sh.itjust.works Main Community

7701 readers

1 users here now

Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

TheDude@sh.itjust.works

manifex@sh.itjust.works

biela@sh.itjust.works

imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works

De-federate from instances with loli (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 year ago by InfiniteVariables@sh.itjust.works to c/main@sh.itjust.works

129 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Can we get a consensus on whether our community should de-federate with servers that host loli? I personally think we should block them, and if that ends up not being the consensus here then I'll probably sign up on another server. I hope we can all agree to set that boundary though because I like it here and it seems otherwise pretty cool.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] birdmancaw@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's not true. It's a petite anime girl, not underage. People keep trying to conflate the two. It's weird because even if they have big boobs and are obviously legal people still try to shove them into the title of being underage. (like the petite sensei, Uzaki, and Hestia from Is it Wrong to Pick up Girls in a Dungeon).

[–] delmain@beehaw.org 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean yeah of course. That character is actually a 9000-year old vampire, not a child

[–] birdmancaw@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh come on, the examples I gave are one in their twenties, one in college, and one who's a god. Their stories completely revolve around them being their ages. You are doing the exact conflating of the two I was talking about.

[–] Faceman2K23@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I agree with you technically kinda, but the average person doesn't (and never will) see a difference and trying to explain it just makes it seem to them that you are defending it.

If a normal person sees it and says .. "thats wrong" then it shouldn't be included in a default feed.

[–] birdmancaw@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I wasn't even talking about whether or not it should be included in the feed. I was just saying their definition is completely wrong. Defining things improperly is the basis for spreading misinformation about something.

[–] Faceman2K23@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

and I'm saying that sometimes the definition is irrelevant in the eyes of public opinion. If a character looks like a child, then that is all that matters.

[–] birdmancaw@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But when somebody is literally asking for the definition of something, and the wrong definition is given, that's not a visual perception issue, that's misinformation.

BTW: thank you for actually talking about this. Most people nowadays are too pig headed to have an actual conversation.

[–] neo@lemmy.comfysnug.space 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

that's oppai loli

[–] birdmancaw@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Loli is still literally in the name. Twitter freaks still try to cancel it.