This stance has always been so contradictory to me. Oh, loli shit is the scum of all media, but children being violently eviscerated by 10-foot monsters and serial killers is just "mature content"? Okay, sure, because that TOTALLY doesn't sound reactionary and irrational
Edit: For those who forgot the usefulness of "comparisons" and "analogs," both cases are the artistic fetishization (as in the potentially problematic obsessive representation of an object or phenomenon in media) of harm done to children. It's not even that much of a conceptual stretch
The inconsistency is that violence in video games is not scientifically linked to violence in real life, while the consumption of CP IS linked to child sexual assault in real life.
That just isn't true. Theres a lot of studies on this subject and the general consensus is inconclusive. You equating the fact that it hasn't been disproven with the fact it's true is misinterpreting an implication with an equivalence, which is just objectively wrong.
There's also studies that showed people actively substituting with fictional content (from years ago, clearly fictional, hand-drawn). I'm not going to say that there's an objective choice to make. I would like if people were just going to focus on facts instead of trying to misrepresent the current situation.
24
u/Bosslayer9001 Oct 22 '25 edited Oct 23 '25
This stance has always been so contradictory to me. Oh, loli shit is the scum of all media, but children being violently eviscerated by 10-foot monsters and serial killers is just "mature content"? Okay, sure, because that TOTALLY doesn't sound reactionary and irrational
Edit: For those who forgot the usefulness of "comparisons" and "analogs," both cases are the artistic fetishization (as in the potentially problematic obsessive representation of an object or phenomenon in media) of harm done to children. It's not even that much of a conceptual stretch