💰 Grifter "Mad at the Internet" - a/k/a My Psychotherapy Sessions

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Titos said:
If you're sexually attracted to photos of anime girls shitting does that not still make you a scat fetishist?
Click to expand...
Honestly, it's a good question. It's as hard for me to get inside the mind of someone who jerks it to anime as it is for me to get inside the mind of someone who jerks it to scat. It's thus hard for me to say whether these are separate categories, either universally or in specific instances. Like, would scat anime satisfy a scat fetishist more than anime porn would satisfy me?

I don't think the case here is as iron-clad as it's being made out. That said, I'd personally advise disassociation with anyone engaged in any sort of paraphilia. Are we pretending that stock-standard homos aren't often predators? We're at this point of arguing degrees of pervert because of this liberal world-view that Dick subscribes to that says anything that others do isn't your business, which just totally disregards societal impact. You'll never have a world with LGPTQ acceptance that doesn't involve lolicon acceptance, and eventually, acceptance of much worse.

That said once again, I can't really endorse second-degree disassociation. For worse, this is the world we have. Even if you disassociate with perverts entirely, it's virtually impossible to disassociate with persons who associate with perverts, but more importantly, it makes affecting change basically impossible. Fortunately for me, so far none of my family or friends have come out as perverts, so I haven't had to make that hard choice, but I know that both family members and friends fraternize with perverts, and you just have to deal with it.

ETA: btw, @Null be real. You had over a year to disassociate over this cause. You disassociated over Ralph drama. The merits of that can be argued, but that's clearly the reality. No one involved if fooled.
 
Last edited:
4str4staleatherbelt said:
Am I a murderer for killing people in videogames because the definition of murder doesn't make the distinction between the murder of a real or fake/simulated human being? @JewBacca
Click to expand...

No, because its not the unlawfull taking of a life is it? Is the game character alive? Why don't we compare apples to apples though. I dont know the exact terminology, but in my opinion, if you are sexually aroused by the taking of life, simulated or otherwise, you are a degenerate, in the same way a pedophile is.

If you can achieve sexual gratification from a depiction of murder you are just as deprived as a person who can get off watching children getting fucked.

Should it be illegal? No in the same light being a pedophile isn't illegal. Its the action, or the creating of a victim that the law is designed to protect people from. There are a great many things in society that are degenerate, but ultimately legal, it doesnt change the level of a person's depravity.
 
4str4staleatherbelt said:
The definition of murder makes no mention of a real life needing to be taken or not. It could very well be a fictional life. (If I'm coming off as pedantic it's because you were.)
Click to expand...

Sure it does, even in your own retelling. You dont even have to site the source of your definition. Not sure how you take a life, from something not alive. Thats like saying playing GTA makes you a thief, it doesnt because ultimately you are taking nothing.
 
If you play a game where the objective is to rape children, you are a pedophile.

Violent videogames have a negative correlation with violence, but it still simulates violence, and we are violent creatures.

Maybe lolicon has a negative correlation with molestation, who knows. You're still a pedophile.
 
Null said:
If you play a game where the objective is to rape children, you are a pedophile.
Click to expand...
you don't understand, people that play video games don't shoot up schools because of it, so it's absurd of you to say that people that masturbate to images of children like to masturbate to images of children.

the psychology of violence and sex are exactly the same and there's no way that the implications of actions simulating violence might differ from masturbating to images of children. If you disagree with that you're just a karen science denier. At worst, the implications of violent video games are that people are desensitized to the actions take- I, uhm, never mind that part it isn't relevant here.

More importantly it's free speech for me to jack off to children so you need to stop talking about it and shut up right now or you don't believe in free speech. It's also freedom of association for me to associate my hand to my penis when I see pornographic images of children, and if you aren't okay with me talking around you about how much I love that you don't believe in the constitution.
They're just 2D drawings, they don't even look like real kids getting raped, I would kno- I mean so I've heard! And don't you dare try to say anything about how "being with other loli lovers has dangerous potential" because that's just ridiculous, when have two people ever egged on eachother's eccentric behavior by encouraging and normalizing it? look at furries, they love to come together in big communities and we they have never done anything disturbing or illegal!
 
I'm glad this is being discussed here as I prefer to avoid Dick's thread. While I agree with Null that they aren't Alogs, I do believe they are disingenuous in they justification for hating Dick.

I just listen to the conversion, and I come out of it more sad than anything. I agree more with Null, but I understand Dick's perspective. That's not to say I think Dick is right, just I understand why he's taking his position.

Dick's always had a fault of going hard against people telling him to not associate with people. He doesn't just ignore it, he winds up against it. With his history of being targeted like this and having his personal life completely fucked over, I completely understand it. I do wish he'd more dismiss disassociating with someone that hasn't wronged him, than get aggressive to those that may have good advice for him.

My biggest disappointment is Dick acknowledging that people he passes on responsible to, like Dustin, Hazencruz, and Riley, drives fans away. Him not being aware of it is incompetence, him knowing about it and not doing anything about it is disrespectful to the fans. Riley is damaging his brand, but the effort it's saves him in making a decent show is worth that to him. I'm still listening, but in the last few months I see the straw piling on the camel's back.

TLDR: I still like Null, I still like Dick, them collaborating is better for both. Ralph is a time bomb, Riley is an active harm to the show, and Digi is a weird, bad association that adds nothing to it. Dick is cutting off good content for bad and I wish he'd realize it.
 
Null said:
If you play a game where the objective is to rape children, you are a pedophile.

Violent videogames have a negative correlation with violence, but it still simulates violence, and we are violent creatures.

Maybe lolicon has a negative correlation with molestation, who knows. You're still a pedophile.
Click to expand...

IDK if I agree with this line of reasoning. While I do agree that simulations of pedophilia indicate a pedophile, I don't think violent video games correlation to violence is a similar enough comparison.

Excluding murder porn games which I agree appeal to violent people, most violence in games is a means to an end, not necessarily the ends itself. Generally, the core appeal of games if overcoming challenges and winning. Since we live in an inherently violent world, most challenges involve fighting in some way.

Child rape simulations only have a single appeal. There is no "I just need to rape these 5 children so I can...." In this case, the pedophiles are there to enjoy the simulation of a kid getting fucked.

In short, gamers play to win and pedos like to imagine diddling kids. It doesn't matter if their outlet is games, cartoon drawings, or real kids, they're still pedophiles.
 
BULLY HUNTER_77 said:
Child rape simulations only have a single appeal. There is no "I just need to rape these 5 children so I can...." In this case, the pedophiles are there to enjoy the simulation of a kid getting fucked.
Click to expand...
That's somewhat missing the point, though. People objected to violent video games because they thought it would lead to something genuinely bad like a school shooting. People don't object to loli because they think it might lead to child rape, they object because the lolicon itself is fucking gross, pedophilic, and wrong. The issue isn't whether it's a gateway drug, the issue is the lolicon itself is bad.
 
Top Skink said:
That's somewhat missing the point, though. People objected to violent video games because they thought it would lead to something genuinely bad like a school shooting. People don't object to loli because they think it might lead to child rape, they object because the lolicon itself is fucking gross, pedophilic, and wrong. The issue isn't whether it's a gateway drug, the issue is the lolicon itself is bad.
Click to expand...
I'm not making an argument about whether or not pedophilia is bad or good. Here's a useful Venn Diagram that summarizes my position on pedophiles vs child molesters.
Usefull Venn Diagram.png
 
Last edited:
Sheryl Nome said:
So by forcing the issue Josh would have gotten to a better result either way.

1. He would have gotten to stay in the discord and not have his feels hurt
or 2. He would have made Dick actually say it

Idk why he cowtowed to Riley lmao
Click to expand...
I think where you're going wrong with this argument is that you're thinking Null was looking to get anything out of the conversation. He went on Dick's show as a favor to Dick to explain to him why he was disassociating from him. Null's decision had already been made and I don't think anything Dick said was going to make a difference. The 'Riley being an asshole' to 'Dick being friendly with and hiring pedos' situations were stepping stones for Null to come to conclusion that he didn't want to associate with Dick anymore, and Null was merely explaining this linear process, rather than looking for Dick to make it right. Dick kept bringing up 'I didn't tell Riley to do that!' allegedly to clear up ~serious inaccuracies~ in Null's line of thinking, but the Riley shit was literally just the first step. Doesn't matter if Null was totally wrong about that or overreacted (I don't think he did, and I think you're projecting more emotion than was actually there), because in the mean time, much worse shit started adding up.
 
beautiful person said:
I think where you're going wrong with this argument is that you're thinking Null was looking to get anything out of the conversation. He went on Dick's show as a favor to Dick to explain to him why he was disassociating from him. Null's decision had already been made and I don't think anything Dick said was going to make a difference. The 'Riley being an asshole' to 'Dick being friendly with and hiring pedos' situations were stepping stones for Null to come to conclusion that he didn't want to associate with Dick anymore, and Null was merely explaining this linear process, rather than looking for Dick to make it right. Dick kept bringing up 'I didn't tell Riley to do that!' allegedly to clear up ~serious inaccuracies~ in Null's line of thinking, but the Riley shit was literally just the first step. Doesn't matter if Null was totally wrong about that or overreacted (I don't think he did, and I think you're projecting more emotion than was actually there), because in the mean time, much worse shit started adding up.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about back when it happened my dude, Idk why noo bitched out back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom