there was an update from the admins of lemmy.nsfw where language barriers got in the way and the wrong impression was made, which was quickly addressed by the instance’s other admin as well as edited by its’ original author.

this got people in this instance concerned until the edit was made, however in two threads about it on kbin social the anime PFPs came out to play and the head admin of dataterm was obligated to comment as well

the funniest part is, it really demonstrates the truth of stereotypes about people with anime loli PFPs. at least a couple of the commenters in those threads are going to end up on watchlists.

  • Burp@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Falmarri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • Falmarri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • PM_me_your_vagina_thanks@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Falmarri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • PM_me_your_vagina_thanks@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Falmarri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

                  • PM_me_your_vagina_thanks@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

        • Aeonx@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

      • Burp@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Falmarri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          can contribute to an environment that trivializes or normalizes such exploitation.

          Explain how. What does this “normalization” look like? What examples are there?

          It’s about maintaining the inviolability and innocence of childhood, a value deeply ingrained in our society.

          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.

          • Burp@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Falmarri@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              Violent video games, sure, they’re a problem

              Why are they a problem?

              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.

              Is there even 1 shred of evidence that this has happened or is even about to happen?

              • Burp@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • Falmarri@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  undefined> It’s more about subtle shifts in societal attitudes over time.

                  Has there been any evidence whatsoever that society has gotten more permissive with regard to being sexually active with actual children?

                  So, my concerns about Loli aren’t pulled out of thin air.

                  But you just described how there’s no evidence.

                  but given what we know about the impact of media, I think we should avoid it.

                  Lol what? That’s not how any of this works. We should only be banning things that we can actually say are harmful.

    • Aeonx@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.