not to be all conspiracy but like, lando splashes out more water onto the track and suddenly oscar’s in the wall behind him?
unfortunately i just think lando can’t drive so the rest of the grid suffers consequences when he goes over the kerb and gets standing water on the racing line
"Neil Gaiman publicly funded the defense of a guy who was charged with possessing child porn"
I really really do not want to be saying anything positive about this man, it is crystal clear that at the very least he massively exploited the power he had over two women half his age and guess what, that itself is enough to understand that he was very predatory with these women. That being said, I fully believe the victims who came forward and hope that there is some accountability and justice dispensed.
But, what is an extremely irrelevant tangent that several of these discussions are taking are talking about him funding the defense of a man who was being prosecuted fo possessing lolicon manga.
Firstly, yes he did do that and I'll link the article that Neil Gaiman wrote about this here. Tbh, I agree with some points he makes here, though his writing is very meandering and not very concise.
Possessing lolicon is possessing some material where a character is/looks like they are underage/preteen and they are written to be in/drawn to be in sexually explicit situations. In other words, it's a fictional depiction of fictional minor characters in an explicit manner. Now, child porn as defined in several jurisdictions entails a real child/minor being exploited sexually for pornography or a real human child/minor being written about/portrayed in a sexual manner. Essentially, lolicon is a fictional and explicit depiction of children/people who are perceived as children, who DO NOT exist while child porn, arguably, involves real children being abused.
For the morality based disagreements surrounding lolicon itself, firstly, yes, creeps might get off to lolicon and that is disgusting. Yes, sometimes lolicon might help foster the sickening motives some people have against children and that is also disgusting. But, do you really believe banning something like lolicon on a principle level is going to actually reduce the chances of a child being abused? Lolicon is not going to magically vanish from the face of the earth, it's still going to be circulated through illegal means, just like actual child porn is. But you know what banning lolicon will actually do?
Threaten actual exploration of uncomfortable themes like child abuse, exploitation and rape and meaningful themes like sex and sexuality in adolescents. Which depiction of a child/minor is obscene or not obscene, morally wrong or correct, will not be decided by you or me but by some old powerful men, probably conservative.
Another important consideration is that lolicon does not always have characters that are explicitly underage. It can also just contain characters with "childlike bodies" and it could be called lolicon. And who will decide what a normal body should look like as opposed to a child's body anyway? What about people with small body frames and flat chests? Because their bodies do not align with a conventional adult body, these bodies will be banned from being portrayed explicitly because someone on the internet has decided a body like that can only belong to a child? Do you see why what should be drawn/written and how it should be perceived cannot and should not be regulated with laws?
So yes, he did fund the defense of a guy who was being prosecuted for possessing lolicon manga. If you think that made him a sexual predator, please ask yourself If you should be drawing a common standard for writing about fictional underage characters and sexually abusing real women.
Focus on listening to the victims, withdrawing any support you have been extending to him and please please believe the victims. Speaking out against a powerful man is not easy and these women are very brave for coming out with their experiences.
