| Make your Bullshit |

Don't forget about the block feature, it's an vital mechanic on every social media platform.

[kibblesnbits55]

Every now and then I will check in on SKL just to see if he's still drawing his pizza tower art (ITS GOOD) and it's funny how often he brings up the Punkitt incident. Obviously there's more, but in his own words, this is the inciting incident that got him "Nazi-jacketed"

imo after punkitt started blocking people that's where the conversation should've ended. There's more but let's be honest here, It's not a surprise that Punkitt made that assumption when the fucking thumbnail looks like this.

Anyway, here's all the mentions post incident.

He's even mentioning her while getting into unrelated drama.

Meanwhile Punkitt is doing watercolors with her girlfriend and having her work celebrated at drag shows.

I'm sorry the harassment campaign didn't get any traction like you wanted but you gotta let it go eventually.

[superkirbylover]

do you have proof punkitt actually knew what floraverse was doing and not just vaguing about old discourse. the shit youre accusing her of isnt to be taken lightly and i dont really see enough proof of her “supporting” floraverse. even if she was friends, friends dont know every discord server they mod or whatever. many people dont know floraverse/members and i didnt until very recently. people are too eager to dogpile trans women for slip ups and misunderstandings so im very suspicious shes actually *harming* people. especially when she blocked you and youre spamming her url tag based on minor complaints and assumptions. if you have proof, i would love to see it and stop supporting her, but people arent going to blindly accept a vague post referencing past fetish art backlash as a reason that she supports a pedo dog fucking cult

hi.

this is her talking down csa victims, the latter being a victim of flora.

here's her liking a post calling me a useful tool for nazis and a danger to trans people.

these are the people supporting her. temtem is IN flora. adorablimp accused faolanwolf is faking his and his family's rape trauma.

here's her admitting she never apologized.

heres her posting proof she is lurking on my profile. this was a joke reply TO ME.

if you're going to tell me that im looking too deep into things or im misinterpreting, i dont want to hear it. get lost. this isnt about transwomen being slandered over nothing. this is about protecting flora and harming victims.

[kibblesnbits55]

gets criticized once, dies.

[kibblesnbits55]

It's kinda funny how batshit insane this fandom is, instead of just saying "I don't like this person's webshow" They'll do some crazy mental gymnastics to frame a trans person as a woman-beater in their head to justify hating them on a personal level.

The "stop bootlicking" is a good cherry on top too, I'm sure treating niche internet celebrities like they're arms of the state is a completely reasonable and normal stance to take LMAO

[kibblesnbits55]

its so funny seeing this poor guy try his damnest to combat misogyny by using nazi terms like "degenerate" and being misogynistic in turn.

[a-queer-man-of-a-few-words]

Weeaboos have the worse sense of humor. I’m not just talking about “over insensitive edgy offensive” humor. They are generally just unfunny.

[kibblesnbits55]

It's kinda funny how batshit insane this fandom is, instead of just saying "I don't like this person's webshow" They'll do some crazy mental gymnastics to frame a trans person as a woman-beater in their head to justify hating them on a personal level.

The "stop bootlicking" is a good cherry on top too, I'm sure treating niche internet celebrities like they're arms of the state is a completely reasonable and normal stance to take LMAO

[catpda]

how can ppl say cats dont have feelings like. 

when my cat got deadly sick she refused to eat a single thing and it had been days but when i started crying she ate just a little bit, and upon seeing how happy it made me, kept doing it whenever she could.

now whenever im sad or crying she finds wherever i am with a mouthful of food and eats the pieces one by one, every time looking up at me making sure i was watching her eat it all because she knew it made me happy. and it DOES make me happy

i love cats!!! 

[catpda]

im so glad my little Foofy has touched everyone’s hearts… she luvs you all

[scramratz]

I think people would be less suicidal if they were allowed to talk about being suicidal without risk of being sent to the Torture Dungeon

[obscuretobyfox]

Vinyls for Chapter 3 and 4 are now listed on Fangamer!!

(I really fucking like this back art specifically)

[frustrated-accomplice]

Hi, I want to talk about this since a lot of people have just responded to this with a very simple "lolicon bad" which i feel like doesn't actually contribute to the conversation from the perspective of trying to convince Patricia and her supporters as wrong but rather as evidence to distance themselves from this crowd.

Here are a few of fairly simple arguments against Lolisho outside of the one being mentioned. I believe there is more, but most of them have already been stated.

Lolisho is on more extreme form of the sexualization of children in media by the adults around them that encourages them to sexualize the aspects of childhood. Other examples of this are the (typically eurocentric) beauty ideals of women.

Lolisho does not have a proper definition that removes csem from the label and expects the consumer to do that themselves. Voice actors of fiction children can be real, Designs of the characters can be real. Actors can be real. If it is "just art", it implies photography cannot be fictional. If it can then a photograph of a real child can be called a "lolicon", sexual image or otherwise. If it excludes all connection to children then the inspiration to children cannot exist either.

Lolisho sexualizes a specific minority intended to be for the privileged and fundementally does not allow the minority being sexualized to raise concerns about the medium. Both because they dont have the language or the ability to engage. This is an argument that really cannot be argued with on the other side. As if they do, they are arguing for children to engage with a community of adults sexualizing children. It is impossible for them to engage meaningfully, as they would be groomed or coerced into the conversation.

The purpose of lolisho implies that it is real + accurate enough to be considered an outlet for pedophiles. even when the defence of it is that its not based in reality in any way as the children cannot be real. ie. the defence of lolisho by indulgers that claim they wouldnt be attracted with a "real child" because "real children" "dont act like lolis" (patricia taxxon has not said this argument, I am bringing it up as it is a common one). Which brings the concern of what they would do If they found a child that did.

[kibblesnbits55]

But these arguments can very easily be applied to fictional depictions of violence as well. Why is it fine to look at media depicting ripped limbs, intestines, bullets in brains, dismemberment. Wouldn't consuming this material make you more violent?

[frustrated-accomplice]

That assumes that lolicon and shotacon are descriptors to "fictional depiction of childhood sexualization" and are equatable to all violence ever shown in fiction. Because.. it does sometimes? Like, assuming your definition of lolicon is just.. "sexualized fantasy children", Do you consider lolita to be lolicon?

Do you think the violence shown in fictional cop shows as justification as to why cops kill people ... doesn't cause violence and the perpetuation of believing cops are "doing whats best for us"? Thus leading to more excusing police brutality? Like there are parts of the genre to be criticized that explicitly cause violence on other people. And I dont think its appropriate to ignore that either. As ive seen shows like that explicitly defend the killing of a fictional child on screen with a gun because he was too mentally ill, and i do think that that sort of moral is awful to perpetuate and leads to more violence. Can you be more specific on what you mean, and particularly a genre that is specifically intended to be a fantasized idea of gore for the sake of gore? I feel like I have showcased why this comparison doesnt work because the intent of the author is not brought into consideration in comparison to lolisho.

[kibblesnbits55]

I've never read the book, so I don't think I can give a fair answer. But assuming it's fictional then yeah I would consider it lolicon.

Do I believe that copaganda exists? Yeah. But it's up to the viewer to fall into it.

If looking at naked bug eyed, flat chested characters makes someone groom a real ass child then I think they were always going to offend, they didn't need to ask a piece of media for permission first. Same with violence, which is prevalent in every genre. Those columbine boys didn't need permission from DOOM in order to shoot up their school.

[frustrated-accomplice]

You should probably read what Lolita is before labeling it as lolicon, if you reccomended someone that is into that that book with that as a reason... they would probably get mad at you and assume youre a troll. Additionally, It also assumes that anything to do with the sexualization of children is lolicon- including things that are intended to be against it. Although, according to wikipedia, the book is where lolicon got its name (as well as several other pornographic genres regaurding the sexualization of youth). I believe labeling Lolita as Lolicon is poor judgement on your end, and you should probably review your own definition of what lolicon is before arguing with me.

Racism, Queerphobia, Transphobia and Sexism are all issues that fall under specific genres of fictional violent media. Id argue that comparing a specific genre of "pornography" to the generic idea of "fictional violence" (technically fictional gore, as what you specified wasnt an action, but the aftermath) makes your argument unclear.

[kibblesnbits55]

Again, i didn't read the book. Can you please stay on topic? I'm talking about how watching violence in media doesn't desensitize us to violence in real life. So why doesn't the same apply here?

Or are you just wasting my time?

[frustrated-accomplice]

Hi, I want to talk about this since a lot of people have just responded to this with a very simple "lolicon bad" which i feel like doesn't actually contribute to the conversation from the perspective of trying to convince Patricia and her supporters as wrong but rather as evidence to distance themselves from this crowd.

Here are a few of fairly simple arguments against Lolisho outside of the one being mentioned. I believe there is more, but most of them have already been stated.

Lolisho is on more extreme form of the sexualization of children in media by the adults around them that encourages them to sexualize the aspects of childhood. Other examples of this are the (typically eurocentric) beauty ideals of women.

Lolisho does not have a proper definition that removes csem from the label and expects the consumer to do that themselves. Voice actors of fiction children can be real, Designs of the characters can be real. Actors can be real. If it is "just art", it implies photography cannot be fictional. If it can then a photograph of a real child can be called a "lolicon", sexual image or otherwise. If it excludes all connection to children then the inspiration to children cannot exist either.

Lolisho sexualizes a specific minority intended to be for the privileged and fundementally does not allow the minority being sexualized to raise concerns about the medium. Both because they dont have the language or the ability to engage. This is an argument that really cannot be argued with on the other side. As if they do, they are arguing for children to engage with a community of adults sexualizing children. It is impossible for them to engage meaningfully, as they would be groomed or coerced into the conversation.

The purpose of lolisho implies that it is real + accurate enough to be considered an outlet for pedophiles. even when the defence of it is that its not based in reality in any way as the children cannot be real. ie. the defence of lolisho by indulgers that claim they wouldnt be attracted with a "real child" because "real children" "dont act like lolis" (patricia taxxon has not said this argument, I am bringing it up as it is a common one). Which brings the concern of what they would do If they found a child that did.

[kibblesnbits55]

But these arguments can very easily be applied to fictional depictions of violence as well. Why is it fine to look at media depicting ripped limbs, intestines, bullets in brains, dismemberment. Wouldn't consuming this material make you more violent?

[frustrated-accomplice]

That assumes that lolicon and shotacon are descriptors to "fictional depiction of childhood sexualization" and are equatable to all violence ever shown in fiction. Because.. it does sometimes? Like, assuming your definition of lolicon is just.. "sexualized fantasy children", Do you consider lolita to be lolicon?

Do you think the violence shown in fictional cop shows as justification as to why cops kill people ... doesn't cause violence and the perpetuation of believing cops are "doing whats best for us"? Thus leading to more excusing police brutality? Like there are parts of the genre to be criticized that explicitly cause violence on other people. And I dont think its appropriate to ignore that either. As ive seen shows like that explicitly defend the killing of a fictional child on screen with a gun because he was too mentally ill, and i do think that that sort of moral is awful to perpetuate and leads to more violence. Can you be more specific on what you mean, and particularly a genre that is specifically intended to be a fantasized idea of gore for the sake of gore? I feel like I have showcased why this comparison doesnt work because the intent of the author is not brought into consideration in comparison to lolisho.

[kibblesnbits55]

I've never read the book, so I don't think I can give a fair answer. But assuming it's fictional then yeah I would consider it lolicon.

Do I believe that copaganda exists? Yeah. But it's up to the viewer to fall into it.

If looking at naked bug eyed, flat chested characters makes someone groom a real ass child then I think they were always going to offend, they didn't need to ask a piece of media for permission first. Same with violence, which is prevalent in every genre. Those columbine boys didn't need permission from DOOM in order to shoot up their school.

[frustrated-accomplice]

Hi, I want to talk about this since a lot of people have just responded to this with a very simple "lolicon bad" which i feel like doesn't actually contribute to the conversation from the perspective of trying to convince Patricia and her supporters as wrong but rather as evidence to distance themselves from this crowd.

Here are a few of fairly simple arguments against Lolisho outside of the one being mentioned. I believe there is more, but most of them have already been stated.

Lolisho is on more extreme form of the sexualization of children in media by the adults around them that encourages them to sexualize the aspects of childhood. Other examples of this are the (typically eurocentric) beauty ideals of women.

Lolisho does not have a proper definition that removes csem from the label and expects the consumer to do that themselves. Voice actors of fiction children can be real, Designs of the characters can be real. Actors can be real. If it is "just art", it implies photography cannot be fictional. If it can then a photograph of a real child can be called a "lolicon", sexual image or otherwise. If it excludes all connection to children then the inspiration to children cannot exist either.

Lolisho sexualizes a specific minority intended to be for the privileged and fundementally does not allow the minority being sexualized to raise concerns about the medium. Both because they dont have the language or the ability to engage. This is an argument that really cannot be argued with on the other side. As if they do, they are arguing for children to engage with a community of adults sexualizing children. It is impossible for them to engage meaningfully, as they would be groomed or coerced into the conversation.

The purpose of lolisho implies that it is real + accurate enough to be considered an outlet for pedophiles. even when the defence of it is that its not based in reality in any way as the children cannot be real. ie. the defence of lolisho by indulgers that claim they wouldnt be attracted with a "real child" because "real children" "dont act like lolis" (patricia taxxon has not said this argument, I am bringing it up as it is a common one). Which brings the concern of what they would do If they found a child that did.

[kibblesnbits55]

But these arguments can very easily be applied to fictional depictions of violence as well. Why is it fine to look at media depicting ripped limbs, intestines, bullets in brains, dismemberment. Wouldn't consuming this material make you more violent?

[kibblesnbits55]

The blogs are now infighting

The logic doesn't make sense because what you two are doing is illogical in the first place. May i remind you that you are part of the same community that does this shit.

The hypocrisy is crazy.

[kibblesnbits55]

Some people just can't read i guess.......

[imjunebitch]

[kibblesnbits55]

It's completely fine to criticize an artist for being a bit of a fuckhead but I feel like we've gone past criticism if we're just publishing transphobic asks and then shaking our heads disapprovingly.

Or constantly refreshing salem's comments recording their screens so they can catch that perfect moment for their blog.

How the fuck is anyone supposed to get better when these are the things people are coming after you for?

I have to ask if you people even want him to get better in the first place or if you're just hoping this guy kills himself so you can feel like you did one "good thing" for this world. Maybe start by fixing yourselves up first instead of wasting your time with the very obviously mentally ill black guy.

[gayteensupreme]

"queer-owned business" means nothing anymore. OpenAI and Palantir are both queer-owned businesses.

[gayteensupreme]

if this is how you find out that both sam altman and peter thiel are gay im sorry