Adults won't be swayed by this retard's assertions on this matter. However, the upsetting part about these tweets is that the people who
will be persuaded are the teenagers, and younger, who'll read this:
Then think to themselves, "oh, I've already been exposed to lolicon by anime fans online, and now I can indulge in it without guilt because if so many adults agree that it's not pedophilia, then it's gotta be everyone else who's wrong!"
The idea that the term pedophilia wouldn't have originally applied in the context of illustrated pornography of children, and its current application towards lolicon is diluting its original meaning, is a staggeringly moronic claim. But don't take my word for it, let's ask Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing as published in his 1886 study
Psychopathia Sexualis:
So, in its application 140 years ago, the pedophiles in question didn't need to commit any crimes in order to meet this criteria. All they had to do was
fantasize about a child, explicitly including "imaginary representations," such as a drawing. Even back then they already realized that pedophiles were weak, porn-sick men who should be institutionalized for the safety of the community. Imagine their reaction if they could see the state of our world where men are masturbating to children illustrated in the art style of children's cartoons while crying out that calling them pedophiles is diluting the meaning of the word.
It's Chibi who is perverting the meaning of the term "pedophile" by chopping it up until all that remains is a narrowed definition which conveniently retcons out the whole "imaginary representations" bit and then dilutes it by inventing the criterion that it must pertain to criminal behavior.