pendell

Current Hyperfixation: Wizard of Oz

  • He/Him

I use outdated technology just for fun, listen to crappy music, and watch a lot of horror movies. Expect posts about These Things. I talk a lot.

Check tags like Star Trek Archive and Media Piracy to find things I share for others.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @warc's post:

plenty of people can explicitly state that they want a site where, if cub and ageplay are not allowed due to community discomfort with them, it is at least not the dominant mindset that these things are even an approximate moral equivalent to causing a real human person real suffering by abusing them, that the people who have such internal fantasies are moral slime, liars, degenerates.

in this way,
it IS about chibi art, because if the content of two images can be meaningfully changed by the addition of a crayon in the foreground to code the small character, then the former image can be trivially turned into the equivalent of CSAM even without the artist's consent

it IS about feral art, because as tiresome as it is to state over and over again, the equating of real suffering from a real living being to the IDEA of that suffering is the common thread linking the topics, as well as the topics of other kinks.

it IS about pokemon, because pokemon porn is effortlessly, accidentally accessible by children who are searching for pokemon by name, because pokemon fan communities consist of mostly children, and because these interactions are ignored and glossed over

it IS about kinks, in that the perception of oneself or one's consenting adult partner as nonetheless inexperienced, naive, or unequipped to refuse is the foundation of many kinks beyond ageplay

it IS about sex education, in that the argument that sexualized images will be psychically harmful to adolescents is symbiotic with the refusal of general non-repressive sex education - were the second thing in existence, perhaps children would not be digging into online pornography for answers

it IS about trauma processing, in that publicly venting trauma is one of the few semi-respectable ways out of this discourse, in that being repeatedly called a pedophile and child abuser resurfaces that trauma, in that flooding the website with discussions of csam triggers trauma, in that everybody even tangentially adjacent to this discourse becomes terrified to speak

it IS about lack of moderation, in that harm is caused by people and interactions, and if harm is caused by the people who want to engage with cub porn, harm is also caused by the people who assert that anyone who finds themselves attracted to a sonic or naruto character, or anyone who fantasizes about having had real autonomy and control of their own body as a child, must be a pathological pedophile, sexually sick at their core.

saying "its simple" when it isn't is the recourse of the conservative.

the joke about 'this is a wendys' is because wendys is a place you go for a hamburger, not discourse

the replies of someone asserting that people who developed a crush on spyro the dragon are actually sex criminals are exactly where to go for discourse

Gross. Please leave. If you want to beat off to underaged anthropomorphic animals please do not do it in a public square, and for the love of whatever spiritual entity you venerate please do not attempt to characterize that as normal or virtuous or compare the people who don't want to share a server with your animalcsam to Nazis lmao what the fuck.

Please take the nearest exit, press for 15 seconds for door to open an alarm may sound.

So to be clear it's about the inability of the character depicted in the image to consent.

Completely unlike the UNTAGGED AND UN-CW'ED noncon porn you reblog out onto the timeline. For...unspecified reasons I guess.

It's the gleeful rejection of any of your own specified principles when it comes to your own behavior that gets to me. Pure ad hoc fig leaf argumentation because all your rhetoric is bad faith.

close, but if you read the post it's about that non-consent being hinged on the character being understood as a child. which is literally the only thing that separates this topic from any other topic. which seems like it might be easy to see is the line i am drawing, and it's not a fuzzy or contradictory one. It's very very explicit. Children don't belong in the porno, on any website, ever. Internet should be a CP-free zone in my normal imo.

but that's not what this comment is actually asking to clarify right?
like, if you're going to accuse me of posting untagged and un-cw'ed noncon porn, you'd probably want to point it out? that's not a thing I would do and it should all be through a mandatory click-through, on the artist's end??? like, if you're rattled that the tags don't follow on quick-reblogs, file a feature request with ASSC?

idk if i'd call me gleeful but i don't even know who the hell you are.
do you need to get some air?

Not a thing you'd do
https://cohost.org/warc/post/1636661-empty

Incidentally the tags aren't on the original either so the quick-reblog didn't have any impact here.

[edit] and while this totally isn't on you, the fact that the people calling me a rapist for not crusading against adult character dubcon fiction are also reblogging their allies who post implied-snuff noncon porn really highlights how this whole discourse for several of the major players is about trying to categorize people into Ontologically Good and Ontologically Bad boxes rather than about actually establishing good practices and policy.

what?

are you sure your beef is with me?

im extremely pro-kink and i've never not been?

also that's not implied snuff noncon???????????

who the fuck are you and why are you directing your energy at me, if we apparently are not even talking about the same topic.

like what the fuck is this got to do with me, someone who is literally drawing the line at "dont post porn with minors in it"- I don't even know who you're talking about who's reblogging my post and then calling CNC kink Ontologically Bad?

You're pissed at someone who's not here.
Please leave me alone.

On the first point, to quote your post "i.e. by the placing into sexual scenarios of a character whose defining characteristic is their incapacity to meaningfully consent."

My issue is not with the conclusion but that the stated principle is not the in-practice principle. And that ambiguity creates scenarios where queer people get harassed. Not hypothetical.

On the second point, someone being asphyxiated while helpless to free themselves is plainly implied-snuff noncon. Which is fine. Dark themes are permitted in my book.

The issue is when people shrug at dark themes in their friends' posts and then go around calling other queer people rapists for not being hardline against that content despite not even having posted anything of the sort

On the third point I quite specifically said the part after the edit is not directed at you

I'm not sure how more clear than "not directed at you" I have to be to communicate that the point is not. directed. at. you.

[edit] Are we setting a precedent that we are not permitted to discuss the actions of other people not currently in the conversation? Surely not.

My problem is that in overstating principles to try to needlessly make a strong argument stronger, it creates inconsistencies that inevitably get leveraged to harass queer people. And not hypothetically, I've personally had people deliberately trigger my traumas in the name of protecting traumatized people in this discourse already. Because of overstated and ambiguous claimed principles people are being harmed in the name of harm prevention. [edit] well perhaps not "because of" but certainly empowered by and given a facade of acceptability because of.

It's a praxis critique not a conclusion critique.