I found that the members of r/luckystar were saying very sexual things about characters that, while 18, had very child like designs. And even if, they were saying shit like, “Cunny!” and, “Correction!” so, yeah.

I constantly reported all posts and comments like that I came across and eventually made a post asking why they were saying things like that. I wasn’t hostile, and was in fact, rather calm about the situation. Meanwhile, they were all extremely rude and hostile towards my post, calling me names and such, and about 20 minutes later, my account was shadowbanned.

So, not only did Reddit moderation side with the pedos, they didn’t even have the decency to tell me what I did wrong. Assuming how it all happened so suddenly, I’m just gonna assume the pedos all mass-reported my account for God knows what. Any and all appeals I’ve mad since then received no response.

I still stuck around for a few months after that, [that whole deal happened back in May of 2025.] but the extreme leftist political dooming invading every corner of the website I used made it absolutely miserable to use.

Tonight, I finally put my foot down and said, “I quit!” I discovered this website and made an account here. I guess you can use this post to welcome me to the Fediverse.

  • Hawke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    They’re both just drawings. None of it is real. The only difference is the label.

    • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I fucking hate this argument.

      If someone used AI to generate a video of Epstein raping a child, would that be acceptable to you? The video isn’t real either.

      • msage@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I hate to do this, but it’s simple: anything that looks like real children is bad and should never be sexualized.

        But anime? Come on. That’s not how people look.

        • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          So in your mind someone getting off to a scene depicting something like that is totally fine as long as it doesn’t look exactly like a real child? You realize it is meant to represent a human child, right? Is any sort of stylized drawing fine then because it doesn’t look indistinguishable from a real person? There’s hentai explicitly about minors (like, not even high schoolers, but like fucking middle school and younger…) being raped by old dudes.

          Shit like this is why there used to be (and still is, although to a lesser degree) such stigmatization of anime.

          • msage@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            No, I care about harming children.

            AI needs CSAM to generate it, and it may muddy the water about real victims, that’s why it doesn’t get a pass.

            If someone wants to marry a ferris wheel, I don’t care. Inanimate objects, including fucked-up but obviously not real drawings, don’t hurt anyone.

            Re: anime - I’ve seen some fucked up shit in ‘normal’ anime, like Bakemonogatari (very young girls in very bad scenes), so I don’t recommend anime in general either. But I do not think it’s a real danger, unlike genAI, eg Grok.

            • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 hours ago

              Child porn or adjacent shit in stuff like anime just normalizes it for people. A fucking ferris wheel was never made to represent a person. Just because some delusional person anthropomorphizes it doesn’t mean that’s the purpose behind its creation (and even that had consequences since the priest was forced to resign from the Catholic Church). Hentai + ecchi shit in anime featuring children is explicitly made to be viewed sexually.

              • msage@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                So what you say is that intent is more important than the object.

                Therefore you loathe furries as well? As big part of it is anthropomorphized animals in a sexual way.

                • arcterus@piefed.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  I will just put it this way: the author of hentai/ecchi content featuring children had to sit down and decide “yes, I’m going to draw a child being sexually assaulted and expect it to be viewed positively.” If you think this is acceptable, I don’t know what to say.

                  Therefore you loathe furries as well? As big part of it is anthropomorphized animals in a sexual way.

                  If a furry gets off when they see an animal or something meant to look like an actual animal, then yes. If the furry just finds other adults in fursuits sexually appealing or whatever, I don’t care. The suits aren’t really meant to look like an actual animal (unlike a drawing of a child that is actually meant to largely look like a human child). Frankly this is closer to sexual roleplay with an adult wearing a diaper and shit and acting like a baby (I have no idea what the name for this is, all I know is that it exists). I find this very weird, but it’s between adults, so again I don’t care (from what I understand it’s about differences in power and stuff, so I guess like BDSM). If the people involved get off seeing actual babies or things meant to seem like actual babies, then it’s no longer acceptable.

          • Hawke@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Hmmm…

            I mean, purely on principle? Sure. No one would have been harmed apart from the environmental damage. Once that’s done, nothing will undo that.

            Psychological damage purely from exposure and normalization of that kind of content, probably not ideal.

            The muddying of the waters around Epstein guilt, also bad. (“That was fake, so any other news must also be fake”).

            Apart from the above sorts of things, (but maybe there’s others I didn’t think of off the top of my head): as long as no one watches it, it’s no more harmful than the sentence describing the idea in the first place.

            • null@piefed.nullspace.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              So let’s remove the additional impacts to test the standard. Hypothetically, someone creates a tool that is freely available and has no environmental impacts, doesn’t rely on problematic training data, any of that.

              Its free to use for anyone to create and distribute photo-realistic images of what look exactly like 6 year old girls in sexual situations.

              You’re okay with this, because it’s not real and it’s just pictures on a screen. Right?

              • Hawke@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Sure, I guess, although it’s kind of inextricably linked to the damage of actually using it.

                  • Hawke@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    Because it’s less real. The amount of harm and/or damage is proportional the realism. Using that shitty line drawing I made for an example: if I say the lines represent something objectionable, would that make it so? No, not really.

                    The closer to real, the greater the psychological damage to the viewer. However it’s still no actual harm to anyone else.

                    And then production of actual CSAM actually does harm children.

                    Like, this seems like blatantly obvious stuff, no one is harmed by someone making lines on paper. (Or with modern tech lines on a screen but the idea is the same.)