@Khanimators holy shit. this deserves so much more attention. anyways amazing animation, especially after the 1:30 mark!
English
lichimaniac
28 posts
lichimaniac
@lichimaniac
17 y.o. digital artist / beginner animator / i like butts
가입일 Kasım 2025
121 팔로잉7 팔로워
Sukuna Vs Buggy | A Fan Animation Collaboration.
Yea we had 0 idea what we were doing here BUT it turned out great so no problem right?
Key animators: Me, D.animation, Fatan(Akk7006), Finmal, Yeshrooms
English
lichimaniac 리트윗함
Goats who don't stop headbutting have to wear pool noodles
English
@Trebronok oke :0 also i have some very sad and horrible news, its actually a design for a retired volunteer pleco (pleco-sama) so its gonna be a bit different.
English
@lichimaniac i'm getting asked if someone should finish a pleco chan drawing 😭this is the best day of my life yes please finish it
English
Food stuck. Air blocked. Life fading… 💔
A person suddenly grabs their throat and can’t speak… which maneuver should be performed? 😳🚨
English
Apparently I'm supposed to pick a side here
English
lichimaniac 리트윗함
lichimaniac 리트윗함
Well, since I’ve upgraded to Premium, let’s address this point by point without having to start a thread with so many tweets
1st image debunk
"if the art is truly 'just a drawing', why does it sexually represent a young person, often a little girl, in eastern 'manga' style? [...] The art is a representation of what appears to be a minor, and thus is a result of the artist's perverseness. 'Canonizing' ages does not matter when the character looks like a child."
This argument completely misses the most important point: there is no real victim.
A drawing, no matter how intentional, is still fiction. Fiction by definition has no real person behind it.
No child is being abused, no child is suffering.
Saying "it looks like a minor" (which literally they don't) doesn't create a real minor. It's a stylized drawing with impossible proportions. Intention without a real victim is not the same as actual harm.
"When I refer to the ad hominem argument, I refer to a personal attack targeting the individual making the argument, usually stating things like 'you're the real pedophile'"
While i agree that you need to attack the argument, not the person.
Ironically, the person who wrote this spends the entire post calling people "porn addicted weebs" and "perverse".
If we're going to attack the argument and not the person, then stop calling everyone pedophiles and show where the actual real-world victim is in a generic anime drawing.
"The do-no-harm argument alleges that lolicon content is harmless [...] This is false, as lolicon [...] reinforces the viewers pedophilic desires..."
This is speculation, not proven fact.
There is no strong scientific evidence that consuming fictional lolicon causes real-world child abuse. Some studies even suggest fantasy can act as an outlet (harm reduction).
Comparing it to real pornography is also misleading because real porn usually involves actual people. Lolicon involves none.
Until they can show clear causal evidence of increased abuse rates because of drawings, this remains an emotional claim.
Besides that, the contries where lolicon is illegal there are more cases of rape and child molestation than japan, which is the roof of lolicon (Shown in the 1st image of this tweet)
Also you saying that the violent videogames are not the same as pornography then you're not correct, since both agression and sex are controlled by neurons in the same part of the brain (Shown in the 2nd image), so the argument that lolicon hate is basically the "videogames makes you violent" is valid.
"If you are a legal adult and have a fantasy desire to see children sexually [...] then you should immediately get help from a trusted therapist. [...] you will burn for the rest of your eternal existence."
And here we see the real motivation behind the post.
It ends with a religious sermon telling people to "face Christ" and "burn in Hell".
This isn't an objective argument, it's moral panic mixed with religious condemnation.
When the argument relies on "you will burn in hell", we've left the realm of logic and entered preaching.
The entire post can be summarized as:
"I find this disgusting, therefore it must be pedophilia and evil."Without a real victim, "it looks like a child" is not enough to call it child abuse. Fiction without harm is still fiction.
2nd image debunk (This time i don't need to cite since that's cleaner by points so i can put the point and the direct debunk)
1. “It’s just fiction, it doesn’t hurt anyone”
The source is a 2002 paper on "narrative persuasion". It talks about how stories can influence attitudes in general. It does not study lolicon, drawn pornography, or prove that fictional anime causes real child abuse.
They are making a huge leap from "fiction can influence" to "lolicon causes real harm" without evidence. Japan, the biggest consumer of this type of fiction, has some of the lowest child sexual abuse rates in the developed world. The source doesn't support their strong claim.
2. “No real minors are involved, so it’s victimless”
This UNICEF page is about protecting children from real grooming, real CSAM, and online predators. It does not mention drawn fiction, lolicon, or anime at all.
Using a source about real child exploitation to attack pure fiction is misleading. If there is no real minor involved and no identifiable real child, there is no direct victim. "Indirect harms" is speculation, not evidence.
3. “People can separate fiction from reality”
The source is a real meta-analysis about how stories can transport and influence people. However, it does not prove that people cannot separate sexual fiction from reality, nor that it leads to real abuse.
This same type of argument has been used for decades against violent video games, heavy metal, and horror movies and it has consistently failed to predict real-world crime rates.
4. “It’s better people vent in fiction than in real life”
This paper discusses people with pedophilic attractions and fantasy material. It does not conclude that fictional lolicon increases real offenses. In fact, some research in this area suggests fantasy can serve as a coping mechanism for non-offending individuals.
Claiming "no reliable evidence" while ignoring data from Japan (high lolicon consumption + low child sex crime rates) is selective.
5. “If you ban this, censorship follows (slippery slope)”
The source is about detecting real sexually exploited children online. It has nothing to do with banning drawn fiction between fictional characters. They are using a source about real CSAM to justify banning pure fiction. That's a bait-and-switch.
6. “It’s like violent media or horror”
The APA source itself says the link between violent video games and real violence is small and inconsistent. Using it to say "sexual fiction is different and worse" is special pleading. They accept weak effects for violence but claim strong effects for sexual fiction without comparable evidence.
7. “The majority of those anti ship predators are against dark fiction”
The source is a real paper, but it discusses clinical pedophilia and online communities. It does not study lolicon, proshipping, or dark fiction in anime/manga.
They are using a clinical study about real pedophiles to dismiss the argument "many people who oppose dark fiction are also against real abuse". It's a weak deflection. The fact that some people consume dark fiction without harming anyone is still valid, regardless of what a small clinical population does.
8. “You are supportive of [insert political/social ideology or movement], you can’t be talking.”
The source is just a general list of logical fallacies (ad hominem / guilt by association).
If they want to attack the argument and not the person, they should stop labeling everyone who disagrees with them as "pedophiles" or "supporters of bad ideologies".
9. “Nice try, but [insert media piece] was created by a proshipper.”
This is actually one of the better points in the post using "the creator is a proshipper" is often a weak deflection.
However, the reverse is also true: calling something "problematic" just because it was made by someone they dislike is equally fallacious. The quality and ethics of the work should be judged by its content, not solely by who made it.
10. “It’s a coping mechanism”
This is circular reasoning. They start by assuming that lolicon "normalizes boundary violations", then use that assumption to claim it's not healthy coping.
The source paper discusses fantasy in people with pedophilic attractions, but does not prove that fictional lolicon increases real-world harm. Many non-offending people use fantasy as a safe outlet precisely because it stays in fiction.
11. “Why it can be harmful” + “Healthy Alternatives”
This section is heavy on speculation and light on evidence:
"Reinforcement of fantasies" — unproven for pure fictional drawings.
"Creates communities that normalize unhealthy ideas" — Japan has had large lolicon communities for decades and still maintains very low rates of child sexual abuse.
"Exposure to minors" — Most lolicon content is consumed in adult spaces. Claiming it harms real children is fear-mongering without data.
Maybe this is a wall of text you don't want to read and say after this tweet "im not reading allat" or something else, but if you have read all of this, congratulations, you can read, you don't have a tiktok brain
somebuddy@SSyenmm62693
@Sirikamiloli @loliconshatter1 @mikemike1436534 ofc the quran didn’t say her actual age also you’re a lolicoon so you’re not any better
English
lichimaniac 리트윗함
