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

[mikumikumikumiku]

Our nigga JiDion did an interview with a guy named "SuperBearNeo" regarding lolicon. Although he put Jacob aka Chibi Reviews in the thumbnail.

Spoiler: Archive

View attachment 8798204

"They're not kids being depicted"

So what's being depicted then? A lot of loli content goes out of its way to tell you the age of the characters. If you were to boot up Blue Archive it shows you the ages of every single girl on the character info screen (Ages go from 11-18 for 99% of the cast). A huge part of loli content is making sure you know the characters age, if they're in middle school/high school, and their mental maturity. What a terrible argument.

 

[Climate 4C]

"They're not kids being depicted"

So what's being depicted then? A lot of loli content goes out of its way to tell you the age of the characters. If you were to boot up Blue Archive it shows you the ages of every single girl on the character info screen (Ages go from 11-18 for 99% of the cast). A huge part of loli content is making sure you know the characters age, if they're in middle school/high school, and their mental maturity. What a terrible argument.

The whole "kid saying their age" relates to the methods used by real life sexual abusers. What a shock... Other than the obvious, disgusting reason they do it, it's also quite common because pedos use CSAM to get into groups or DMs where CSAM is shared. Basically "you show what you have and I'll show what I have" mentality. It's a verification that the content is illegal and obtained through the abuse of a kid. Many pedos as well get off on the fact that it's illegal, as seen in the lyrics of songs like "Loli God Requiem", and how pedos commonly refer to themselves as "perverts" in any setting where they speak openly.

In short, the practices of and specific details by lolicons are identical to those of real child predators. There's no venn diagram, it's just a circle.

 

[Atticus Carpenter]

Of course the pedos and troon come in to defense for their own.I guess Momma Occa favorite key is A-Minor.

It is not a surprise seeing how hard trannies go defending tranny kids and how the main thing they aspire is to become Discord mods. They being in defense of loli would be natural since one of the hills they want to die on is having access to kids. That and them wanting to pretend to be kids as well.

Many pedos as well get off on the fact that it's illegal

The thrill of doing something forbidden always draws a lot of people. Much like teens would think doing weed is cool and amazing when they just get a raise from it being illegal. The problem is that the greater the risk the greater the thrill and when they manage to do it without being caught you only reinforce their behaviour by not punishing them, since for them it will be amazing.

 

[Gibs]

Our nigga JiDion did an interview with a guy named "SuperBearNeo" regarding lolicon. Although he put Jacob aka Chibi Reviews in the thumbnail.

Spoiler: Archive

View attachment 8798204

In the Schlep Derangement Syndrome Thread, my post adds more context. SuperBearNeo would accuse Jidion of inciting his "fans" to harass and spam child gore in people's DMs. SuperBearNeo provides no evidence that Jidion organized or supported this.

SuperBearNeo, a lolisho activist, directly accuses Jidion of directly being responsible for failtrolls sending child gore in people's DMs. Apparently this is Jidion's fault, according to SuperBearNeo. Did he provide evidence that Jidion incited such acts or that the senders were fans of Jidion? Lol, no, of course not.

 

[dick tha master]

Just watched Chibi's schlep video and this shit gets on my nerves-

"All antis are pedos, actually"
And a proper response to that should be:
"All pear are fruits, but not all fruits are pear". Some pedohiles will try to hide behind anti lolicon stances, but most people against it are not pedos. Statistically, it doesn't make sense.

Imagine a room filled with 100 people, are all (or even most of them) fucking pedophiles because they think lolis look like children? Get real, Chibi.

God i hate that fucking strawman.

 

[Outer Space Traveller]

"It should be illegal to jack off to drawings of little kids? Well have you ever heard of THE CONSTITUTION?! Checkmate, anti."

I have a feeling that these freaks say "it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution, therefore, I can do what I want". Same as shitlibs saying "Jesus never said anything about firearms".

Can you screencap the article? It's not loading on nitter or archive.
If he mentions GTA again, I'd just retort that a murder simulator > pedo simulator. Same with war simulator, torture simulator, most other fantasies involving action upon a subject. You're just throwing in hypotheticals like "so what if the child consented, and was older/more experienced than you, dominated you", which is inherently a red flag.

"Violence"/violent games triggers different part of our brains compared to pornography. Simply, research suggests you exercise it, while pornography you just turn it into mush.

TLDR: Every single attack is the recycled moral-panic script that failed against comic books, heavy metal, Lolita, violent games, and every other "degenerate" medium in history. THERE ARE NO VICTIMS INVOLVED IN PRODUCTION. This principle is best protected by the ethical standard of the Ashcroft precedent, serving as a rigorous baseline globally. Banning drawings doesn't protect children, it allows censors to purge whatever offends the loudest next. I believe child a-buse should demand real resources focused on actual victims, not witch hunts over what cartoon you're going to jack off to next.

Would you look at that! They are appealing to "it's fiction, therefore I can do whatever I want". It would be interesting to have a lawyer kiwi to have an evaluation, because these people are liars, and I don't believe a word of what they say.

 

[Nigga Bullshit]

the Ashcroft ruling represents the most rigorous, logically sound ethical standard globally: you cannot ban lawful speech by claiming a hypothetical link to a crime without real victims.

This principle is best protected by the ethical standard of the Ashcroft precedent, serving as a rigorous baseline globally.

This guy defers a lot to the decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition to claim that there is no harm from lolicon and that this decision somehow sets a global standard.

To respond to this, I had a look at similar cases in other courts. Many of them reached the opposite conclusion. One of these is the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Sharpe. The full opinion can be read here [A].

In this case, the court unanimously found that child pornography is harmful, even if it is entirely fictional. They looked beyond the direct exploitation of the children shown in the images and also considered the broader harms:

• Child pornography contributes to the cognitive distortions of pedophiles, reinforcing their belief that sexual activity with children is acceptable.
• Child pornography fuels pedophiles fantasies, which are the motivation for their offending.
• Outlawing possession of child pornography helps the police reduce direct harm to children.
• Child pornography is used for grooming victims.
• Child pornography is inherently degrading and dehumanizing to all children in society, as it sends the message that sex with children is acceptable.

The court concluded that all of these harms still occur when the pornography is drawn or fictional:



The court also referred to evidence from expert witnesses, including an expert in forensic psychiatry, sexual deviance, and pedophilia, who testified that these harms are not just hypothetical. They are proven and accepted as real among the vast majority of forensic psychiatrists:



The judge at the court of appeals said that banning fictional material was not justified since there was not enough proof that it led to harm. The Supreme Court overruled her and rejected this reasoning:


And here is a good quote from Justices L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, and Bastarache, which I think summarizes everything quite well:

"It goes without saying that child pornography which sexually exploits children in its production is harmful. Moreover, we have seen that the harms of child pornography extend far beyond direct, physical exploitation. It is harmful whether it involves real children in its production or whether it is a product of the imagination. In either case, child pornography fosters and communicates the same harmful, dehumanizing and degrading message."

 

[Outer Space Traveller]

This guy defers a lot to the decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition to claim that there is no harm from lolicon and that this decision somehow sets a global standard.

To respond to this, I had a look at similar cases in other courts. Many of them reached the opposite conclusion. One of these is the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Sharpe. The full opinion can be read here [A].

In this case, the court unanimously found that child pornography is harmful, even if it is entirely fictional. They looked beyond the direct exploitation of the children shown in the images and also considered the broader harms:

• Child pornography contributes to the cognitive distortions of pedophiles, reinforcing their belief that sexual activity with children is acceptable.
• Child pornography fuels pedophiles fantasies, which are the motivation for their offending.
• Outlawing possession of child pornography helps the police reduce direct harm to children.
• Child pornography is used for grooming victims.
• Child pornography is inherently degrading and dehumanizing to all children in society, as it sends the message that sex with children is acceptable.

The one case where Canadians trumped Americans. Sad!
If only this could be done all over America, we would be golden. And what the fuck is this decision of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition anyway? Excuse to be a retard-degenerate? Sounds like a (((Miller))) v. California

 

[Born2Sneed]

All the loli guys will alwasy say that its not csam, in my opinion its most defnetly csem. I checked if there was a wikipedia article for this debate and it seems they got their filthy meathooks onto it.

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems they have made their additions to the see also section.

Spoiler: Screenshot

 

[Nigga Bullshit]

And what the fuck is this decision of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition anyway? Excuse to be a retard-degenerate? Sounds like a (((Miller))) v. California

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court found that child pornography can only be outlawed where it either depicts real children or is obscene under the Miller test. What this essentially means is that, if the government wants to prosecute someone over lolicon drawings, the drawings have to be obscene under Miller v. California.

It is a very widely misunderstood decision. Lolipedos think that it carved out some special exception so that lolicon is a protected class of speech that can never be banned no matter what, but that is not true. The government is still able to ban lolicon as long as they can prove it is obscene, which it usually is. There have been multiple court cases where judges and juries have found lolicon to be obscene.

The OP has a more detailed overview near the bottom of the post under the spoiler "Detailed Explanation".

---

Edit: Just adding one more comment on Ashcroft: I don't feel that the Ashcroft decision supports an argument that lolicon is harmless, since that is not really what the court was saying.

The protections of the First Amendment are extremely strong and probably the strongest in the world. A lot of speech that is illegal elsewhere is legal here, such as calls to violence (assuming they are abstract and don't incite imminent action). You have to prove a very high degree of harm before you can outlaw speech in the United States. This is not because the Supreme Court thinks that this speech is harmless, they just don't believe it is harmful enough to override the very strong protections of the First Amendment. The court purposely tolerates some potentially dangerous or harmful speech to give "breathing space" for other expression.

The same is true with lolicon and other virtual child pornography. In Ashcroft, I don't think the court was saying: "This stuff is harmless and it is completely acceptable." They were more saying: "This stuff can be harmful and dangerous, but the harm is not direct or severe enough to meet the very high bar for criminalizing speech under the First Amendment."

 

[Steel Billet]

Miller test.

Marge?

 

[I mean I'm just saying]

Child pornography is used for grooming victims.

Concrete examples of this need to be aggressively rubbed in the face of anyone who says "lolicon has no connection to real crimes." EPI and normalization are a lot easier to pull off when the material to do so is not only legal, but aggressively defended as socially acceptable enough to post your love of publicly.

 

[Nigga Bullshit]

Marge?

It's a legal test for determining whether material is obscene. If material meets the Miller test, it is outside the protection of the First Amendment and you can be prosecuted over it.

The test is:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Lolicon obviously meets 1 and 2, I can't imagine that an average person would ever find that anime child porn is not "patently offensive".

The only place where there could be an issue is 3 if there is "serious artistic value". But this typically requires that the content has some deeper meaning or narrative beyond just being straight pornography. If it is just made for sexual arousal and nothing more, than it doesn't have "artistic value". Lolicon would rarely ever have "serious artistic value" for that reason.

 

[Outer Space Traveller]

All the loli guys will alwasy say that its not csam, in my opinion its most defnetly csem. I checked if there was a wikipedia article for this debate and it seems they got their filthy meathooks onto it.

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems they have made their additions to the see also section.

Spoiler: Screenshot

View attachment 8799730

"Artistick freedumb", "morel panick", "freedumb of '''speech'''". Look at this shit. Since when is pornography speech? Bunch of fucking kikeniggers.
This is what happens when you become a libertine and you allow browns to voice opinions about the constitution. And people wonder why we get more and more draconian laws and unrelated issues in our countries. The founding fathers would have established a dictatorship if they knew this was the "freedom" in the hearts and minds of the people today.

In Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court found that child pornography can only be outlawed where it either depicts real children or is obscene under the Miller test. What this essentially means is that, if the government wants to prosecute someone over lolicon drawings, the drawings have to be obscene under Miller v. California.

It is a very widely misunderstood decision. Lolipedos think that it carved out some special exception so that lolicon is a protected class of speech that can never be banned no matter what, but that is not true. The government is still able to ban lolicon as long as they can prove it is obscene, which it usually is. There have been multiple court cases where judges and juries have found lolicon to be obscene.

The OP has a more detailed overview near the bottom of the post under the spoiler "Detailed Explanation".

My bad, thank you. So lolicons using their "pirupuru" to lie again, imogine moy shawk.

It's a legal test for determining whether material is obscene. If material meets the Miller test, it is outside the protection of the First Amendment and you can be prosecuted over it.

The test is:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Lolicon obviously meets 1 and 2, I can't imagine that an average person would ever find that anime child porn is not "patently offensive".

The only place where there could be an issue is 3 if there is "serious artistic value". But this typically requires that the content has some deeper meaning or narrative beyond just being straight pornography. If it is just made for sexual arousal and nothing more, than it doesn't have "artistic value". Lolicon would rarely ever have "serious artistic value" for that reason.

They probably want to find a retarded loophole of "it's just anatomical studies". Yeah, right, and tearing open their heads would be the same thing, to see if their brains turned into fecal matter.
Ah, sorry - that is not a threat. It's speech of a HYPOTHETICAL scenario.

 

[GenuineSunset]

All the loli guys will alwasy say that its not csam, in my opinion its most defnetly csem. I checked if there was a wikipedia article for this debate and it seems they got their filthy meathooks onto it.

Legal status of fictional pornography depicting minors - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems they have made their additions to the see also section.

Spoiler: Screenshot

View attachment 8799730

lmao


"MY DRAWN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS UNDER ATTACK BY THE WOKE LEFT!"
(Wayback, Archive, Ghost, Mega)

 

[xXx_Smartest Retard_xXx]

It's a legal test for determining whether material is obscene. If material meets the Miller test, it is outside the protection of the First Amendment and you can be prosecuted over it.

The test is:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.
3. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Lolicon obviously meets 1 and 2, I can't imagine that an average person would ever find that anime child porn is not "patently offensive".

The only place where there could be an issue is 3 if there is "serious artistic value". But this typically requires that the content has some deeper meaning or narrative beyond just being straight pornography. If it is just made for sexual arousal and nothing more, than it doesn't have "artistic value". Lolicon would rarely ever have "serious artistic value" for that reason.

>Lolicon media having a deep meaning (Impossible)
Whats next pigs start flying?

 

[Nerd Hater 65]

Of course the pedos and troon come in to defense for their own.I guess Momma Occa favorite key is A-Minor.

I first heard about Momma Occa when he was defending Flamenco out of all people, so him defending Chibi is not that surprising.

 

[GenuineSunset]

Earlier, Nikandros's tweet was hit with a community note by the Pedophile Defense Forces Brigading Army. It has since been removed (thankfully).

Screenshot of the community note is from his response to it. (Archive, Ghost, Mega)

Archive from when it had the community note on the tweet.

The harassment and brigading these people do is on another level.

Even on his original tweet they're still in the trenches.



"muh anti's are pedos", this gay retarded argument has been used ad nauseam.


And they're celebrating the brigading.


I love how Nikandros makes this post explaining he's not a furry. (Archive, Ghost, Mega)

And still gets called a zoophile by one of these retards. (Ghost)


The irony of lolicons complaining about zoophiles...

 

[slayer of orcs]

lmao
View attachment 8799955View attachment 8799958

"MY DRAWN CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS UNDER ATTACK BY THE WOKE LEFT!"
(Wayback, Archive, Ghost, Mega)
View attachment 8799979

Poland being based as usual.

 

[Outer Space Traveller]

Earlier, Nikandros's tweet was hit with a community note by the Pedophile Defense Forces Brigading Army. It has since been removed (thankfully).
View attachment 8800001
Screenshot of the community note is from his response to it. (Archive, Ghost, Mega)

Archive from when it had the community note on the tweet.

The harassment and brigading these people do is on another level.

Even on his original tweet they're still in the trenches.

View attachment 8800027View attachment 8800029

"muh anti's are pedos", this gay retarded argument has been used ad nauseam.
View attachment 8800034View attachment 8800036

And they're celebrating the brigading.
View attachment 8800072View attachment 8800073View attachment 8800074View attachment 8800075

I love how Nikandros makes this post explaining he's not a furry. (Archive, Ghost, Mega)

And still gets called a zoophile by one of these retards. (Ghost)
View attachment 8800113

The irony of lolicons complaining about zoophiles...
View attachment 8800123

They're loud, they're obnoxious. If they used this power to do something useful, I figured we would be slightly better off. Slightly.

EDIT: The likes of "Louie" (Louis Testone Jr.) don't seem to be engaging with this ongoing "feud", and it makes me think he could be classified as a psychopath. After all, I wouldn't classify as a stretch if he thinks even if "brothers in jerking arms" are expendable to him. Only his desires matter. Now, does this mean he is a cold and calculating psychopath? Not necessarily, he just thinks ahead better compared to the typical coombrained retard. Yet he has blind spots and will eventually trip and fall, some day.