More empathy for lolis in anime

TripleSRank said:

That's a change within the same language. It was slang that overtook the original usage. This is a borrowed word from another language being used improperly- and, might I add, the word is still used in its original sense in Japan. If the Japanese start using "loli" to simply mean "little girls" (similar to how the word "ecchi" changed there thanks to Western usage), only then does it become proper to use it that way.

Paul said:


They don't look like they're 10, they are 10.

Immahnoob said:
The Digital White Knights are here.

D4rkseid said:
Hide yo kids, hide yo waifu, and hide yo husbando too cuz they gonna defend 'em all.

Immahnoob said:
The Digital White Knights are here.

DrGeroCreation said:
Okay noted. Knowing that though makes it sad to see them sexualized.

DrGeroCreation said:
@Hoppy She's 10 years old.

Hoppy said:


I assume you haven't watched or read anything from CLAMP or better yet watched Ro-Kyu-Bu.

Hoppy said:


I assume you haven't watched or read anything from CLAMP or better yet watched Ro-Kyu-Bu.

Hoppy said:


I assume you haven't watched or read anything from CLAMP or better yet watched Ro-Kyu-Bu.

Immahnoob said:

There was never an "improper" or "proper" when talking about language changes, TripleSRank, there is no language that has never borrowed from another or language that has borrowed from another and changed the meaning.

By your logic, those that came first are in the right... Well wrong, the Japanese took from the west, so if we want, Lolicon is now Dinosaurs, again, by your logic.

Ratohnhaketon said:
It seems enlightenment is still needed in this thread. If your heart does not melt and you do not see the light, I hate to break it to you but your soul is gone (probably soul trapped by a cunning dunmer, it happens).



Lolis are beings that transcend any logical understanding. They are the pinnacle of happiness, love, and everything right with this world.

TripleSRank said:

According to whom? There's no official authority that determines the "rules" when it comes to languages, which is why this argument can't be properly "proved" either way. Still, I will follow along our line of reasoning a bit longer.

To say there is no improper when it comes to "changes" is lazy, for one, and it leads to the deterioration of languages for another. Words are worthless if they have no inherent meaning, or if that meaning can change on a whim. If there was no such thing as "correct", the English language (for example) would be little more than the cesspool that is text messaging shorthand.

To illustrate this, tell me, how much meaning can you get out of "lol" or "wtf"? Sure, there's a general idea of humor or disbelief behind each of them respectively, but the severity, the tone, the connotations- they're all lost. Do you say "lol" only when you laugh? Do you only say it when you smile? Is it only proper if a witty remark has been made, regardless of how humorous it may be? You could claim any of these stances, but there is no "correct" definition. It is a s**** of a word, devoid of any actual meaning. It's garbage that adds no inherent value to speech.

I can use "principal" to mean "principle" all day long, my friends and neighbors can, and people on the internet can, but it won't change the fact that an incorrect word is being used. In a similar sense, I could use "frivolous" to mean "absurd", but that won't change that there's a difference in meaning, though there may be similar ideas behind said words. Taking it even further (using another language), I could say exempli gratia (e.g.) to mean id est (i.e.), but that doesn't make the phrases equivalent.

Lolicon is a portmaneau the Japanese came up with. We didn't create it. Sure, part of the portmaneau came from a Westerner's book title, but that doesn't make "lolicon" any more "Western" of a word. Did the author and general populace of some Western country start using "lolicon" before Japan? If they did, I'm unaware of it. Had we been the ones to start using it first, that would be a different story, but we didn't, so it's not our word. If Japan abandons the word entirely, that changes things. Unless that happens, though, the word means what it means. Only Japan can change that.

(I feel like we're only marginally on-topic. At your discretion, we could take this to our profiles.)

pauperunit said:
I want to see them suffer just like in black bullet

fst said:
Have you punted a loli across the room today?

Korrvo said:
So lolis are the anime version of gnomes now?

Red_Keys said:
No, the general public is more empathetic toward children and females.

Immahnoob said:

From the standpoint of utility, a language that changes by the needs of the majority that uses it is a lot more beneficial than a language that only benefits those that use it for a more artistic approach, if you get my drift. There might be no rule, but using certain contexts can overall give us an idea of what is more "beneficial".

The problem with your argument on "deterioration" and what is the "correct" use of the language is that the "deterioration" is continuous, and what is "correct" changes by that "deterioration", "to deteriorate" has a meaning of becoming "progressively worse", but in our case it can easily be said that the "deterioration" is simply a "deterioration" of the current system, which is not inherently "bad". A language is meant for communication, that is it's definition, the "complexity" part of the definition though, is hard to prove, rather, I always found languages to have more of a fetish for quantity rather than quality. Anyway, the idea is that as long as the language fulfills its job, the "deterioration" is either a "transformation", simply a change that doesn't have to be "worse" or "better" (or "evolution"; although, in the context of "utility", it would be better if it is easier to pick up and use) or is not actually happening.

The thing is, what you are talking about right now are acronyms, that's a completely different story, and with that I have to go on a tangent. It's quite simple really, because of the nature of the Internet and how it started (mostly text), these acronyms were made for faster use in showing emotions while not stopping the flow of a conversation, for example, writing "laughing out loud" looks more like a shabby narrative rather than what you would exclaim in a real life conversation, because it's the description of an action. Nowadays, "lol" has also changed in meaning, it still remains "laughing out loud", but because of how "laughing" in real life can have more meanings, it can be used in more contexts (we have other acronyms for that, but people tend to forget about them for obvious reasons). "wtf" still remains "wtf" and it has never changed from "What the ****", the emotions it can display are limited. So yeah, "lol" is surely not something that can add value to speech, simply because it's more of a narrative than something you can add in a conversation (too bad you didn't watch To Aru Majutsu no Index/Railgun, you would have had a good example of what I mean. "Good job desu, says Misaka offering her admiration", there are certain characters that talk that way). Also, how do you define "value" anyway?

Well, I guess it's hard to find examples similar to "loli", anyway, the "preservation" of how the language currently is does not necessarily disprove that the "deterioration" is not inherently "bad", simply because a language that changes too fast (I'll speak always from the "utility" standpoint, if I might add another argument that means I just had an idea or something) would be hard to keep up with and yes, it would be a total mess, but those are extremes for you, you should never speak in dichotomies, do notice though, how a word can simply have more meanings rather than change its meaning, hint: it also has to do with how we incorporate words from another language, and the change does not happen because a handful use the word "wrong", it happens when a majority does that, and "excessively", which warrants the change, the people actually make the language, it was always like this, but with the Internet it's even more so.

Lolita is a Spanish term though, and again, I think I've said it before, it's not necessary that the first one has the monopoly of a word or a language. Or monopoly of anything in general. The meaning can be changed, and it's not necessary that our "lolicon" is the same word as their "lolicon", it's also not necessary that we us the same "lolicon" in this conversation. Anyway, "loli" in itself is not a term that was or is used by the Japanese (might be used right now by certain people there, but before that, it was simply slang (still is)).

Sapewloth said:
Fuck 'em.

PencilSharpener said:

Incompatible dimensions and such.

Shirogane_ said:
No, a prime example of why not to empathize with lolis HERE
That is all

Sapewloth said:
Just realized this could, like, totally be interpreted the wrong way.

Shiat!

Hoppy said:


That's more like a prime example of why you should empathize with them, you'll feel sorry for them and maybe rage a lot when watching.

Immahnoob said:
In no way did I say that a language must change to be efficient, I simply said that the language will change by itself, mostly with no warning, as I said before, the change is continuous, it never stops. Simply because we two here communicate here is another step to another language change, albeit extremely small. And here you are, forcing people to waste time by stopping the flow. By the way, efficiency is a synonym of utility, they might not mean exactly the same thing but I believe I conveyed the idea.

Immahnoob said:
That's the thing, simplification does not limit speech, it makes it faster, as I've pointed out before, there's no need for a meaning to be lost from a word, it can also add a meaning to its definitions. Also, why can't someone with knowledge and education pick the easy and efficient way? Why are you taking them part? At the contrary, because of knowledge (especially knowledge) we tend to make our lives easier and more efficient, and the same goes for the language. Eloquence is fine and dandy, but it's not a need to be able to express yourself properly. And wrong, by the way, there are words that changed meaning in English yet they took them from other countries, like "abandon" (which is from French), which meant "to subdue" in the past (in french it still means that), "accent" in latin actually meant "to sing", etc etc.

Immahnoob said:
The problem with that example too is that people do know what you mean by context... Also, "awesome" did not change, I don't know what you mean here.

Immahnoob said:
Actually, if you want to be specific, lolis are "young girls in Anime" (which again, can be argued that they're not even young, girls or human, considering they're not real). And here you are again, claiming stuff like "proper usage", when there is no such thing, also claiming (more like insinuating) that originality is inherently good, I think you forgot that copying was actually legit until the whole "originality" crap was adopted by literature, "lolicon" will soon change meaning again, as "lolicon material" was regarded as "pedophile material", which is not actually true...

Immahnoob said:
I can also argue that saying that lolis are only the sexualized "little girls" is counterproductive. Do I always have to say, "young girl" whenever I mention a "young girl" that is not sexualized in Anime? Rori/Loli is not a degeneration of Lolicon though, here you are contradicting yourself in the same post, because Japanese do not use the word "loli" for the meaning of "sexualized little girl", they use it as a shortening of "lolicon", a shortening, like an acronym, it's slang either way.

Immahnoob said:
Well, you're not able to prove your standpoint either, this is a subjective matter, if you don't like how the language "degenerates", then use terms however you please, but don't tell people how to use them, it's fine to be entitled to an opinion but forcing it on other people is not, unless you have facts supporting your opinion (thus, making it an argument).

You weren't "clearing something up", just like you, we are able to use whatever definitions we please, and the OP was talking with the western slang.