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
They are not just drawings. They are admissions of a crime.
What crime exactly? Is grand theft auto admission of a crime?
Jacking it to anything that resembles a child is illegal in a lot of places you fucking moron. Indulging nonces in any way is morally fucking wrong.
So is being gay. So while you're right, some countries have banned visual depictions with no victim, it's not a crime here and I'm not interested in places where it is.
Fuck off comparing paedos to gay people you abhorrent cunt.
Unclutch your pearls and read my comment again. If you think I'm comparing pedophiles to gay people that's telling on you buddy.
What's really telling is you not being interested in places where you can't jack it to images of children lmao
It's still a depiction of CP. Changing the medium doesn't change the definition.
Engaging with this content is engaging with CP, fictional or not.
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
The sexualization of minors, even in fictional contexts like ‘loli’ content, is where I believe we cross a moral line. Children are a vulnerable and protected group in our society, and any content that even implicitly sexualizes them can contribute to an environment that trivializes or normalizes such exploitation. It’s about maintaining the inviolability and innocence of childhood, a value deeply ingrained in our society.
Explain how. What does this "normalization" look like? What examples are there?
Yet we're totally fine showing violence to children? Even violence perpetrated on children, as long as it's not sexual? Is this also why you don't support sex ed for children?
I just find it really weird that you can't distinguish fantasy from reality.
I get where you’re coming from with the video games comparison, but we’re talking apples and oranges here. The two just aren’t the same. Violent video games, sure, they’re a problem, and I’m not a fan of those either, especially when kids are involved. But this loli content? That’s another level for me.
We’re dealing with stuff that inherently sexualizes minors, albeit in a fictional realm. When something like this becomes just ‘another thing’, a part of everyday life, people may start shrugging off the real-life equivalent too. And that’s what worries me.
Sex education, by the way, isn’t even in the same ballpark. It’s about teaching kids the facts of life, about relationships, about consent. It’s about protection, not exploitation.
As for telling reality from fantasy, most people, sure, they can do that. For me, the line’s pretty clear. Anything that makes it okay to sexualize kids, real or not, that’s a step too far.
undefined> but we’re talking apples and oranges here. The two just aren’t the same.
They're by definition not the same because they're different things, but I don't see why the argument is different.
Why are they a problem?
Is there even 1 shred of evidence that this has happened or is even about to happen?
I’ve come across some studies on this stuff. One study I found actually found a connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior in teenagers. Now, it wasn’t a massive correlation, but it’s something worth keeping an eye on (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/1850198).
As for evidence of normalization, it’s tricky. The concept of normalization doesn’t necessarily imply a direct cause-effect relationship, like ‘X’ content led to ‘Y’ real-world behavior. It’s more about subtle shifts in societal attitudes over time. It’s challenging to directly measure these shifts, but there are sociological studies that suggest media consumption can influence perceptions and attitudes.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22223200_Living_With_Television_The_Violence_Profile)
So, my concerns about Loli aren’t pulled out of thin air. It’s about the potential shift in our societal attitudes towards child exploitation. It’s not easy to put hard numbers on these effects, but given what we know about the impact of media, I think we should avoid it.
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.
No it's not, and you fucking nonces need to stop saying that getting sexual satisfaction from underage representation is the same as playing video games constantly, it's a bad fucking look.
Just because you enjoy one and don't enjoy the other doesn't mean they're not the same. It's concerning that you have a hard time distinguishing reality from drawings, and then try to accuse people who are saying that there's simply no victim here of being pedophiles when no one is even talking about any living person, let alone a child, is pretty telling.
The "reality" is that a paedophile is getting very real sexual gratification from these images, and indulging nonces is fucked up. If you can't differentiate that from video games, you're the one with the fucking issue.
undefined> The “reality” is that a paedophile is getting very real sexual gratification from these images, and indulging nonces is fucked up.
What? So anything a pedophile enjoys should be banned? Pedophiles probably enjoy violent games too. And I'm sure murders certainly do. What's your point? I'm perfectly fine with anyone getting sexual gratification over any drawing. Who does it hurt?
Holy fuck, indulging their fucked up sexual desires. Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really that dumb? Stop trying to defend fucking paedophiles.
You're making really specific distinctions just so that what you enjoy isn't covered by your outrage. If we're talking about pedophiles specifically, their fucked up sexual desire is wrong because their victims can't consent. If they could consent, there wouldn't be a problem. Now, if they instead want to jerk off to fictional depictions (however realistic or not) of children, why is that bad? No one is hurt, they get to get off, and a potential victim is spared. So unclutch your pearls.
lmao, fucking nonce defenders. They should be getting help to either stop jacking off to that shit, or get chemically fucking castrated so they don't have those desires any more. Fuck off with your paedo indulging.