I just can’t, and sadly it’s worst in Linux community. Like dude’s face hair makes him look 45, but no, he does a desktop with a cringy looking 15 old anime girl. (That, on top of hiz annoyingly high pitched voice but whatever) I just stop watching the video on the spot, it’s beyond dumb.

The stupid NSFW tag on Lemmy? I turned it ON to occasionally see boobs, not some drawn pictures of underage kiddo, this pisses me off so much, JUST FCKING STAHP with this shit.

I have an impression suddenly, in a span of 2 years everyone started to jerk off on that bullshit and are proud to show it

  • @Fal
    -13•1 year ago

    Lol pedos. So does that word just mean nothing now?

      • @Fal
        -9•1 year ago

        sexual acts involving a child

        Which child is involved here exactly? Can you point them out?

        • RaivoKulli
          10•1 year ago

          Aren’t those anime girls specifically drawn to look like sexualized kids? Because if you’re attracted to such features, real or not, I have some news for you

          • @Fal
            -6•1 year ago

            That’s the most absurd thing I’ve read. If we’re talking about photorealistic depictions of kids, sure, that might mean you’re a pedophile. I’m not saying no one who looks at loli shit is a pedophile. Of course I’m sure lots do. But what exactly do most anime lolis have in common with real kids. They’re small? Anything else? In most cases that we talk about in these stupid threads the only thing that differentiates whether a character is 12 or 22 is the artist saying what their age is.

            • RaivoKulli
              6•1 year ago

              The whole thing of those characters is that they look like kids. That’s the whole thing. And if you’re looking out material specifically for that reason, then guess what that makes you

              It’s not exactly rocket surgery.

              If we’re talking about photorealistic depictions of kids, sure, that might mean you’re a pedophile

              MIGHT

              ???

              • @Fal
                -1•1 year ago

                Most likely. I could entertain reasons for looking at that without being attracted to it. But either way, it’s a drawing. I’m 100% fine with pedophiles looking at computer generated photorealistic images like that. Why would you be against that? Would you rather them look at two kids?

                • RaivoKulli
                  2•1 year ago

                  I was just explaining to you why those people are labeled as pedophiles.

                  • @Fal
                    0•1 year ago

                    Ok but a lot of people are in labeled as pedos even in this thread when it doesn’t apply. Pedophilia is being attracted to kids in real life. Or fantasizing about real kids. Applying that to things that aren’t human and don’t even exist is just abusing the term and making it meaningless

          • @Fal
            -2•1 year ago

            So fantasizing about being raped doesn’t make you a rapist, but fantasizing about being a child makes you a pedophile?

            • @[email protected]
              3•1 year ago

              Here’s the uncomfortable bit that follows from your analogy: fantasizing about rape does not make you a rapist, it means you have a fetish.

              Fantasizing about children does not make you a child abuser, it means you have a fetish.

              The uncomfortable part is that simply having that fetish makes people hate you, whether or not you actually abuse any children. If you have a rape fetish, people might think that’s weird but they wouldn’t be demanding your execution.

              Society draws no distinction between pedophiles and child abusers.

            • RaivoKulli
              2•1 year ago

              It’s the attraction that makes one a pedophile, yes. Your logic would be like if someone into the opposite sex claimed they weren’t straight (or bi) since they’ve never had sex.