News and Discussions about Reddit
Welcome to !reddit. This is a community for all news and discussions about Reddit.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules
Rule 1- No brigading.
**You may not encourage brigading any communities or subreddits in any way. **
YSKs are about self-improvement on how to do things.
Rule 2- No illegal or NSFW or gore content.
**No illegal or NSFW or gore content. **
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-Reddit posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
view the rest of the comments
Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it wrong. And it is absolutely legal if they are 18+, at least where I live it is.
No wonder you were banned.
No they were not pedos by any reasonable standard if the characters were above 18.
EDIT PS:
If this was really about pedophilia, the correct place to report it is the authorities, and not to some moderators so they can hide the evidence.
The fact that this NEVER happened, shows that OP knows he was just pearl clutching, and didn't actually have a case.
You're clearly cherry picking OP's comment there, conveniently leaving out what makes what they saw problematic.
Those terms are specifically used by the pedo "roleplay" portion of the anime fandom, there's not really any ambiguity there.
Like, on the first sentence, I'd agree with you. But the second sentence makes it clear that they saw the disgusting part of the fandom.
How would you even know enough about that portion of that fandom to know such things...? 🤨
I have no idea about that, but if these characters were above 18, it does not fall under pedophilia. There is absolutely no room for interpretation on that.
One is legal, the other is not.
They said it was about Lucky Star. That show is literally about a group of high school girls. They're not adults in the slightest so I'm not even sure why OP said that. None of the characters are 18+.
OK I have no idea what that is? When I google it I get a cartoon...
It's a slice of life anime about a group of high school girls.
But anime cartoons don't have actors of any age, so that doesn't make any sense.
😋
In view of this new information I find it pretty stupid to complain to the moderators, because being fans of that cartoon, they could likely feel the same way as those posters.
I do however absolutely agree that sexualization of children is wrong, and that was not the point I was arguing against. I thought we were talking about something where you could see the actors were 18+.
The problem of OP not providing a link to the context.
And....the pedo defenders are here.
You can play that game all you want, a character that looks 5 and you say is 18+ or 200 years old...is still a fucking 5 year old looking character.
The fuck is wrong with you people.
You guys realize that you're talking about drawings right? Like, marks on a paper or screen?
Even putting sexuality aside it's like arguing over how old these "characters" are:
One of them is 5 years old, the other is 500.
But over here in reality, it's all fictional and doesn't matter because they're just a drawing.
Yea cause a drawing of a child that someone sexualizes is totally the same of line drawing...got it...
They're both just drawings. None of it is real. The only difference is the label.
I fucking hate this argument.
If someone used AI to generate a video of Epstein raping a child, would that be acceptable to you? The video isn't real either.
I hate to do this, but it's simple: anything that looks like real children is bad and should never be sexualized.
But anime? Come on. That's not how people look.
So in your mind someone getting off to a scene depicting something like that is totally fine as long as it doesn't look exactly like a real child? You realize it is meant to represent a human child, right? Is any sort of stylized drawing fine then because it doesn't look indistinguishable from a real person? There's hentai explicitly about minors (like, not even high schoolers, but like fucking middle school and younger...) being raped by old dudes.
Shit like this is why there used to be (and still is, although to a lesser degree) such stigmatization of anime.
No, I care about harming children.
AI needs CSAM to generate it, and it may muddy the water about real victims, that's why it doesn't get a pass.
If someone wants to marry a ferris wheel, I don't care. Inanimate objects, including fucked-up but obviously not real drawings, don't hurt anyone.
Re: anime - I've seen some fucked up shit in 'normal' anime, like Bakemonogatari (very young girls in very bad scenes), so I don't recommend anime in general either. But I do not think it's a real danger, unlike genAI, eg Grok.
Child porn or adjacent shit in stuff like anime just normalizes it for people. A fucking ferris wheel was never made to represent a person. Just because some delusional person anthropomorphizes it doesn't mean that's the purpose behind its creation (and even that had consequences since the priest was forced to resign from the Catholic Church). Hentai + ecchi shit in anime featuring children is explicitly made to be viewed sexually.
So what you say is that intent is more important than the object.
Therefore you loathe furries as well? As big part of it is anthropomorphized animals in a sexual way.
I will just put it this way: the author of hentai/ecchi content featuring children had to sit down and decide "yes, I'm going to draw a child being sexually assaulted and expect it to be viewed positively." If you think this is acceptable, I don't know what to say.
If a furry gets off when they see an animal or something meant to look like an actual animal, then yes. If the furry just finds other adults in fursuits sexually appealing or whatever, I don't care. The suits aren't really meant to look like an actual animal (unlike a drawing of a child that is actually meant to largely look like a human child). Frankly this is closer to sexual roleplay with an adult wearing a diaper and shit and acting like a baby (I have no idea what the name for this is, all I know is that it exists). I find this very weird, but it's between adults, so again I don't care (from what I understand it's about differences in power and stuff, so I guess like BDSM). If the people involved get off seeing actual babies or things meant to seem like actual babies, then it's no longer acceptable.
No, because fuck AI and burning our future on that shit.
But you're okay with the content of the video being shared publically, in principle, right?
Hmmm…
I mean, purely on principle? Sure. No one would have been harmed apart from the environmental damage. Once that's done, nothing will undo that.
Psychological damage purely from exposure and normalization of that kind of content, probably not ideal.
The muddying of the waters around Epstein guilt, also bad. ("That was fake, so any other news must also be fake").
Apart from the above sorts of things, (but maybe there's others I didn't think of off the top of my head): as long as no one watches it, it's no more harmful than the sentence describing the idea in the first place.
So let's remove the additional impacts to test the standard. Hypothetically, someone creates a tool that is freely available and has no environmental impacts, doesn't rely on problematic training data, any of that.
Its free to use for anyone to create and distribute photo-realistic images of what look exactly like 6 year old girls in sexual situations.
You're okay with this, because it's not real and it's just pictures on a screen. Right?
Sure, I guess, although it's kind of inextricably linked to the damage of actually using it.
How is that different when it's a drawing?
Because it's less real. The amount of harm and/or damage is proportional the realism. Using that shitty line drawing I made for an example: if I say the lines represent something objectionable, would that make it so? No, not really.
The closer to real, the greater the psychological damage to the viewer. However it's still no actual harm to anyone else.
And then production of actual CSAM actually does harm children.
Like, this seems like blatantly obvious stuff, no one is harmed by someone making lines on paper. (Or with modern tech lines on a screen but the idea is the same.)
So you agree that your line example is bad then. The lines are "less real" than a more detailed drawing.
I mean if you want to interpret some shitty line drawings as CSAM, knock yourself out.
The point I was trying (and clearly failing) to make is that judging images by the labels is stupid, but so is judging by leaving the appearance entirely open to interpretation.
Hell, I hadn't even considered LLMs where a text description alone would be a problem since an LLM could use that to generate an image.
I mean if you want to say that sexual drawings of children is basically the same as a line, knock yourself out.
Pretty fucked up take though.
No no they're not, sounds like you enjoy loli shit as well...
I am absolutely not a pedo defender, there's a huge difference between being attracted to an 18 year old, who in my and most countries is of legal age, and being a pedo.
The difference apart from being attracted to children, is that at 18 years old, you are considered old enough to make decisions for yourself also called being of legal age.
Having sex with a minor on the other hand is automatically rape, as a minor is NOT considered old enough to make decisions for themselves.
I am disgusted that your post has an upvote. When the persons are above 18 there is no moral argument to call people attracted to them pedos.
USA however has a weird double standard in that regard, you are of legal age when 18, but cannot drink until 21????
This doesn't make the slightest bit of sense, you can buy a gun, join the military, but you can't have a drink?
USA is a pestilence of moronic double standards, and the country is suffering from am enormous degree of moral corruption, mostly originating in the insane level of Christian fanaticism, that is more similar to the middle east Islam, than to developed democracies. Of course similar moral idiocy exist in other countries too, but almost always driven by religiosity.
You literally are saying that it's ok to be attracted to children just as long as their backstory is they're over 18.... everyone knows that loli shit is fucking pedo shit.
Cool. Glad we can agree on that.
Except the characters you loli people are into are literally depictions of children, and you justify that shit by saying they're a 200 year old elf or some shit.
What?
Hey...hey stay with me... we're talking about you liking or defending those who like depictions of children and saying it's ok because you said they're 18+...