Drama in the Fediverse
Welcome to the Lemmy Drama community!
This is a place to share and enjoy drama across the fediverse. Grab your popcorn, and dive in!
Rules:
1. Don't bring your own drama.
If you are a part of the drama, don't post it here. We're here to enjoy drama, not see it brought to this community.
2. Be civil.
No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. No ongoing drama.
if there’s been a comment in the past 3 days, wait until it’s settled down.
5. No interacting with the drama you find here.
That means no upvotes, no downvotes, and no commenting in the original thread.
6. Keep the drama focused on Lemmy and/or the fediverse only.
If it’s Kbin or Mastodon drama, it must be a quality effort post.
7. Don’t piss on the popcorn.
Inciting brigades is an automatic ban.
8. Mod Perogative
We reserve the right to enforce the rules however we like.
view the rest of the comments
Idk what loli/shota means
You know how weebs are always making absurd claims like "well she's really a 3000 year old dragon in the body of a 12 year old, so I'm not a pedo"?
Loli/shota dispenses with that. It's about romantic relationships between adults and children. It's pedophilia. Full. Stop.
Loli is underage girls, shota is underage boys.
The Japanese term "Loli" is a shortened version of the English term "Lolita," which itself is a Spanish nickname for the female Spanish name Dolores.
In English, "Lolita" is the name of a novel written in 1955 by a Russian American author which is famous for its incredibly controversial theme: the male protagonist's obsession and sexual attraction to a 12 year old girl, who he kidnaps and abuses. The protagonist calls this girl "Lolita" in private.
In Japanese / Anime culture, the term is used to refer to any character that has a very young appearance, and often displays traits similar to that of young girls, such as innocence or airheadedness. The age of such a character is not relevant, as the author can pick any number arbitrarily. Three, three hundred million, doesn't matter because the term only refers to appearance.
The term "Lolicon" is a portmanteau of the term "Lolita Complex," and originally in the 1970s and 1980s, was used to refer more generally to feelings of love for cute things and cute fictional characters, which came from the anime of the time portraying Japan's "ideal young girl." This original meaning is now known as "moe." The current meaning of "Loli" and "Lolicon" which began to appear in the 1990s, is much closer to the source material of its name, being a specific attraction to characters who appear to be 15 years old and below.
It is important to note that in Japan they do not use the same word as "pedophilia" nor any equivalent Japanese word. There is apparently some distinction between the two, but since I am not an expert in Japanese language I would not be able to tell you the difference. It seems the nuance is very difficult to communicate though, as "loli" has been conflated with "pedophilia" for a long time and while that has been denied as the English equivalent, no suitable alternative explanation has been given. It is very likely no exact English equivalent exists, as there is a major disconnect of culture between Japan and English speaking countries. Thus the term "pedophilia" is used.
"Shota" is the male equivalent of "Loli." Thus, "Shotacon" is the male counterpart to "Lolicon." In Japanese media, "shotacon" are often depicted as women, however the authors of such media are often men.
My personal opinion on this: Its pretty disgusting.
There's quite a few Japanese artists that use the "pedo" tag to label their work besides of the "loli" one. Don't know how well the Japanese loli fandom treats it (they at least called AI generated CP demonic), all I know that the Western ones forgot to adapt the "yes loli, no touch" slogan, and often like to talk about the possibility of children consenting if they're not harassing "normies" in the anime fandom.
Parts of this comment squeezed me out. o.O It reminds me of an encounter I had with someone who confessed they were a closet pedo, who did not act on their fantasies but wanted to. At the time I was studying psychology with the goal of helping pedophiles not offend or reoffend, but after this particular encounter my entire career choice was shaken. This person ended up finding a community of pedophiles who told them they were not wrong for their desires, or acting upon their desires so long as children were consenting (which obviously required GROOMING). There was nothing I could say to convince this person that this was illogical and wrong. I was so sickened by it, and remain sickened by it. What particularly hurts is that law enforcement did nothing, even when I warned them and his family that there was a girl he had his sights on. I am very upset now thinking about it, as this would not be my first encounter with corrupt or inadequate law enforcement or judges.
I don't know anything about the loli community - but any community that labels their work pedo, and starts talking about the possibility of children consenting are not just sick, but dead to me. I'll play devil's advocate and argue that people can wank off to a fake drawing of a fake person and I don't give a damn. But my personal line is when people start talking about the possibility that a child can consent and start advocating for that.
"loli" is underage girls, and "shota" is underage boys? not 100% sure tho
What a terrible day to be literate
It's drawings, calm down
Drawings of some of the most heinous crimes humans commit, and thoughts they have. It’s natural for people to be disgusted by them.
So you never watch a movie with murder? I'm sorry I can just differentiate between fantasy and reality and know that drawings won't hurt people.
You’re starting an argument about something I never said. I said it’s natural for people to be disgusted by drawings of child porn. I don’t know why my statement made you so defensive.
You jump into an argument about whether something's morally wrong with a comment that very heavily implies that it is, and wonder why I'm defending my argument?
No one's saying people don't have a right to be disgusted with it. Just like people can be disgusted with any other type of porn, like rape or incest. But that doesn't mean drawings with no victim are immoral
That’s not the conversation I jumped into, are you paying attention to who you’re replying to? Someone said “what a terrible day to be literate” when they were told what loli and shota meant, because they were naturally disgusted, and you told them to calm down. I told you their reaction was natural, and you keep trying to drag me into a different conversation. I really don’t understand the argument you’re trying to start with me. People are naturally disgusted by child porn, whether it’s real or fake. None of the comments I’ve replied to have been about morality, and I’ve made no judgements one way or the other. Your interpretations of my comments are a reflection of your mindset.
undefined> Your interpretations of my comments are a reflection of your mindset.
How? Because I'm in the middle of an argument with someone else, and I didn't ignore all the ongoing context of that other side thread when replying to you?
I'm not really starting any argument with you. You posted in the same thread as other arguments I'm having.
I posted on your first comment when there was no argument happening at all. You chose to interpret my comment as an attack on your morality, which is a reflection of your mindset.
No where in his reply did he say anything about you attacking his morality, what are you talking about?
Drawings made specifically for paedophiles to get sexual satisfaction, fuck off.
So you'd rather have them hurt real people than jerk off over drawings? Yikes
I, and many others, find the use of ‘loli’ content in this context to be morally questionable. The key concern is the normalization of such behaviors, which can perpetuate and potentially endorse harmful desires. Moreover, even though it involves drawings, it still fosters an environment that is fundamentally based on the sexualization of underage characters.
undefined> The key concern is the normalization of such behaviors, which can perpetuate and potentially endorse harmful desires
This is the same exact argument that violent video games "normalizes" violence. It was wrong then and it's wrong here.
Absolutely, people do not commit major crimes just because they saw them on TV or read it in the newspapers. They do it because they want to.
I don't know if I agree with that. Porn I watched has definitely affected what I want in real life. Even if its a fantasy world, its definitely made me think "huh this might be hot in real life". Thankfully its nothing harmful but nonetheless. I can definitely see how the abundance of certain porn enforces the thought that a certain fetish is common, normal.
That's pretty different from wanting to fuck kids. Wanting to try an activity is pretty different from changing who you're attracted to. Unless you think gay porn's existence will make people gay.
Stop comparing video games to very real sexual gratification you fucking nonce.
I feel like people minimize video game violence as if it is any less bad then getting off on a drawing. People minimize the violence in games where we glorify killing people and don't talk about the repercussions of war and the violence - real war with refugees and results of total annihilation like Syria.
War is no joke, violence is no joke, and killing people is just as bad as pedophilia - REAL pedophilia. But just like shooting someone in the head in a video game or burning a village down in a video game doesn't translate to someone in real life wanting to hurt other people, looking at drawings does not mean someone is going to act out on the drawings they see. Fantasies do not equate to hurting others. There are plenty of people out there who have rape fantasies, they may write about it, they may roleplay with their partner, but that does not mean they WANT to be raped or assaulted in real life and it gives no one a license to do that to them against their will. Fantasies are fantasies, that is all they are, and the few sick fucks who act on their fantasies are 100% different from the people who never do.
Why not? The comparison is identical.
People are into things in fantasy that they're not into in reality. And not everyone who defends victimless activities are into them. I'm not into loli, but it's fucking fantasy. People fantasize about being raped, that's a huge fantasy. But that doesn't mean they want to be raped. And most "loli" anime shit look absolutely nothing like real children. If you want to talk about photo-realistic AI generated porn, ok fine. But seriously, what's wrong with a "3000 year old dragon" in the body of a child? Can they consent? That's all that really matters here, consent.
In case no one got the memo the world is run by pedophiles and human traffickers. Top politicians, entertainment industry, corrupt judges, bankers, the elite. Our entire world is morally questionable. I'm just not going to get worked up over fake children in fake worlds, when there are real children being hurt who need my outrage more.
As a side note, do video games normalize violence? Because if we are going to use the argument that people looking at drawings normalizes and endorses harmful desires then we really need to have the discussion about video game violence.
I'd rather them not fucking jack it to anything resembling children you fucking imbecile.
I would also rather you not glorify blowing anyone up/putting a bullet in someone's head who resembles a real human being in addition to people not jacking off to someone resembling a child.