In this context, the translation is correct. I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect. -con like siscons, brocons, etc are complexes or obsessions. Lolicon is a complex or obsession with, drawn or not, prepubescent minors.
For those wondering why Japan, a very shame based culture, feels more accepting of this, CSAM production was legal, technically, up to 2014. CSAM itself only started being legislated in 1999, with much pressure from the west.
He never directly harmed children as far as we know
I absolutely loathe the entire apologist view of “They never directly harmed a child, they just had 45tb of pictures of children being harmed”
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped, Which very much means your hand is actively causing the harm, whether its directly against the child, or every other activity that creates the market that encourages molestation and rape. everyone participating in it is actively and directly harming children.
I was merely stating it as a fact of the case in why he, potentially, only received a light fine and no jail time. That’s on the Japanese court system.
The American system is nearly as bad so long as you are wealthy and/or have political power.
Because yes, everyone involved, both directly and indirectly, create the climate in which exploitation thrives.
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped,
i get your argument, but who says they paid for it?
I’m not the person you’re talking to, but in today’s attention economy-centric society, there are more currencies supporting “content” markets than just money.
The nuanced opinion is that capitalism was a necessary stepping stone from feudalism that has since overstayed its welcome. Defending capitalism as inherently good and worth keeping is the simplistic perspective lacking nuance.
Everyone with opinion different then yours = evil.
No, but you are, judging by your posts.
You’re mentally a child
Not comfortable with you saying this about me after defending lolicon.
Defending capitalism as inherently good and worth keeping is the simplistic perspective lacking nuance.
Real lack of nuance, is failure to understand that any system that’s supposed to replace capitalism, would need to be able to reconcile incentives of multiple egoistic participants. Such thing doesn’t exist, outside, maybe P2P file exchange protocols like Torrent.
Well, I dismantled your incorrect understanding of Lolita complex given you lacked the nuance of understanding the novel, Lolita, the term was based on. Looks like you misunderstand the nuance of humanity as well. At least your worldview is coherent I guess? Simplistic and lacking nuance, but coherent.
failure to understand that any system that’s supposed to replace capitalism, would need to be able to reconcile incentives of multiple egoistic participants
This assumes a fixed human nature rather than a behavior that systems actively select for and reward. Capitalist institutions structurally favor egoistic actors. Corporations that externalize costs and maximize shareholder returns outcompete ones that don’t, regardless of what the individuals inside them actually want. (Such as workers rights, better pay, more time off, job security, not being wage slaves, etc.) You’re amplifying egoism and then pointing at the result as proof it’s inevitable.
Such thing doesn’t exist, outside, maybe P2P file exchange protocols like Torrent.
This is always the fun bit with capitalists. Your own example dismantles your argument. Torrents work precisely because it aligns individual incentives with collective benefit through protocol design. You seed what you leech. The more you contribute the better the system works for everyone. Cooperative protocol design producing pro-social behavior, egoism be damned. That’s closer to a socialist design principle than a capitalist one given its collectivist structure. You’ve described a commons and called it evidence for capitalism.
Speaking of commons, Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize in economics for documenting how communities manage shared resources without private ownership or state control, through collective governance, mutual accountability, and designed incentive structures. Her research directly refuted the “tragedy of the commons” argument that collective resource management inevitably fails. Cooperatives, commons-based peer production, mutual aid networks, all reconcile participant incentives without capitalism as the mechanism. Torrents reconcile incentives without capitalism as a mechanism, so again, thank you for the useful point to argue 🫡.
The real lack of nuance is assuming that because capitalism has been the dominant system during a particular period of history, it’s the only possible system compatible with human behavior. That’s just survivorship bias.
A thought provoking line of dialogue I recently heard:
What is the meaning of life? What you make of it, right?
But consider the question itself before the answer. A blank sheet of printer paper arrives to you pre-defined. Clipped, pressed, bleached, packaged with the specific intention of being fed into a machine, slathered in ink, and filed or discarded. Its name tells you its purpose. Printer paper. For the printer.
And yet nothing stops you from drawing on it. Folding it into a plane. Using it as kindling. At the end of the day, printer paper is simply paper. The printer is explanatory, anticipatory even. It is not the whole of the paper’s purpose on earth.
So what is the meaning of life? The question is asked inside a context. In our world, that context is capitalism. The system arrives before you do, pre-defines your purpose, clips and presses and bleaches you into a shape that fits the machine. Your labor has value. Your time is a commodity. Your worth is your productivity. The printer doesn’t define the paper, but the paper rarely gets to decide that for itself. Is that as far as your nuanced thinking takes you? That capitalism is the end-all be-all simply because its all you’ve ever known?
Sounds pretty simplistic, dull, disheartening, and joyless to me. Paper can fly. The printer pre-supposes it never will, that its function is fixed. You’ve simplistically chosen to remain in your function pre-supposed by the context chosen for you.
I disagree. A lolicon can also be defined as a person into lolicon, with no interest in actual children. Since she’s holding a lolicon manga, this would be a valid interpretation. Whether it would be a more correct translation, I don’t know
You can disagree all you want, that doesn’t make it accurate.
By your definition:
A lolita complex is defined as a person who is enjoys a lolita complex with no attraction to children, just…the attraction to specific children, drawn or not.
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence. An attractionn to Dolores not to minors.
An attraction to drawings of minors, not minors themselves.
The definition of Lolita complex, or the portmanteau lolicon, appears to fit perfectly.
Would you like to disagree with the definitions of fascism or genocide next? Those are hot today, lots of deniers who fit the definition of both. “It’s not fascism, it’s just America first. It’s not genocide, it’s a war against terror/Hamas.”
Japanese react to imposing of our morals on them like westerners would react to criminalization of drinking alcohol. I wonder how strange and abhorrent elements of our culture must look to them.
Then again, I consider french to be weird and borderline pro-crime for prohibiting the paternity tests…
I will confess that I had to stop reading a few sentences down because you’re underlying argumentation is specious at best.
Creating content that sexualizes children… hurts children & it puts children at risk, and as we see here within the comment section, it creates a completely unhealthy normalization of a freak-like interest. There’s no argument around that - there simply is not.
In this context, the translation is correct. I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect. -con like siscons, brocons, etc are complexes or obsessions. Lolicon is a complex or obsession with, drawn or not, prepubescent minors.
For those wondering why Japan, a very shame based culture, feels more accepting of this, CSAM production was legal, technically, up to 2014. CSAM itself only started being legislated in 1999, with much pressure from the west.
Bonsai Pop’s video on the Rurouni Kenshin mangaka goes into detail on this.
I absolutely loathe the entire apologist view of “They never directly harmed a child, they just had 45tb of pictures of children being harmed”
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped, Which very much means your hand is actively causing the harm, whether its directly against the child, or every other activity that creates the market that encourages molestation and rape. everyone participating in it is actively and directly harming children.
I don’t disagree.
I was merely stating it as a fact of the case in why he, potentially, only received a light fine and no jail time. That’s on the Japanese court system.
The American system is nearly as bad so long as you are wealthy and/or have political power.
Because yes, everyone involved, both directly and indirectly, create the climate in which exploitation thrives.
i get your argument, but who says they paid for it?
No one? I assume you are assuming so due to me using the word market.
While it paying for it certainly exists, there is also trading. He could have easily traded for it.
Besides,the why or what he exchanged for it is irrelevant to the point that he was a fucking pedophile that had a metric fuckton of CSAM.
I’m not the person you’re talking to, but in today’s attention economy-centric society, there are more currencies supporting “content” markets than just money.
hmm yeah ok
You’re too dense to understand not every attraction is sexual in nature.
That aside, this translation is cancerous because term lolicon exists in both languages and Funimation fucked it up on purpose.
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence.
Lolita complex. Lolicon.
If we’re talking about dense, you just fit the definition to a T while denying it.
See a guy defending lolicon, click on his profile, can’t make it three posts before he’s defending capitalism. You can’t make this shit up, folks.
Capitalism bad, nuance bad. Everyone with opinion different then yours = evil. You’re mentally a child
The nuanced opinion is that capitalism was a necessary stepping stone from feudalism that has since overstayed its welcome. Defending capitalism as inherently good and worth keeping is the simplistic perspective lacking nuance.
No, but you are, judging by your posts.
Not comfortable with you saying this about me after defending lolicon.
Real lack of nuance, is failure to understand that any system that’s supposed to replace capitalism, would need to be able to reconcile incentives of multiple egoistic participants. Such thing doesn’t exist, outside, maybe P2P file exchange protocols like Torrent.
Well, I dismantled your incorrect understanding of Lolita complex given you lacked the nuance of understanding the novel, Lolita, the term was based on. Looks like you misunderstand the nuance of humanity as well. At least your worldview is coherent I guess? Simplistic and lacking nuance, but coherent.
This assumes a fixed human nature rather than a behavior that systems actively select for and reward. Capitalist institutions structurally favor egoistic actors. Corporations that externalize costs and maximize shareholder returns outcompete ones that don’t, regardless of what the individuals inside them actually want. (Such as workers rights, better pay, more time off, job security, not being wage slaves, etc.) You’re amplifying egoism and then pointing at the result as proof it’s inevitable.
This is always the fun bit with capitalists. Your own example dismantles your argument. Torrents work precisely because it aligns individual incentives with collective benefit through protocol design. You seed what you leech. The more you contribute the better the system works for everyone. Cooperative protocol design producing pro-social behavior, egoism be damned. That’s closer to a socialist design principle than a capitalist one given its collectivist structure. You’ve described a commons and called it evidence for capitalism.
Speaking of commons, Elinor Ostrom won a Nobel Prize in economics for documenting how communities manage shared resources without private ownership or state control, through collective governance, mutual accountability, and designed incentive structures. Her research directly refuted the “tragedy of the commons” argument that collective resource management inevitably fails. Cooperatives, commons-based peer production, mutual aid networks, all reconcile participant incentives without capitalism as the mechanism. Torrents reconcile incentives without capitalism as a mechanism, so again, thank you for the useful point to argue 🫡.
The real lack of nuance is assuming that because capitalism has been the dominant system during a particular period of history, it’s the only possible system compatible with human behavior. That’s just survivorship bias.
An aside for those interested, but tangentially related, and from a video essay on one of the ugliest fps games I’ve seen no less.
A thought provoking line of dialogue I recently heard:
What is the meaning of life? What you make of it, right?
But consider the question itself before the answer. A blank sheet of printer paper arrives to you pre-defined. Clipped, pressed, bleached, packaged with the specific intention of being fed into a machine, slathered in ink, and filed or discarded. Its name tells you its purpose. Printer paper. For the printer.
And yet nothing stops you from drawing on it. Folding it into a plane. Using it as kindling. At the end of the day, printer paper is simply paper. The printer is explanatory, anticipatory even. It is not the whole of the paper’s purpose on earth.
So what is the meaning of life? The question is asked inside a context. In our world, that context is capitalism. The system arrives before you do, pre-defines your purpose, clips and presses and bleaches you into a shape that fits the machine. Your labor has value. Your time is a commodity. Your worth is your productivity. The printer doesn’t define the paper, but the paper rarely gets to decide that for itself. Is that as far as your nuanced thinking takes you? That capitalism is the end-all be-all simply because its all you’ve ever known?
Sounds pretty simplistic, dull, disheartening, and joyless to me. Paper can fly. The printer pre-supposes it never will, that its function is fixed. You’ve simplistically chosen to remain in your function pre-supposed by the context chosen for you.
You should check out his post about how women should receive less education so they can make more babies.
W-… What!?
Oh good lord, I stopped scrolling and didn’t see that.
I disagree. A lolicon can also be defined as a person into lolicon, with no interest in actual children. Since she’s holding a lolicon manga, this would be a valid interpretation. Whether it would be a more correct translation, I don’t know
You can disagree all you want, that doesn’t make it accurate.
By your definition:
A lolita complex is defined as a person who is enjoys a lolita complex with no attraction to children, just…the attraction to specific children, drawn or not.
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence. An attractionn to Dolores not to minors.
An attraction to drawings of minors, not minors themselves.
The definition of Lolita complex, or the portmanteau lolicon, appears to fit perfectly.
Would you like to disagree with the definitions of fascism or genocide next? Those are hot today, lots of deniers who fit the definition of both. “It’s not fascism, it’s just America first. It’s not genocide, it’s a war against terror/Hamas.”
Japanese react to imposing of our morals on them like westerners would react to criminalization of drinking alcohol. I wonder how strange and abhorrent elements of our culture must look to them.
Then again, I consider french to be weird and borderline pro-crime for prohibiting the paternity tests…
The Japanese chuds think they should be the ones imposing their culture.
No, impossible! They are not white enough for that! /s
They literally formally are. It was granted during the interwar period. Ask an old Chinese person.
I will confess that I had to stop reading a few sentences down because you’re underlying argumentation is specious at best.
Creating content that sexualizes children… hurts children & it puts children at risk, and as we see here within the comment section, it creates a completely unhealthy normalization of a freak-like interest. There’s no argument around that - there simply is not.