>>776
Militaristic, obsessively ideological, similar groups to the gestapo, nationalistic and prioritizing race, hatred of Jewish/western influence, led by former revolutionaries, has a supreme leader that picks everybody else in charge, has socialistic, state controlled enterpise. So yes, they are kind of similar.

>>775
edgelord

>>778
normalfag

>>779
Only normalfags call people normalfags.

>>778
Same with this.

>>780
>Only normalfags call people normalfags.
So you're a normalfag? If you weren't, maybe you'd both have more to say than buzzwords and how much you agree with each other.

>>781
>If you weren't, maybe you'd both have more to say than buzzwords

That was the implication of my post...

>>782
Make a shitpost, get a shitpost response.

Tell me how i'm an "edgelord". Explain it to me on the same board people say they want niggers and chinks to die. On the same site people constantly talk about hating people and hating going outside.

Post edited on 8th Mar 2020, 7:51pm

>>783
No, I was implying that by saying he was an 'edgelord' you were a 'normalfag' as well but I can see how it could be read the other way.

I just came across nude cartoons in a BF 109 manual and I rememberer that there are nude cartoon of girls in the Tigerfibel and Pantherfibel as well. This is from the Tigerfibel.

>>1268
Wow, how tantalizing. Nazi Germany really was a paradise of free expression. Just ignore everything to the contrary.

>>1272
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_banned_by_the_BBC

But anyway, this was more in response to something someone had said before(I don't even think it was in this thread) where somebody said lewd cartoon images would never be allowed in Nazi Germany. I kept thinking of that when I come across these and thought I should post them.

>>1274
One broadcast station isn't the same as a nation-wide ban.
>>1275
nudity =/= lewd, let alone pornography. Nudity being conflated with sexual content is a puritan thing.

>>1276
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_rejected_by_the_BBFC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscene_Publications_Acts

I can't even find the post I was thinking off...

Maybe this one.


>>752
'another commonality between these ideologies is a strong preference for "realism". Communist realism for example. Art has no value to them unless it propagates their ideology, their perfect reality. Mao states that clearly in his little red book. He didn't believe non-political art existed.'

>>1277
The UK is also a free expression shit hole legally. What's your point? At least they're not fascistic enough to strongly enforce obscenity laws, unlike Nazi Germany, Iran and China.

Did I ever say no other place has censorship? No. Do you just revel in having a thick skull and idealizing a society which had a state-enforced ideology? Do you like larping as a Nazi? Don't infect this site with poltard bullshit.

>>1280
All you are doing is shifting hurdles. Anyway, that was not the point >>1279 was. So I won't argue on it further.

>>1281
It's called abstract reasoning. Too bad it's not something everyone can learn. Your Wikipedia articles didn't disprove anything I wrote.

>>1282
Your reasoning is certainly abstract and this does explain a lot.

>>1283
You used the word lewd without even understanding what it means. Throw in the towel and stop making yourself look even more dense. What was your goal exactly? A misfired attempt at pedantically correcting someone? Go back to looking at tanks and stop pretending you're capable of understanding people, society or culture.

>>1284
I was using lewd in the way that it most often used online(which is not the definition) but I guess that would have required abstract reasoning to understand. Too bad it's not something everybody can understand.

As for my goal, >>1275

Maybe your abstract reasoning can deduce something out of that?

>>1285
>I was using lewd in the way that it most often used online
>nudity =/= lewd, let alone pornography.
You completely ignored that. Very simplistic, cartoonish outlines of a nude women aren't lewd. Neither is the birth of Venus. Nobody would refer to it as that but you.

Aren't you an autist? Maybe asexual too? Now that would explain things.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 1:58am

>>1287
...Maybe your abstract reasoning will help you understand why exactly I would have posted >>1279 . I was not talking about Pornography at all. I was referring to this idea that all Nazi media has to be political or realistic depictions of men in factories or men fighting wars.

I think http://tohno-chan.com/ot/res/33905.html#i34105 was the post I was thinking off.

>Nazist outlook on media is similar to bible-belt conservatives. They're obsessive about the family unit, being "family friendly", protecting the precious childrens as much as possible, and reinforcing "healthy thinking". It's based on protestant "stoic" culture. Anything they deem "degenerate" gets purged. They were book burners. They only see media as tolerable fluff, ideological, or subversive. It must be "realist". 99% of otaku media would either be entirely unacceptable or need extreme changes to fit their standards. If you don't love and embrace "degeneracy", you're not an otaku.

>Mecha? Must only have burly men fighting for the good of the state. Loli??? At best chemical castration, at worst execution.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 2:02am

>>1288
>I was not talking about Pornography at all.
>somebody said lewd cartoon images would never be allowed in Nazi Germany
Huh. But did you never talk about "lewd cartoon images"?
>I was referring to this idea that all Nazi media has to be political or realistic depictions of men in factories or men fighting wars
>They only see media as tolerable fluff, ideological, or subversive
Tolerable fluff includes non-lascivious nudity in art. Maybe that even served ideological purposes in some cases.

Go back to your tanks instead of dredging up something from months ago.

>>1289
You abstract reasoning really is quite defective isn't it? But then it's not something anybody can learn.

>Tolerable fluff includes non-lascivious nudity in art.

Moving the hurdles again now?

>>Mecha? Must only have burly men fighting for the good of the state.

I would not call these the most burly of men(or realistic).

>>1290
I'm not going to have to same argument with you twice where your try pedantically picking at every word looking for a "gotcha" while outright ignoring everything you have no response to and the general message, because you're incapable of perceiving it.

>>1291
Well it's not the same argument, I already gave up on that >>758

Your abstract reasoning is failing you again I see, I am not looking for a 'gotcha' and as for outright ignoring everything you have no response to and the general message, because you're incapable of perceiving it.' Well I mean, I outright told you here >>1285 what I had meant by lewd, you then followed up with this >>1287 completely ignoring that and I responded(again) that I was not talking about pornography and you ignored it(again) with 'Huh. But did you never talk about "lewd cartoon images"?' I had told you what I meant by that already.

If somebody is incapable of perceiving things here it is you.

>>1292
>I had told you what I meant by that already.
And I told you you were wrong, because you were. You can't even pick up on that apparently
>>1291 the image here is lewd. The image here is not >>1268
Somebody who's not an asexual autist would understand that.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 10:00am

>>1294
...

>pedantically picking at every word looking for a "gotcha" while

Who is the one doing that I wonder? I already told you, multiple times what I meant by it, I told you multiple times I was not referring to the literal definition, that I was not referring to anything pornographic but to the internet usage of the word lewd(which is basically anything that is revealing in anyway even if it is not lascivious, in fact most the time somebody says lewd it is not lewd, even the image you say is lewd by the literal definition is barely lewd if at all). Even making fun of your abysmal abstract reasoning is getting tiresome now.

Post edited on 30th Apr 2021, 10:11am

>>1295
>but to the internet usage of the word lewd (which is basically anything that is revealing in anyway
Where on the internet? I don't know what you're talking about, so it can't be as wide-spread as you think it is. If you mean people who are clearly joking, why would you ever use "that definition" when even the people who use it that way aren't being serious?

>>1296
Everywhere, all the time, you just did it yourself.

>Definition of lewd

>1a : obscene, vulgar lewd remarks
>b : sexually unchaste or licentious (see licentious sense 1) lewd behavior
>2 obsolete : evil, wicked


That slime is doing no such thing. She is just sliming around being a slime, just like this image is just a girl in a bath. When people say lewd they usually just mean a naked girl or even a girl that has her underwear visible.

>>1298
>That slime is doing no such thing. She is just sliming around being a slime
This proves my earlier point about you not being able to understand what makes something actually lewd/lascivious. That can't be taught. At least you've admitted it now. Last reply.

>>1299
The definition for lewd is right above your post if you would have cared to read it.

This is all is ridiculous and 'pedantically picking at every word looking for a "gotcha"' anyway. I had told you numerous times and I am telling you again, whether the image is lewd or not by the literal definition doesn't matter as I had never meant it by that. Your abstract reasoning keeps fixating you on this pointless thing while ignoring the elephant in the room, is this because your abstract reasoning cannot even see the elephant to begin with?

You realize that dumb cartoon tank manual was never issued, right.

>>1307
Source? I am fairly sure it was and I also know they were both approved.

>>1308
>It's not a myth. As I said however, It's a waste of effort searching for when you have no ability to even address the basis of this.
You have no ability to to understand what makes something obscene/vulgar/lewd because you're autistic and probably asexual, so you think it's just about nudity. Pose, style, detail, subject-matter and context don't register in your disabled mind. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted those manual images as if they prove something. Apparently you're a blatant hypocrite too.

>>1309
I have told you so many times now, I never said it was just about nudity and in fact have said the opposite quite a few times, I even posted the definition that you constantly ignore. And AGAIN!!!!!! This is not even relevant it's arguing semantics and ignoring the actual point. I had said, right from the beginning that I was not using lewd in the literal definition yet you keep going on as if I was regardless of how many times I try to get through your thick head that I wasn't.

And again, it's just a slime sliming.

And also where is the source?

Post edited on 1st May 2021, 6:53pm

>>733
of course they can be, by handwaving and making excuses and so on. but I found I could not in good conscience reconcile the two, and consequently anime ended up saving me from both Christianity AND the Far Right.

>>1357
What hand waving and excuses would need to be made?

>>1357
Just a fair warning, don't respond to this annoying prick.
>>1378

Yes, don't reply to me, it will make his flawed proposition appear even more flawed.

On the Muslim note, both ISIS and the Taliban have expressed that anime is okay with the Taliban saying "It's just a cartoon"

>>1420
If this is your source, it's not very convincing.
https://www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1428704005895516163
Libtards are also "okay" with video games. See how that turned out.

>>1421
they're far more accepting than Conservatives, see Jack Thompson

Of course they can, I am one.