Case (
case) wrote in
fandomsecrets2009-12-16 09:21 am
(no subject)
Because I'm getting tons of PMs and stuff about this: stuff featuring actual porn of lolicon/shota/whatever will be linked, or was supposed to be just linked, just like every other secret featuring explicit porn. But sometimes I make mistakes and a secret gets by that should have been just linked. If a secret is posted that should be linked or warned for, notify me in the name the fandom thread and I'll fix it as soon as I can.
Unfortunately, secrets about lolicon/shota will not be banned because some people think it's wrong or gross or whatever. Some people think fic about rape or gore is wrong or gross or whatever. Some people think slash is wrong or gross or whatever. I'm sure everyone agrees that actual child porn is a bad thing. Lolicon/shota is not actual child porn.
Once again, I'm sorry for letting #127 get past my radar yesterday, and will try not to let it happen again.
Unfortunately, secrets about lolicon/shota will not be banned because some people think it's wrong or gross or whatever. Some people think fic about rape or gore is wrong or gross or whatever. Some people think slash is wrong or gross or whatever. I'm sure everyone agrees that actual child porn is a bad thing. Lolicon/shota is not actual child porn.
Once again, I'm sorry for letting #127 get past my radar yesterday, and will try not to let it happen again.

no subject
Thanks for all the hard work :)
no subject
There was really no need for all the "Letters to the Editor".
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 03:08 pm (UTC)(link)Someone needed to point it out. Other people needed to support it. No idea about the PMing business, but hey.
no subject
no subject
Yeahh ok. You might not have been offended since, yeah, it's just a drawing it's not real, but it upset me and I don't think it's funny. That stuff can be triggering for some people with bad experiences, too. I didn't get mad at technophile cos I figured it was a mistake and it's no big deal that it slipped, but I didn't want to see it. :\
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 03:51 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Edit liek whoa!
P.S. I've been reading your other comments and I must say that you are a very reasonable and awesome-sounding person. Rock on. :)
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:33 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:36 pm (UTC)(link)Come on, throw in the 'if men can get married to men, why not to animals as well?' one too for a complete bingo card.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:39 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:45 pm (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 16:54 (UTC) - Expandwarning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
Re: warning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
Re: warning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
Re: warning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 17:44 (UTC) - ExpandRe: warning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
Re: warning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 18:24 (UTC) - ExpandRe: warning - mention of common triggers, may be triggery
(no subject)
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 17:13 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:43 pm (UTC)(link)(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 16:46 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 16:50 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 16:55 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 17:00 (UTC) - Expandno subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:42 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
And if it's a religious thing? Then is seeing people lying/being atheist also offensive?
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 05:10 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
If they ARE triggered by kissing, they probably have enough problems walking down the street seeing couples, so I don't exactly know how to protect them from that.
(no subject)
(Anonymous) - 2009-12-16 17:25 (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(Anonymous) 2009-12-16 04:41 pm (UTC)(link)