| Make your Bullshit |

hi.

this is her talking down csa victims, the latter being a victim of flora.

here's her liking a post calling me a useful tool for nazis and a danger to trans people.

these are the people supporting her. temtem is IN flora. adorablimp accused faolanwolf is faking his and his family's rape trauma.

here's her admitting she never apologized.

heres her posting proof she is lurking on my profile. this was a joke reply TO ME.

when my cat got deadly sick she refused to eat a single thing and it had been days but when i started crying she ate just a little bit, and upon seeing how happy it made me, kept doing it whenever she could.

now whenever im sad or crying she finds wherever i am with a mouthful of food and eats the pieces one by one, every time looking up at me making sure i was watching her eat it all because she knew it made me happy. and it DOES make me happy

Hi, I want to talk about this since a lot of people have just responded to this with a very simple "lolicon bad" which i feel like doesn't actually contribute to the conversation from the perspective of trying to convince Patricia and her supporters as wrong but rather as evidence to distance themselves from this crowd.

Here are a few of fairly simple arguments against Lolisho outside of the one being mentioned. I believe there is more, but most of them have already been stated.

Lolisho is on more extreme form of the sexualization of children in media by the adults around them that encourages them to sexualize the aspects of childhood. Other examples of this are the (typically eurocentric) beauty ideals of women.

Lolisho does not have a proper definition that removes csem from the label and expects the consumer to do that themselves. Voice actors of fiction children can be real, Designs of the characters can be real. Actors can be real. If it is "just art", it implies photography cannot be fictional. If it can then a photograph of a real child can be called a "lolicon", sexual image or otherwise. If it excludes all connection to children then the inspiration to children cannot exist either.

Lolisho sexualizes a specific minority intended to be for the privileged and fundementally does not allow the minority being sexualized to raise concerns about the medium. Both because they dont have the language or the ability to engage. This is an argument that really cannot be argued with on the other side. As if they do, they are arguing for children to engage with a community of adults sexualizing children. It is impossible for them to engage meaningfully, as they would be groomed or coerced into the conversation.

Do I believe that copaganda exists? Yeah. But it's up to the viewer to fall into it.

Hi, I want to talk about this since a lot of people have just responded to this with a very simple "lolicon bad" which i feel like doesn't actually contribute to the conversation from the perspective of trying to convince Patricia and her supporters as wrong but rather as evidence to distance themselves from this crowd.

Here are a few of fairly simple arguments against Lolisho outside of the one being mentioned. I believe there is more, but most of them have already been stated.

Lolisho is on more extreme form of the sexualization of children in media by the adults around them that encourages them to sexualize the aspects of childhood. Other examples of this are the (typically eurocentric) beauty ideals of women.

Lolisho does not have a proper definition that removes csem from the label and expects the consumer to do that themselves. Voice actors of fiction children can be real, Designs of the characters can be real. Actors can be real. If it is "just art", it implies photography cannot be fictional. If it can then a photograph of a real child can be called a "lolicon", sexual image or otherwise. If it excludes all connection to children then the inspiration to children cannot exist either.

Lolisho sexualizes a specific minority intended to be for the privileged and fundementally does not allow the minority being sexualized to raise concerns about the medium. Both because they dont have the language or the ability to engage. This is an argument that really cannot be argued with on the other side. As if they do, they are arguing for children to engage with a community of adults sexualizing children. It is impossible for them to engage meaningfully, as they would be groomed or coerced into the conversation.

Do I believe that copaganda exists? Yeah. But it's up to the viewer to fall into it.

Hi, I want to talk about this since a lot of people have just responded to this with a very simple "lolicon bad" which i feel like doesn't actually contribute to the conversation from the perspective of trying to convince Patricia and her supporters as wrong but rather as evidence to distance themselves from this crowd.

Here are a few of fairly simple arguments against Lolisho outside of the one being mentioned. I believe there is more, but most of them have already been stated.

Lolisho is on more extreme form of the sexualization of children in media by the adults around them that encourages them to sexualize the aspects of childhood. Other examples of this are the (typically eurocentric) beauty ideals of women.

Lolisho does not have a proper definition that removes csem from the label and expects the consumer to do that themselves. Voice actors of fiction children can be real, Designs of the characters can be real. Actors can be real. If it is "just art", it implies photography cannot be fictional. If it can then a photograph of a real child can be called a "lolicon", sexual image or otherwise. If it excludes all connection to children then the inspiration to children cannot exist either.

Lolisho sexualizes a specific minority intended to be for the privileged and fundementally does not allow the minority being sexualized to raise concerns about the medium. Both because they dont have the language or the ability to engage. This is an argument that really cannot be argued with on the other side. As if they do, they are arguing for children to engage with a community of adults sexualizing children. It is impossible for them to engage meaningfully, as they would be groomed or coerced into the conversation.