It depends on why people are engaging with those things, and what it is they think they’re doing.
When people talk about fictional pedophilia “satiating the person’s needs so they don’t go out and commit a real crime,” they’re kind of tipping their hand, don’t you think? A gun-game player doesn’t actually want to kill anyone, but apparently fiction and non-fiction are veeery similar concepts in the mind of a lolicon.
In the end, is it not strange to even consider the legal age of consent for purely fictional characters? Such characters are only as old as they are imagined to be, just as sex with them is only imagined. Because there is no actual crime committed, it ultimately ends up an issue of how one interprets images, of a person’s private thoughts, and this is not something that can or should be regulated.
This paper you’ve linked is entirely missing the point, and I’m gonna be real, seems a little pedophilic to me. This is the same kind of sophistry that you get from pedophiles who are trying to massage the issue.
Do you have the relevant section that indicates CSA is reduced? As far as I can tell, this paper isn’t even a study.
No it’s not. If I were to find you on a graph, the faster you walk, the unhappier I’d find you to be—that’s what it’s saying.
Now, the content of the article? I have no idea. I’m not reading it.
I think you might be confusing a few things?
It’s not that it’s done for no attention whatsoever, it’s that the phrase “they’re just doing this for attention” is a way that people dismiss each other, and ironically, over-fixate on people who just want to pay for their groceries and leave, you know?
By being fashionable in socially unapproved ways, people will assume you’re being vain as a euphemism for their relative disgust, and vanity loses you a lot of social capital—aura, basically. They’ll rather think of you as prissy than serious.
But you can comment on a person’s hair if you like it, same as you would a band t-shirt for a group you both like.
Wow! Your mother must be so impressed that her son can eat an entire cactus. Next time your butt should eat the cactus. lol
Whether you see it on the menu or the bill.
The gunblades vibrate, not shoot. They’re like that battery powered knife that allegedly cuts tomatoes 1% better.
I’m not making fun, btw, I fucking love gunblades. They should shoot, though. Lightning’s shoots.
Bonus tip tradeoff: you just lost any benefit you might have been gaining from the placebo effect. Sorry.
Only if I believe you, eh heh heh~~
It is a place to share your shower thoughts. You’d do better, I think, for trying to get a sense of what a community’s vibe is before participating.
And you’re not being silenced. Myself and plenty of other people refer to AI as devil technology built by demons, vampires, pedophiles, and republicans—but I repeat myself—on the daily. If I can evangelize about how AI is a cancer that needs to be cut out, then you can, too; you can do it in appropriate places.
There’s a social incentive.
My point exactly. :p
It’s been so many hours, so I don’t know if I really remember my purpose, but I think it was something like: can you get yourself into a headspace where making your bed seems like a pleasant thing to do?
'Cause I can, even though I don’t.
I don’t live in the 1600s, so it’s hard to imagine what consequences not making my own bed would have; and though I think they’re wrong, the unshowered yugioh player probably feels similarly. They’d have to be taught otherwise.
Hold your horses, there’s no need to get defensive.
I didn’t bring that up to suggest people should—I don’t—I’m just provoking a bit of thought.
You don’t see any similarities at all between making sure you’re shaved, showered, well-dressed, maybe perfumed a bit, before going outside; and making sure your bed is clean, well-kept, and presentable?
You probably don’t invite friends into your bedroom.
So let’s ask a similar question: do you clean your living room before inviting guests over? What is the purpose of that? There’s a good chance you care about it being clean more than they do, so why bother?
It is, yeah. It’s also what they believe. It’s sort of a sour grapes situation.
For most people, this kind of behavior is socialized out of them by the time they reach adulthood. But a lot of YuGiOh players, and players of other kinds, do not leave their house. To such a person, getting ready to go out requires maybe an hour or more of prep time, mostly because they don’t know what they’re doing, for what feels like 5 minutes of play at grocery store. They would think of this as superfluous and pointless.
A point of similarity I know will ruffle a few feathers: do you make your bed every day?
This is kind of the attitude I’m talking about.
Is this story even notable? Like, how much attention is this even getting?
I am not interested in propaganda that sews distrust in our institutions and collective efforts when I’ve already said that being skeptical is fine.
I just want people to trust. Being skeptical and wanting to learn is perfectly fine, but also, people do go to school for these things for years, you know? Have a little a faith they aren’t lying to you.
By “you” I just mean people generally, of course.
ohhh that’s good
Everything we do is thousands on thousands on thousands of years old.
However, some 50 years ago there was more cultural respect held for doctors and lawyers and astronauts and the like. We have forgotten somewhat how to value expertise. It is a problem, regardless of anything else.
I would assume the incontinence is because he is incontinent and not because he doesn’t know how to sit down, but I’m not motivated enough to look it up.
Nope, “they are awful, they’re awful” is correct.
I do get to, actually, through a little process called shame.
You want to be able to control everyone and force them to act the way you want them to act.
We already do this. You cannot murder, you can’t piss in public, a lot of states don’t allow open carry, you can be shooed off the premises for smoking in the wrong areas. And, you can’t pull your dick out. “Controlling” the way people act is actually absurdly common.
I’ll make it clearer.
No, it is not.
You seem reasonable enough, so if I seem terse or frustrated, I am not necessarily directing that toward you.
The purpose of politeness in society is to demonstrate, virtue signal even, a person’s willingness to abide by the social contract. You are virtue signaling safety.
The normalization of lolicon material is not a problem because it “breaks laws,” it makes it more difficult to catch warning signs from bad people early. It provides too much plausable deniability.
This is not dissimilar to the aversion of racists when they start talking about race science, or making “ironic” hitler jokes—these people are not “breaking laws” either. The purpose of treating them as socially deleterious is either to shame them into better behavior, or, failing that, to excommunicate them from society. False positives, whether these people were truly racist in their hearts, is immaterial to me—I do not care. They should have enough social sense to know better.
A disclaimer: Obviously, none of this means that I want pedophiles to fear getting help. Getting help is outside the purview of social excommunication; shame would not be serving a purpose in this case. But this fact really has nothing to do with whether I’m accepting of the endless flirtatiousness anime and other Japanese media seems to have with child sex.