I think this thread is over-reacting, given that the part about loli is very small and only a tiny portion of the 7th part of the Policy List. >not what often constitutes a majority for any bannable thing.
It is the majority, most people are not going to support something they have no stake in because they don't care. >wording here implying a mangaka studio
My wording is obviously referring to anime studios, and mangaka are rarely single-person efforts unless it is small self-made materials as you yourself speak of; Doujin is Japanese for small group of common interest. >isn't all about rich capitalists
These groups cannot live on paper and air, for them to make money to survive they must create content that appeals to the most ravenous market even if the number of people compared to the population is small, so targeting things like loli and other crap is a primary concern if they seek to sell their content, and selling content inevitably involves a bigger company to print/publish and market it, thus porky gets their finger in the pie and influences its contents regardless. >not all doujinshi made by doujin are hentai.
No shit, but a large majority that are sold and found online ARE. The ones that aren't are usually short self-made stories that either catch the attention of corporations, becoming mainstream productions (A la One Punch Man) or die off. In recent times Web Novels have increased the number of non-pornographic doujin material but its still not high, and still often relies on the most overused tropes and gags. >proposal wont be limited to porn to my understanding
The Proposal aims to ban sexualized loli - or specifically - violently sexualized (rape) content. It has little bearing on content that isn't already SFW, only pornographic production. >how loli doesnt even have a universally agreed upon definition
People dispute the definition because people are ignorant. The definition of Loli is straightforward: an underage (or underage-looking) girl depicted in a sexual manner. The only expansion for this phrase has been its use to all underage females in anime, regardless of sexualization, ergo the specific emphasis on sexual violence in the proposal. Obviously mp4 related isn't going to be banned. >Porn predates capitalism
EROTICA is not PORNOGRAPHY. Pornography is a capitalist industry that only really began with the advent of easily available cameras and video, taking off during the early 20th century as shit like Playboy and other content arose. Even then the limited pornography of the time is nothing like the sheer deluge of graphic and absolutely free content online. >sexual is completely open to interpretation
There are cultural norms and standards that determine if some actions are inherently sexual or not, the things that are contestable usually aren't all that obvious, but a panty-shot or dress-lift is pretty much sexual. >this isn't purely about porn anyway.
As far as I can tell, it is - or rather about (graphic) depictions of sexual violence, not loli itself. >self-produced
ALL porn is produced by someone, but it's put in public access and sold for money mostly by porky. R34 and Patreon is mostly Western market, and Pixiv is a large company. >Porn is a natural result of sexuality meeting technology and art.
It isn't art and certainly isn't natural given that its entire production hinges on exploiting and commodifying sex, there is no point to it otherwise. >haven't heard of females having sexual dysfunction
Because there isn't exactly a lot for them to lose functionality in, it does make them less sensitive and thus have a harder time getting pleasure over time. >Fetishes are the result of sexual arousal during exposure to any other stimulus which then can create a potential for connection
True, but people start seeking alternative fetishes if their content no longer makes them feel as good. >foot fetishes
That can exist because it starts simply - by appreciating a female body from literally head to toe and pornographic exposure directing you to something other than genitals. It's a long discussion about paraphilia that I don't feel like going into, my point is porn burns out your dopamine receptors and makes you a slave to this. >definition of otaku has not changed
You are correct, it has been generally anime/manga focused since it got coined in 1983: (in Japan) a young person who is obsessed with computers or particular aspects of popular culture to the detriment of their social skills; "every other otaku can run on about their hobby endlessly" >could be implied from what that anon
No it cannot, you're grasping for straws here. >a communist party stripping people of more and more things they may enjoy
Because a minority of angry basement dwellers are the main concern and not the overall population. FFS read the actual proposal in its entirety before making dumb statements. Even in the hyperconsumerism of Otaku, lolicons are not a large portion of them and lolicons in general are a tiny proportion of the population, even in Japan and the USA. Catering to some deviants is pointless. >personal interests are ideology
To paraphrase Amilcar Cabral, most people do not fight for the ideas in someone's head, they fight for the material interests and benefits for themselves and their closest people. >getting attention for doing something stupid is a good thing
"There's no such thing as bad publicity"as P.T. Barnum said, there's no difference between fame and infamy today, regardless of a stance you take on something there is going to someone bitching and moaning, so might as well stick to your guns. >Semantics
No it isn't semantics, they're different things and its important to recognize how small and irrelevant this tiny section of the proposals 7th part is. >Not in Japan
The original 1999 law criminalizing the production and distribution of child pornography had been drafted to have a section specifically target loliporn. The JCP had little power then, there are many other examples of this kind of policy being proposed and denied. >just an appeal to what is established and more present
No, I'm pointing out that most of the globes people think its detestable schlock and for good reason. >Such arguments can be given to support capitalism
That'd be a false equivalency. >no such thing as international law in actuality
Interpol'd say differently >The UN has no real power to enforce laws >just bully nations
LMAO >The UN, UK and the US have been bullying Japan
HAHAHAHA, the primary importers of Japanese production that practically own Japan as a vassal state are "bullying" Japan by not enforcing laws that they can easily force through, kek. >you should be arguing why nothing should change
It's not a focus of the party if you actually read the goddamn proposal.