Five minutes of hate news

No, but any anime that tries to skirt the child porn areas is potentially subject to this.
Depending on how this is interpreted, this could be a lot of anime. Not that terribly long ago, there were people claiming Uzaki-chan was pedo-bait even though the character is supposed to be 20. And then you have stuff like Evangelion or Gurren Lagan where most of the characters actually are supposed to be under 18.
 
Depending on how this is interpreted, this could be a lot of anime. Not that terribly long ago, there were people claiming Uzaki-chan was pedo-bait even though the character is supposed to be 20. And then you have stuff like Evangelion or Gurren Lagan where most of the characters actually are supposed to be under 18.
More so AI and drawn stuff being used AS child porn.
Basically Rule 34 of minor characters
 
Use of AI and drawn child porn and this is to make it illegal instead if being one of those borderline
If you are referring to the new texas law. it is actually an amendment to an existing law. That specifies you can not make deepfakes indistinguishable from real CP.
No, but any anime that tries to skirt the child porn areas is potentially subject to this.
Nope. nothing to do with anime that draws cartoon lolis.
 
Would it have to be? What about something like Berserk, where it depicts Guts getting raped as a child? Or even if we're just talking Rule 34, I can't say I support throwing someone in jail for making or owning Rule 34 of say, Yoko Litner from Gurren Lagann.
The entire point of it is due to real kids being used as the basis for drawn stuff
 

What the article says isn't quite as interesting as what it does its best not to say.
 
Eh?

Liberalism failed because “state of nature.” It doesn’t understand human beings or the societies they form at a core level. Primordial man never wandered around as an atomised individual in perfect freedom. He is a Great Ape that has always been social. Hierarchy and tribe is default for Homo Sapiens, not socially constructed.

Before freedom there must be order and hierarchy in the tribe, and modern liberalism has signally failed to provide that because it deems all three of those an oppressive force.

All the good it has done is usually stolen valour from near two thousand years of Christian teachings, and a thousand years of English Constitutional Heritage. And still it was doomed to fail from the moment of inception.

The human race is not to blame for Enlightenment thinkers taking Eden too literally and lacking anthropology.
I’m an individualist-anarchist. So, from my perspective, the reason why liberalism has fallen apart is because most people are weird little codependent monkeys who are incapable of learning self-reliance, who are reverting to tribalism and collectivism and demanding a big nanny state to tuck them in before bedtime.

They literally took the gift of the Enlightenment, the ability to choose their own futures independent of what society or their community wants for them, and they threw it away with both hands and decided to huddle together with the other apes for protection.

I perceive this as an affliction of generalized mental weakness. People just aren’t smart or strong enough to be truly free. Who can blame them, really? Poisoned and brainwashed from a young age, their faculties in constant decline, they have no choice but to link hands and form a raft.
 
I’m an individualist-anarchist. So, from my perspective, the reason why liberalism has fallen apart is because most people are weird little codependent monkeys who are incapable of learning self-reliance, who are reverting to tribalism and collectivism and demanding a big nanny state to tuck them in before bedtime.

They literally took the gift of the Enlightenment, the ability to choose their own futures independent of what society or their community wants for them, and they threw it away with both hands and decided to huddle together with the other apes for protection.

I perceive this as an affliction of generalized mental weakness. People just aren’t smart or strong enough to be truly free. Who can blame them, really? Poisoned and brainwashed from a young age, their faculties in constant decline, they have no choice but to link hands and form a raft.

Humans are a social species.
 
Humans are a social species.
Gregariousness varies from person to person. I, personally, am extremely introverted, avoid crowds, and dislike small talk.

In a lot of modern social movements, you're effectively given a choice between left-wing-flavored collectivism or right-wing-flavored collectivism.

Meanwhile, actual individualists keep getting screwed over because other people are voluntarily surrendering their right to be an individual in the first place.

The worst part about Orwell's Ingsoc is that people are just plain getting down on their knees and begging for it. They don't have the conviction to be sovereign individuals. With the collectivizing potential of modern technology, this is a dangerous concoction indeed for those of us who actually do value our relative autonomy.

For instance, I wouldn't be so firmly opposed to the concept of the Internet of Bodies if I actually was some sort of collectivist. In that case, the idea of everyone just being nodes in a network, inextricably linked together, telegraphing our needs to nanny AI and having our impulses tweaked to better align with the goals and purpose of the collective would actually appeal to me. But because I am individualist, it does not.

This is not universal, I understand. For instance, I'm sure Humphnaegal would love being reduced to a borg drone if it made him feel safer than the alternative of being surrounded by dangerous, individualistic monsters who could kill him with engineered viruses, in spite of the fact that reality has shown us that the worst things come from institutional power run amok and not lone wolf basement tinkerers.

Other people being accepting towards collectivism is something that ends up limiting my own personal freedoms. For instance, the right to own a firearm in the US. If enough people decide that owning firearms is a social ill, or a public health issue, and they voluntarily surrender their right to the nanny state, then that impacts my ability to own firearms even if I want it, personally, for myself.

In other words, it is in my interest to promote individualistic beliefs.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top