Plagued Lolicon/Shotacon Defense Force - The people who jerk off to cartoon children and won't ever shut up about it

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Lvkester Endorser said:
As a tourist who doesn't watch anime past sailor moon and dragon ball when it's on TV, I find the discussion about "it's so hard to tell if this is loli bros" confusing and suspicious.
Click to expand...
Speaking as someone who's kind of into anime/manga (ie., I don't just watch "normie" shows, but I enjoy individual series rather than being a fan of the medium in general), it's honestly pretty obvious if something is lolicon or shotacon.

The whole idea that there are detailed rules to it, like a character having to be at least seven heads high to be an adult, is just a weird way to justify gross content while causing pointless drama over other stuff that's obviously not pedophilic. It takes advantage of the fact that a lot of people don't really have the language to explain their gut feeling about a work, and forces them on the defensive. While the term might be overused on Left-wing channels, it really is about "coding", the way that a character is written and illustrated to convey a certain impression via subtext rather than explicit actions or statements. Sometimes, that's because the creator wants deniability for something considered morally deviant, but it's also done in normal works where something needs to be conveyed without interrupting narrative flow.

There are design and characterization elements that can contribute to a character's coding as either a child or adult, but it's the overall impression that matters, not the details. Even several deviations from the typical pattern for a child or adult are very rarely confusing, assuming the creator is at all competent. No matter what textual statements are made about a character's age (ex. "She's reallllly a bajillion years old dragonvampire, occifer!"), if the subtext is screaming that the character is a child, then they're a child and literally fucking everyone knows it. On the flipside of that, a character who's clearly intended to be a mature adult doesn't become a child because of the shape of their eyes, their boob-to-head ratio, or whatever. There might be a few odd edge cases out there, but they don't usually occur in works meant to be titillating, because the whole point there is for the character to fall in an age range that appeals to the audience.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: a feel, Space Police, MAAAD and 3 others
Bothriolepis said:
snip
Click to expand...
The point of discussing it however is to explain WHY X is a loli. Because lolicons like to lie. And guntguard. Yes its a autistic endeavor. It however covers every point the lolicons bring up. It's important to clarify what is and isn't a loli, because common sense is not common unfortunately.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Space Police, Toji Suzuhara, The Foxtrot and 1 other person
FuluFuckwit said:
Godspeed to the fedniggers that put the pedos in their place. May they have a merry christmas.
The fedniggers that use child prostitutes as "assets" deserve the worst.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the impression that they can't do both at the same time, from the same people.
 
Gravemind said:
You seem to be under the impression that they can't do both at the same time, from the same people.
Click to expand...
If they do both at the same time unfortunately they have to play Twoface Toss Coin Challenge.

(They either get shot in the leg or in the face)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kiwisee
Donald_J_Trump said:
I fucking hate the feds. Fucking clown world.

Niggers, moslims, and illegals pimping and raping little White girls daily.

Feds: *sleep*

White autistic retard uses AI to generate a shit cp image.

Feds: DROP THE FUCKING HAMMER.
Click to expand...
....

This sounds like partial-sweeping.

It's pretty much the "Go after IRL Pedophiles and not the ones who substitute it with fictional CP" argument.

The fuck?🤨
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Markass the Worst, Kiwisee, Lvkester Endorser and 6 others
Donald_J_Trump said:
I fucking hate the feds. Fucking clown world.

Niggers, moslims, and illegals pimping and raping little White girls daily.

Feds: *sleep*

White autistic retard uses AI to generate a shit cp image.

Feds: DROP THE FUCKING HAMMER.
Click to expand...
its preventative action. its going to be more difficult to go after the ones that obviously know what theyre doing is wrong and hiding it better than the ones that openly display their fetishistic traits.
in an ideal world both would be tracked down because even fake/realistic CP can identify a potential future predator, but here we are.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Markass the Worst, Alex Hogendorp, Toji Suzuhara and 1 other person
WelperHelper99 said:
The point of discussing it however is to explain WHY X is a loli. Because lolicons like to lie. And guntguard. Yes its a autistic endeavor. It however covers every point the lolicons bring up. It's important to clarify what is and isn't a loli, because common sense is not common unfortunately.
Click to expand...
I can see that, but I do think it ends up being a fruitless discussion unless it leads back to the sort of intuitive, big picture view I was referring to in my post.

When I've seen the topic brought up before, people get lost in the weeds really quickly arguing about what proportions make a character a loli, whether it matters if you say that they're older than they appear, and things like that. Those are always going to be unending, pointless debates, because any of those individual details can either mean a lot or be completely, totally irrelevant depending on how the pieces fit together as a whole. The problem is really that lolicons who don't want to admit they're lolicons are never going to argue in good faith. They recognize what actually makes any particular character a loli because that character wouldn't feed their degenerate paraphilia otherwise, but they can always find examples of characters where those same traits are innocuous, and then you're right back to square one unless you can explain why it matters (and might even be the decisive factor) in one context, but doesn't carry any real significance in another.

That's why, if you're trying to explain it to someone who might actually give a shit, I think it's better to give them a framework that explains why their gut instinct is rational than a list of a dozen traits that all have an equal number of caveats and exceptions. By starting with the assumption that a work weirds you out because it does, in fact, sexualize a child, you can turn the question of how you know that into a streamlined literary/artistic analysis that leans into rather than ignoring all the potential excuses lolicons might use. All choices in fiction are deliberate, and there are actually perfectly legitimate reasons to have a 300 year old vampire living in the body of a 12 year old girl, so why doesn't this work explore fucking  any of the literary implications? It's obviously an aesthetic choice, which can also be innocuous, but the sheer amount of fan service and the lack of meaningful characterization makes that aesthetic choice seem pretty fucking sketchy. If it's an empty framework to showcase parts of a developing adolescent body that appeal to pedophiles...well, the implication is pretty obvious. Because it explores motive, doing this can also innoculate well-meaning but naive summer children against the claims that lolicons aren't  really attracted to minors, which might sound ridiculous to us but have a surprising amount of appeal to adolescents and younger adults who are willing to listen to vacuous but well-spoken arguments from people old enough to bullshit them with claims they haven't encountered yet.

Of course, there's no point wasting time doing this with actual lolicons. If they seem like the type to get MATI, you can poke the cow until it moos for some comedy, but I wouldn't waste my breath on anything beyond that. I usually just say that pedos need a short therapy session with Dr. Chippy to cure their paraphilia, then move on with my life.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Light my fire, MAAAD, dick tha master and 4 others
Bothriolepis said:
That's why, if you're trying to explain it to someone who might actually give a shit, I think it's better to give them a framework that explains why their gut instinct is rational than a list of a dozen traits that all have an equal number of caveats and exceptions. By starting with the assumption that a work weirds you out because it does, in fact, sexualize a child, you can turn the question of how you know that into a streamlined literary/artistic analysis that leans into rather than ignoring all the potential excuses lolicons might use. All choices in fiction are deliberate, and there are actually perfectly legitimate reasons to have a 300 year old vampire living in the body of a 12 year old girl, so why doesn't this work explore fucking  any of the literary implications? It's obviously an aesthetic choice, which can also be innocuous, but the sheer amount of fan service and the lack of meaningful characterization makes that aesthetic choice seem pretty fucking sketchy. If
Click to expand...
I think you're right. It really comes down to how you explain that to a person. What you said makes sense, but for a person that pops into the thread, it needs to get boiled down. I agree with the "everything is deliberate" point. I think that is the strongest part and basically knocks down every argument a lolicon has.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: dick tha master, Kiwisee, Bothriolepis and 1 other person
WelperHelper99 said:
The point of discussing it however is to explain WHY X is a loli. Because lolicons like to lie. And guntguard. Yes its a autistic endeavor. It however covers every point the lolicons bring up. It's important to clarify what is and isn't a loli, because common sense is not common unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Consider this: the moment you start to argue with a pedo, you have already lost. There is nothing to argue about.

Also people were asking if something is "safe" in this very thread. My og post was to point out that is weird to the point of being suspicious (to me ). I agree with the guy who replied to my post saying normal people don't need to measure heads or eyes to know if something is loli. A split-second glance is enough.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Markass the Worst, Toji Suzuhara, WelperHelper99 and 3 others
Inside your walls said:
Random twitter account makes a post about how lolicons are fat and greasy
as a response to some loli account claiming they're gigachads.
View attachment 6781904
Post

Said Lolifags proceed to self-felt themselves by destroying their digital footprint and revealing most of them
are either pasty white trash or mutts in the process to prove that ITS NAWT TRU

View attachment 6781907View attachment 6781908
View attachment 6781910View attachment 6781912
View attachment 6781913
Post

View attachment 6781918
View attachment 6781922
View attachment 6781924
View attachment 6781927
View attachment 6781929
Post

Wake up, Kiwis. New Pokemon evolution has dropped.
View attachment 6781932View attachment 6781934View attachment 6781936
Click to expand...
God, imagine finding out your superior in the army is a fuckin loli enjoyer
 
  • Horrifying
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Kami Neko, Blackhole, Alex Hogendorp and 6 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back