i,e, "Murata said so"? i did more than enough autism itt
>>7246183>molest niece >I never claimed I would never do it, so...eumh..Victory for the normies!
>chagpt post
>>7246216Some people are into that, don't see why they should be the representation of the community as a whole.
>>7246211>absolutely illiteratevery rich coming from a negroid
>>7246238Very cool post.Am i mad btw?
BEHOLD: the ultimate Question!Is liking Ranma *insert bussword here*?HE is 16 year old male and turns into a very attactive and small young lady when in contact with cold water.If you like ranma you are a gay pedo even so the story was marketed like so many storys for 14 to 18 young man.If you dont like ranma you are a sexist becouse ranma was written by a woman.
>>7246231for the most part petite short, cute with some moe
>>7246231>Porn should unironically get banned for a bit and see where that takes us.most people A) dont know what they wishing for or B) hide there own flaws behind loud virture signaling.If you so ashamed of your own human sexuality why are you on this "pornside" to talk about politics?
>>7246251Nice buzzwords. That still don't make it loli.Same as your pic.>>7246254>hollow brainrot statement>ad hominem projectionThis is exactly one of the many reasons porn should get banned.
>>7246260wait hold on what is a loli to you?
>>7246263My subjective view dont matter
>>7246196I won't help you when they eventually come for the things you like
>>7246196>keeping your fucking fetish to yourselfYou literally have to put in the effort to find it, you are just in the closet and in denial.
>>7246260I did a ad hominem IF i was projecting and not pointing at the common trope of people yelling the loudes having the bigges pile of bones in there closet.You on the otherhand just repeat: "BAN PORN!" just becouse you dont like it... on a pornside... odd.
>>7246208>someone spent hours of their life to make this and it still didn't turn out good
>>7246195>"uhm no furries who jerk off to animal people don't jerk off to animals because they're animals but as people"what sort of autism do you have to suffer in order to be unable to tell the differences between pic related and >>7246090
>>7246265Art is purely subjective. You can disagree with an artist's intention or statement about a work and neither overrides the other."Canon" is only people choosing to accept the author's authority over a particular narrative associated with his works. If you choose not to, your own ideas and narrative are equally - not greater or less - valid. These narratives coexist without contradiction due to the fact that each art-experience is a unique one for each individual, only present in his or her own mind.If you choose to disregard an artist's statement that he has drawn a character as a loli, and yet also see lolis as equivalent to irl children, and get into conflict with others over these points... you should probably think about both why you perceive things this way and why others perceive things differently.
>>7246282>You literally have to put in the effort to find itWhy are you shitters so dishonest? Going to different boards to see your kind everywhere, even on blue boards. Same in comment sections on viral post on certain characters like anya and so on. You’re suppose to be in your containment /lsg/ or whatever that shit is called. Then again your kind was never meant to be here in the first place, until furfags made their own fucking general here
>>7246301>Why are you shitters so dishonest?So every time you go to normie sites like twitter, reddit, google, youtube, facebook and instagram. the first thing that happens is that you are bombarded with loli content?>Going to different boards to see your kind everywhereyou are on 4chan retard, you share this space with all kinds of degenerates. What you thought lolicons don't have any other interests outside of loli? This is like going to deviantart and expect not to see any sperg.
>>7245858>Israel just killed 10.000+ Kids in gaza, zoomers don't give a shit about that, but your heckin drawerino is the worst atrocity ever. This is how they>fight, the illusory victory, by not attacking the real enemies because reality it's too hard for zoomers.People are cowards what else is new? back in the day people bullied gays because they were "harming" society. But if you were a mobster no one dared to touched you even if you were harming society for real. The difference was that people knew that the mobster would retaliate violently with his gang if you provoked them, meanwhile they gay would dare to do anything since you outnumbered him 5 to one.
>>7246248I loved ranma-chan when i was 12, i love ranma-chan now that i'm 35and for the same amount of time, I've loved ukyo, nabiki and shampooI was younger than those characters when I used to like them.Also, ranma isn't trans, and he's not proud of becoming a woman when touching cold water. The sex exchange is a curse for him and during the whole story, he's trying to revert that curse. Also, it's fucking magic. When he turns into a woman, his whole body changes, even internally. When a real man "turns" into a "woman", nothing changes, only his genitalia gets mutilated and he becomes a drug addict.
>fat butts>breasts>""loli""Thats a womanlet, also known as a short stack, the most disgusting hag type for cowards out there.
>>7246362forget about lolicon, troll.smart artists won't draw it, they won't be banned because of you
>>7246321The funniest shit about your examples?The gay bar that got raided and started pride day (yes it was originally a day), Stonewall, was run by the mob who had children they were using as prostitutes for wealthy pedos inside.The mob have done more harm to children than loli artists.
>>7246286The low IQ in your post is almost palpable.How do you even manage to breathe, Anon?Honestly, how do you even take a step and not risk killing yourself on accident?holy mental illnessthis is yet another reason why porn should get banned everywhere, so that people like you have no reason to mingle with others and no place to gofuck me this is the dumbest, most retarded post in this thread, even after arguing fucking lolishitters trying to meme drawings as not being realgod damn man you non-people really, really should not be allowed anywhere near other people
>>7246297this is a sphereand if looks anything else to you you are insane
>>7246408>porn should get banned everywherelike in soviet union ? North Korea doesn't have porn I guess.
>>7246425I don't careIf you want to keep watching porn, stop trying to argue people.It only makes your situation worse.
>>7246427>It only makes your situation worse.you're going to die anyway, think about it.
I could show congress this thread alone and they would be instantly convinced to start banning porn.>>7246435Wow epic and mindblowingI will now let the bathtub enter
>>7246439you're creepy, you probably watch porn 8-9 hours a day.
>waaaaa I will show da gubernment dis and dey will make da bad people go awayLike a true cuckold.
>>7246422>this is a sphereDoesn't look like it to me but if that's what you want to call it, it doesn't affect me>if looks anything else to you you are insaneI'm not an artpiece so your narrative about me has an objective reality.The If->then logic doesn't actually pan out.Now you could be using "insane" to simply mean "someone I will dislike because he doesn't think the same as me", which would be a simple insult and thus a valid statement, you are allowed to have your own opinions of others as they are subjective.
>>7246465That's a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.What is the point you're trying to make?>"don't see things as they are if someone's mental illness disagrees because everything is subjective"?If everything is subjective, nothing has objective meaning or definition, then we might as well jump into a woodchippers and call it a foot massage.That is absolutely fucking delusional
>>7246477Everything is not subjective, only subjective things are subjective. There are both objective and subjective things in this world.Art is one of those subjective things.If art having only the meaning that individuals choose to assign it makes you want to an-hero, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe "do a flip"
>>7245958It's the opposite, furries were everywhere forcing their fetish onto (or into) everything and playing the victims, as lolitard have being doing for years now. They had to be banned and bullied, but somehow lolitards don't even realize the optics of openly arguing on social media about their fetish.Good fucking riddance I hope you all end in a federal databa.
>>7246569>he thinks furries stoppedYou live in la la land.
>>7246356true trueranma aged well even if we have this crasy trans people ruining the transformation fantasy/conflict.It luckly odd they did not claim ranma as there spiritguardian or something.Lets hope the remake isnt runing everything.
>>7245904>>7245914>>7245922Because the venn diagram of internet debate nerds, incels with no social skills, porn addicts, and lolishitters is 4 concentric circles.These cretins think they can convince normies that getting horny looking at drawings of kids has nothing to do with seeing the proportions and features of an underage as sexually atractive (lol). They will try to debate them to death without realizing that the moment they position themselves as lolishitters, for any normie, they're below scat or piss drinkers in the social scale, because in their view at least those perverts are not poised to harm anyone.I understand debating this stuff here because who gives a shit, and personally I don't think is the same as pedophilia, but people openly defending this stuff on social media or using the "Ackchually is ephebophilia, so you're wrong, sir" argument are delusional to a degree that comes close to a metal disorder.And most of them being alt-right tards is the funniest shit to me.
>>7246662The fact that you only care about social status reveals that you are an empty husk of a person
lol, seems like I struck a nerve
>>7246672You legitimately made an argument that boiled down to "this is all people who I see as low status."I don't know why you think that matters. A good deal of people into hentai (not even loli) don't care about social status hierarchies at all.
>>7246615lmao, the dub is going to be ruined 100%. i know>watching animu with dubsstill, they are already pushing the "ranma is trans" narrative
>>7246696What time to be alive.I grew up in an age where (voice)actors dont need to be what they play.Let us hope who ever is cast MUSS CHARE ranmas roll and gets overshadowed by said counterpart.And behold: pink ranma for no fucking reason then pink being cheaper or whatever...
>>7246662>They will try to debate them to death without realizing that the moment they position themselves as lolishitters, for any normie, they're below scat or piss drinkers in the social scaleYour average normies is a brainwash sheep and will hold whatever opinion the telly/influencers tells them to. So it's really not worth placing any weight on their opinions>they're below scat or piss drinkers in the social scale, because in their view at least those perverts are not poised to harm anyoneby that logic the feminazis are right in that all men are rapists. if you are a average guy who consumes porn at any point, you are destined to commit rape sooner or later.
>>7246239>a-am not m-mad anon, just telling you!
>>7246569So are they supposed to say nothing as they get harassed and potentially suspended?
>>7245998>>7246011Normies 100% called Rebecca a loli, in fact you can bet your ass the reason the Edgerunners guest character in Strive is gonna be Lucy who nobody gives a shit about and not Rebecca who everyone loves, is because some corpo hag banned them from getting the "loli".
>>7246846>>7246846>who everyone lovesnobody cares what you loveyou're not allowed to masturbate to fictional characters you likeyou're not allowed to consume lolicon.you can't hide in your fictional world and be happy, slaves.
>>7246662All that can be traced down to the rise of social media, constant porn exposure, ever increasing narcissism mixed in with the insane need and potential of social validation and oversaturation/dumbing down of the internet and society in general. Add the politics circus on that.Add unto that easy access from smartphones and the plethora of minors who are unable to control their emotions, flooding every corner of the internet en mass.Zoomers and the newer gen have lost around 20IQ points and cannot read beyond a 4th grader's level; this is even scientifically proven because it is that bad.Most disagreements are either self-referential, based on inane logic or simply to damage control anything that might threaten the things they consume no matter how non-threatening; while ironically complaining that others are censoring them.Imagine having a space where you can argue anything without fear of getting censored by a higher power or by normies and all these fucking retards do is lie and act exactly like normies telling you you must hate them for no particular reason.Honestly, at this point in time, it would be just more reasonable to try and actually get any pornshitters out of the internet, not out of spite, but they are unable to talk outside their own personal interests and this creates the exact same environment these genuine intellectual aberrations always cry about.Of course, it is obvious that no one wants to ever feel heckin invalid about the consumer product they personally identify with, so their most desired outcome would be that no one ever speaks, hears or sees evil and if you do, they feel justified in doing everything they want to you.This is the kind of non-people that are allowed to partake in society and in the worst case, decide the fate of others.What kind of sane individual would disagree based on stereotypes or social value: >"if you say this then you must belong to xyz or be this and that"It's just pure insanity.
What gets me is people are more passionate about stopping drawings than they are actual predators. When you find out there are real people out there abusing real children "it's hard" and "what am I supposed to do?"But when it's something inane that doesn't really effect anyone you get extremely passionate and invest all of your time and energy into it. It's the same for politics. Actual politicians and laws are "hard" and "complicated" but when it comes to a celebrity that said/did something it's the only thing in your life that matters and all you want to talk and think about. It really is sad and frustrating.
>>7247071Whenever anyone says anything or tries to talk about it they get the same semantics and dismissals>"no bro stop thinking about it">"lmao this isnt true because... it just isnt ok?">"lol akshually u must be a pedo">"omg what is it with these feminazis from albino israel tying to censor us? i bet they poop their pants and have no followeres!">"wow so mad and malding coping seething lmao">"discord groomers aren't real and if you say so you're a schizo! oh, you're showing me evidence? lmao tldr cope">"omg what you said makes me think of a group of people i dont like so you must belong to that group of people that is my enemy and by virtue of that i need to spam inane disagreements to try and derail anything anyone might say against the thing i like">"ok you say the thing i like is bad? but what about this? are you qualified to dare wrongthink about the thing i like? guess not! fucking DEBUNKED!!"I dunno, if you can't even talk about anything anymore without getting spammed by third parties who just seem to want to derail everything because god forbid anyone dares point out any negatives, you just get the type of "passionate" people trying to stop something that is connected to the thing.Lolishitters sure are passionate about not allowing any discussion of their trash but cry wolf about censorship and whine about people not letting them cum in peace when they do the exact same shit.Someone who doesn't allow observations to take place in the name of dogma or egoism and tries to shut them down through slander and derailment, fears what the truth might bring about.If fags don't want to talk about shit, why don't they follow the thing they parrot all the time and close their eyes when they see a post they don't like?
>>7246748>all men are rapists. >if you are a average guy who consumes porn at any point, you are destined to commit rape sooner or later.
>>7246846nah there was some push back till people started poster the clip of the devs calling her a loli.
