You must be logged in to view this image. (learn more)

Blacklisted
(help)
  • Comments
    •
    Show all comments

    Untamed

    Member

    HybridOtho said:
    WAIT....
    Is she e621 mascot? If not please tell me, cuz' she resembles a lot to me like e621's mascot...

    No, she isn't. That is Fiztheancient's fursona

  • Reply
  • |
  • 2
    •

    SwiperTheFox

    Member

    I want to believe that that's the actual name.

    "Hi, I'm 'Blue Bear Furry Fucking Thing' or 'BBFFT' for short! How are you?"

  • Reply
  • |
  • 12
    •

    kamimatsu

    Member

    The only thing I will say is, watching the scene in FFX where Sin attacks an island and we see thousands killed, doesn't make FFX contraband for being snuff. Because while you did watch thousands of characters die, that is all they are. Characters.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 10
    •

    Untamed

    Member

    treos said:
    this shall prove very useful in the future...

    Good luck and Godspeed
    With great power comes great responsibility

  • Reply
  • |
  • 1
    •

    Chaser

    Member

    this is a shitpost comment, idgaf if you like cub porn or not, I just want to shitpost

    It's a drawing, a drawing of a fantasy creature at that. It's pixel. You cannot touch it. It's not being harmed. IT IS NOT REAL.

    idk fam the eyes moved it might be real
    but if you mean like it isn't real as in it is pixel, are you not pixels too??? why should i trust a angry blue pixel?????????

  • Reply
  • |
  • 4
    •

    irlTrales

    Blocked

    HybridOtho said:
    WAIT....
    Is she e621 mascot? If not please tell me, cuz' she resembles a lot to me like e621's mascot...

    No. Everything looks familiar from the perspective in people like you, well it's not; it's non-canon. Everything blue & yellow looks similar. If it were e621 to notify fitstheancient's mailbox that she is the mascot, then it's canon.

  • Reply
  • |
  • -1
    •

    kamimatsu

    Member

    YaBoiGifejandro said:
    No. Everything looks familiar from the perspective in people like you, well it's not; it's non-canon. Everything blue & yellow looks similar. If it were e621 to notify fitstheancient's mailbox that she is the mascot, then it's canon.

    Not unless fiztheancient replied to give the okay.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    treos

    Blocked

    Untamed said:
    tl;dw
    Can you summarize it?

    sorry for just putting off replying for so long.

    anyway... basically, those who claim cub/shota/loli porn, drawn or 3d models, animated or not... those who make the claim that such content is in fact no different from irl child porn and believe such content should be banned are all very anti-pedo.

    however, the thing is, this content provides a safe, 100% harmless outlet for such people to act on their urges and whatnot instead of going out irl and doing horrible things to actual irl children. much like how violent video games provide a safe and harmless outlet for violent activities people might enjoy doing.

    these people who want such content banned strongly believe they are in the right for wanting this and are doing a good thing and that such content promotes and encourages people to go out and do these things irl when there iare mountains of research and proof proving the opposite is true.

    violent video games actually lead to people being less violent irl and the porn likely has similar results for people like pedos.

    so, by trying to ban violent video games and cub/shota/loli porn, these people are actually doing more harm than good by removing these harmless outlets for harmful activities which in the long term would very likely result in such activities happening MUCH more often irl.

    whether they realize it or not, they're actually causing FAR more harm than helping...anything really. sadly, there's simply no changing their minds so no matter how you try to argue against them they'll simply continue to try and push their narrative that this kind of stuff is equally as bad as the irl version/situations/etc. and will never stop trying to get the harmless, fictional content banned.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 14
    •

    savageorange

    Member

    treos said:
    anyway... basically, those who claim cub/shota/loli porn, drawn or 3d models, animated or not... those who make the claim that such content is in fact no different from irl child porn and believe such content should be banned are all very anti-pedo.

    "They are invested in railing against pedophilia" seems like a more obviously true characterization than actually being anti-pedo.

    I believe that visibly railing against pedophilia is a pro-pedophilia position. If your platform is that pedophilia is terrible, you want MORE of it, not less -- or at minimum, you want people to believe there is more of it. More of it is what legitimizes your position and gives you power.

    these people who want such content banned strongly believe they are in the right for wanting this and are doing a good thing

    Again I'd point out that's a pretext -- the self-righteous person is guilty and resentful, and typically hides behind an ideology that they neither understand nor have any desire to understand.

    It's perfectly straightforward to understand them as a bully who is playing the victim (or the champion of the victim).

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    savageorange

    Member

    kitaroking said:
    This is the DUMBEST thing I've ever read. How does your head get lodged so far up your ass that you think "people who are against X really want more X" is even close to a reasonable thought? Please, if you're going to defend wannabe child fuckers, then try harder than that.

    People who are ACTUALLY against X are against SPECIFIC CONCRETE INSTANTIATIONS OF X. They are not just "against X" -- which is simply virtue signalling.

    They work out what is the specific cause of the problem in the particular scope they're addressing, try to prove that their proposed solution won't just make the problem worse (which it easily can -- see the Somerville Study, in which an anti crime intervention increased crime), and take action on that plan. And then check that it worked, rather than assuming that it worked.

    They don't scream on the internet or try to get peripherally related stuff taken down, because that's relevant to their own feelings and fuck-all else. They effectively attack specific, well justified targets.

    For example, I think police are generally likely to be ACTUALLY anti-pedophilia, as they make arrests for statutory rape, and as far as I know don't have a quota to fill on that.

    Politicians and activists, OTOH...

    TL;DR : There is a vast difference from thinking or pretending that you are acting against X, and actually acting against X. Most people don't actually seem to care about doing the latter.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    savageorange

    Member

    savageorange said:
    TL;DR : There is a vast difference from thinking or pretending that you are acting against X, and actually acting against X. Most people don't actually seem to care about doing the latter.

    To be precise, they mistake outrage and protest for being against a thing. This has a major, obvious security hole -- If you consider yourself against X, then I can often easily convince you that someone is X, simply by pressing the right emotional buttons. Then you may choose to attack them -- never mind that no actual evidence was presented and the actual evidence may falsify the claim. In this scenario, you are not against X, you are simply a weapon being wielded by this third party.

    Certain things, such as murder, pedophilia, rape are particularly reliable buttons to press, often by unreasonably distorting the definition, so if you consider yourself as genuinely for justice, you should examine such claims very carefully.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 4
    •

    garr890354839

    Member

    garr890354839 said:

    [o]|THANK YOU!!!|[/b][/o]

    People like you need to preach this word to those that need to hear it.

    Get all religious thoughts out of your minds, perverted-mofo-on-the-other-side-of-the-internet. Trynna make a [expletive] point here.

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •

    Untamed

    Member

    North_Quill said:
    oh cool defending child porn, enjoy your ban

    I posted this, and it got approved 2 years ago.
    What makes you think this'll suddenly get me banned now?

  • Reply
  • |
  • 11
    •

    kerkerma

    Member

    alien_paw_smoocher said:
    This actually makes a ton of sense thank you Fiz
    I was starting to question my own morals but this helped

    I've never been attracted in that way to children in the slightest but I always felt guilty about it in terms of art
    Now I can enjoy myself again thank you
    At the end of the day, it's not real and it won't hurt anyone

    this

  • Reply
  • |
  • 0
    •