Comment on "Censorship" ☠️
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 1 week ago
In this context, the translation is correct. I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect. -con like siscons, brocons, etc are complexes or obsessions. Lolicon is a complex or obsession with, drawn or not, prepubescent minors.
For those wondering why Japan, a very shame based culture, feels more accepting of this, CSAM production was legal, technically, up to 2014. CSAM itself only started being legislated in 1999, with much pressure from the west.
Bonsai Pop’s video on the Rurouni Kenshin mangaka goes into detail on this.
Japanese react to imposing of our morals on them like westerners would react to criminalization of drinking alcohol. I wonder how strange and abhorrent elements of our culture must look to them.
Then again, I consider french to be weird and borderline pro-crime for prohibiting the paternity tests…
The Japanese think they should be the ones imposing their culture.
No, impossible! They are not white enough for that! /s
They literally formally are. It was granted during the interwar period. Ask an old Chinese person.
I disagree. A lolicon can also be defined as a person into lolicon, with no interest in actual children
You can disagree all you want, that doesn’t make it accurate.
By your definition:
A lolita complex is defined as a person who is enjoys a lolita complex with no attraction to children, just…the attraction to specific children, drawn or not.
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence. An attractionn to Dolores not to minors.
An attraction to drawings of minors, not minors themselves.
The definition of Lolita complex, or the portmanteau lolicon, appears to fit perfectly.
I will confess that I had to stop reading a few sentences down because you’re underlying argumentation is specious at best.
Creating content that sexualizes children… hurts children & it puts children at risk, and as we see here within the comment section, it creates a completely unhealthy normalization of a freak-like interest. There’s no argument around that - there simply is not.
I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect.
You’re too dense to understand not every attraction is sexual in nature.
That aside, this translation is cancerous because term lolicon exists in both languages and Funimation fucked it up on purpose.
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence.
Lolita complex. Lolicon.
If we’re talking about dense, you just fit the definition to a T while denying it.
See a guy defending lolicon, click on his profile, can’t make it three posts before he’s defending capitalism. You can’t make this shit up, folks.
You should check out his post about how women should receive less education so they can make more babies.
Oh good lord, I stopped scrolling and didn’t see that. What the actual fuck.
W-… What!?
Capitalism bad, nuance bad. Everyone with opinion different then yours = evil. You’re mentally a child
Capitalism bad, nuance bad.
The nuanced opinion is that capitalism was a necessary stepping stone from feudalism that has since overstayed its welcome. Defending capitalism as inherently good and worth keeping is the simplistic perspective lacking nuance.
You’re mentally a child
Not comfortable with you saying this about me after defending lolicon.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I absolutely loathe the entire apologist view of “They never directly harmed a child, they just had 45tb of pictures of children being harmed”
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped, Which very much means your hand is actively causing the harm, whether its directly against the child, or every other activity that creates the market that encourages molestation and rape. everyone participating in it is actively and directly harming children.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 6 days ago
I don’t disagree.
I was merely stating it as a fact of the case in why he, potentially, only recieved a light fine and no jail time.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 6 days ago
i get your argument, but who says they paid for it?
lovely_reader@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I’m not the person you’re talking to, but in today’s attention economy-centric society, there are more currencies supporting “content” markets than just money.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 6 days ago
hmm yeah ok
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 6 days ago
No one?