A proud, independent and vibrant splinter of the Kiwifarms community. All races, ethnicities, religions, gay/straight, CIS/trans, neurodiversity affirmative.

You don't need an inviation to join. You only need to have fun. If you can rock with us: You are one of us.

Please note: Positions or opinions on this forum expressed belong solely to the individual and don't necessarily reflect official stances by Onionfarms.

Find member

Joshua Moon the owner of Kiwifarms
Us vs them is not defined by them, it's defined by us.
To a degree. But it's also defined by "them."
Do you think White supremacists derive their identity from nigger existing?
Yes. I do. 😆 A white nationalist or white supremacist would not have a reason to exist if it wasn't for other races existing that he doesn't like or want to live around. It's almost entirely defined by "them." You don't know entirely who you are until you encounter the other and realize how different you are to the outsider. For instance, people in Europe don't recognize "white" as an ethnic group bc they take it for granted they are are all white people like a fish in a container of water only knows water. I'm not talking about last couple decades with them importing Turks and Africans and Syrian and so on. Euros split based on nationality and religion and have big wars in the past, based on differences in religion and territory. Germans vs English vs French, etc. 30 Years War. WW1 and 2, to name a couple. And before these countries were nations they were tribes wandering around but always aware of the other tribes and differences between each other. And go back further, they were hominins wandering around and interbreeding and warring with each other. Homo sapiens vs Neanderthals vs Denisovans, etc. So one's identity is always connected to an outside external group.

Or think of this. When those European settler stocks came to America, the different nationalities mixed (French, German, English, Irish, etc.). As their original nation's ancestry became less relevant, they became white people or Americans. And they only started recognizing themselves as White in stark contrast to the African black slaves they brought over as well. And in contrast to the Indians. Us vs them.
Well. If that's the case who was the girl he brought on his podcast? What was going on with the watermelon incident where null told drip to stop freaking out over them? What about the fact that drip won't always be offended if you disagree with her but null seems to put you on a "shitlist" immediately? I've been banned multiple times and most of the time it's because I've offended null, not lidl drip, infact lidl drip herself seems to have taken more of a backfoot realizing that freaking out isn't making her look good. I feel like things would look way different if drip and null were two different people.
The girl mocking Metokur was probably an AI voice or Josh himself with a voice changer, or some hoe he hired to do it for him. There is no evidence it was Lidl Drip.
>watermelon incident
I don't know but sometimes I imagine Josh being like a Norman Bates character from Psycho where he's roleplaying multiple people and laughing to himself at the reaction to his performance on the sock account.
>I've been banned multiple times and most of the time it's because I've offended null, not lidl drip,
Well they are going to have some different triggers if they are different characters. Other people have gotten indirectly banned by Lidl Drip reporting them. I mean, Josh isn't gonna outright give Lidl Drip global mod powers or it might be too obvious it's just himself.
>I feel like things would look way different if drip and null were two different people.
It is an interesting mystery nonetheless. If they are 2 different people, are they mirroring each other intentionally? Is is subconscious? Is Josh larping as a male feminist that hates men, thinking women like Drip want this behavior? Drip just happens to hold the same exact views and hates the same people Moon does. She hates Styx. She hates Metokur. She hates trannies. She hates anime. She hates lolicons. She hates Vtubers. She hates weebs. She also goes hard in the paint for Moon. She basically defends him no matter what, which is weird. Is it a parasocial thing where this female is super-bonded to Moon by watching his podcast and reading his posts all day? If they are 2 different people, they have to be romantically-involved. I'm not sure they've ever even disagreed on an issue. I do remember at one point, Moon said a specific female user threatened to break ties with the site when Moon opened a board trying to pander to Vtubers. He never said it was Lidl Drip though so it wasn't conclusive.
 
Lolicon is for pedophiles and I am required by the rules to state that Touhou is loli. By legal definition lolicon makes you a pedophile, the feds say it not me.

View attachment 95002
I've seen you post this all over this site in several threads so I figure I'll critique it, since I'm not allowed to read one page without seeing it every day. Despite my attempts to ignore it and be nice and not cause slapfights. Ok, let's do it then. Your highlighted obscenity federal law basically says it's illegal to give obscene material to minors. Just like it's illegal to sext minors or have sex with minors. And yet, all of the above happens over discord or chat rooms all over the internet world. Just like there are millions of kids in discord channels right now looking at porn or being sent porn that someone sent them in their discord group. Just like it's illegal to pirate music, movies, video games, software, or paid streaming content. It doesn't change the fact that is still happens every day and millions of people are watching live sports events on streameast and downloading mp3's and full movies. If you are doing any of the above and the government wants to go after you, they will prosecute you and make an example out of you. That is not to excuse any of the above but there is a difference between having a law on the books and one that is actively enforced. So the obscenity laws could possibly be applied to loli but the burden of proof is usually going to be too high to actually do anything to someone with loli, unless it's motivated and they want to go after someone.

Now, let's get back to this law. The whole thing is based on the concept of "obscenity" which is poorly-defined. What does this mean? Who knows? One of the worst argued and lamest explanations of obscenity in US law was from the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who famously said, "I know it when I see it," regarding obscenity. He made this statement in his opinion in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, which dealt with the definition of obscenity. While he couldn't provide a precise definition, he believed he could recognize it when he encountered it. This basically means, "I have no definition and can't explain obscenity." Or "something that would make Justice Stewart feel icky." Or even "something that would arouse Justice Stewart." The problem here is that obscenity is subjective. What you find offensive and gross is another man's fetish. For example, the entire porn industry could be considered obscene. It's real people being filmed having sex on camera. And yet, they are allowed to operate out in the open with porn studios and it's all over the internet with almost 0 regulation. Only recently have some US states put in laws that require age verification to visit a site like Pornhub and that is easily bypassed by any kid that knows how to use a VPN. And yet most normie kids are tech-savvy, grew up with phones and tablets in their hands, and can fire up a VPN. Hell, all the Youtubers that kids watch shill these VPN's nowadays, so everyone knows what they are and there are free VPN's readily available.

What if aliens came to Earth and they don't have any sexual attraction to any creature on planet Earth including the humans? What is "obscene" to the aliens? Would they recognize this as a valid concept or even be able to relate or understand it? Would they care if Justice Stewart got hard by some porn he watched and then called it "obscene?" What if Justice Stewart saw 2 gay men kissing and said it was gross and obscene? Would they recognize his feeling of disgust and feeling icky as obscene? Would they care if Stewart said it was obscene? Obscenity is not only poorly-defined but subjective and shifting according to culture or time. For instance, a woman dressed like a skank walking around Europe or even in bikini on the beach is accepted or tolerated by western cultural standards. But in the Middle East, a woman puts on her burqa and dressing like a slut might even get her killed by stoning. It's obscene to them but not to us. Is it obscene to walk around showing off your body with revealing clothing? Kind of? It sort of depends on if you find the person attractive. You might like it or you might find it repulsive if the woman is fat and ugly. Is it obscene to wear a bikini at the beach? Kind of. Or it's kind of culturally-appropriate to wear a bikini at the ocean or to get in the water. So is it obscene or not obscene to wear a bikini at the beach? It's subjective.

Another example of obscenity. 50 years ago, almost everyone considered inter-racial relationships and inter-racial marriage to be obscene. Now it is celebrated by leftist progressives and even centrist people as wholesome and based. What was obscene 50 years ago is now normalized and commonplace. The law said you can't do that and now the law says you can, in fact, have sexual intercourse with someone of another race or get married to them. So what is it about the idea of obscenity that changed over time? Having a relationship with a person or another race 50 years is the same thing as doing it now. What about tv shows and movies? Do you know how much garbage is on tv? All horrors movies could be considered obscene. Reality tv shows. South Park. Family Guy. I think it's obscene to me when I go to the store and see fat people walking around and jiggling and riding mobility scooters 'cause they're so fat. It's gross and disgusting but no one is going to write me a federal law saying it's illegal to be fat or to be ugly. It's obscene when ugly fat white women are walking around Walmart with black dudes and in a relationship. But these 2 people are adults consenting to this and want this and there is no law stopping them. Or I find it obscene for people to be walking around in pajamas in the store like they just rolled out of bed in their sleepwear and are forcing me to look a them in pj's, especially men. Or people walking around in revealing clothing when they're fat and ugly. I find it obscene when people are riding around playing loud, vulgar rap music and forcing me to listen to that garbage with gross sexualized lyrics and cursing every breath and the loud pounding bass. I am also offended when people drive down my road in trucks and motorcycles, trying to break the sound barrier by being as loud as humanly possible and it hurts my ears. But no one is writing me a law saying it's illegal to modify your car to be even louder or to fly down the road at max speed. Or to ban motorcycles bc some hick narcissist wants to interrupt everyone on the street and force you to look at him making so much noise riding down the road.

So basically what I'm saying is I don't think that snippet of law means what you THINK it means. Don't distribute porn to minors. Yes. We know. The concept of obscenity is not a valid legal concept. The term is too nebulous and the burden of proof would be too high to meet in most cases thanks to the 1st amendment. If you're gonna invoke legal law to back up your arguments, you might wanna pick something on more stable ground that isn't subjective. I hope you enjoyed my arguments on obscenity. I rest my case. 😋

>Touhou=loli=pedophile.
Have you ever played a Touhou game? I would recommend you download one for free from Moriya Shrine. They have all of the games translated and playable for free. It's clear you are fairly ignorant on the subject so maybe broaden your horizons, step out of your comfort zone, and try understand another's perspective. They are bullet-hell shooter games that feature girl characters. They are actually not sexualized at all. And the games have nice music and cool gameplay. Now, where this becomes a problem is people turning everything into rule34. People are going to make porn of anything. Hell, there are people that make porn of Homer Simpson or Family Guy even though these are not even sexualized. Some people are going to jerk it to Homer but that does make Homer pornographic or even inherently-sexualized. There are people that like feet but that doesn't make feet inherently-sexualized. Should we ban feet pics cause some people are jerking it to feet? I would hope not.
 
You really telling me Toji or Welperhelper or Catchtherainbow have jobs that mean they have to log off and touch grass at any point?

its pretty fucking obvious that not only is the userbase small, the few remaining are of lower quality than they were a few years back. Null banning anyone doing deep dives on counts like @All becomes gunt doesn't help matters. Most of the users seem to be going after each other vs talking about lolcows.

literally the most active parts of the site thanks to the BP takeover are those grooming parts, where the pro-epstein Welperhelper99 and other pro-epstein users try and go after anyone that null labels a lolicon enthusiast
That reminds me, Catchtherainbow is so dedicated to his Jew larp that he does not post on the hours of the Sabbath in Israel (he must not live inside an eruv). He may be receiving money from the Israeli government for hasbara purposes.
 
I've seen you post this all over this site in several threads so I figure I'll critique it, since I'm not allowed to read one page without seeing it every day. Despite my attempts to ignore it and be nice and not cause slapfights. Ok, let's do it then. Your highlighted obscenity federal law basically says it's illegal to give obscene material to minors. Just like it's illegal to sext minors or have sex with minors. And yet, all of the above happens over discord or chat rooms all over the internet world. Just like there are millions of kids in discord channels right now looking at porn or being sent porn that someone sent them in their discord group. Just like it's illegal to pirate music, movies, video games, software, or paid streaming content. It doesn't change the fact that is still happens every day and millions of people are watching live sports events on streameast and downloading mp3's and full movies. If you are doing any of the above and the government wants to go after you, they will prosecute you and make an example out of you. That is not to excuse any of the above but there is a difference between having a law on the books and one that is actively enforced. So the obscenity laws could possibly be applied to loli but the burden of proof is usually going to be too high to actually do anything to someone with loli, unless it's motivated and they want to go after someone.

Now, let's get back to this law. The whole thing is based on the concept of "obscenity" which is poorly-defined. What does this mean? Who knows? One of the worst argued and lamest explanations of obscenity in US law was from the Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who famously said, "I know it when I see it," regarding obscenity. He made this statement in his opinion in the 1964 case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, which dealt with the definition of obscenity. While he couldn't provide a precise definition, he believed he could recognize it when he encountered it. This basically means, "I have no definition and can't explain obscenity." Or "something that would make Justice Stewart feel icky." Or even "something that would arouse Justice Stewart." The problem here is that obscenity is subjective. What you find offensive and gross is another man's fetish. For example, the entire porn industry could be considered obscene. It's real people being filmed having sex on camera. And yet, they are allowed to operate out in the open with porn studios and it's all over the internet with almost 0 regulation. Only recently have some US states put in laws that require age verification to visit a site like Pornhub and that is easily bypassed by any kid that knows how to use a VPN. And yet most normie kids are tech-savvy, grew up with phones and tablets in their hands, and can fire up a VPN. Hell, all the Youtubers that kids watch shill these VPN's nowadays, so everyone knows what they are and there are free VPN's readily available.

What if aliens came to Earth and they don't have any sexual attraction to any creature on planet Earth including the humans? What is "obscene" to the aliens? Would they recognize this as a valid concept or even be able to relate or understand it? Would they care if Justice Stewart got hard by some porn he watched and then called it "obscene?" What if Justice Stewart saw 2 gay men kissing and said it was gross and obscene? Would they recognize his feeling of disgust and feeling icky as obscene? Would they care if Stewart said it was obscene? Obscenity is not only poorly-defined but subjective and shifting according to culture or time. For instance, a woman dressed like a skank walking around Europe or even in bikini on the beach is accepted or tolerated by western cultural standards. But in the Middle East, a woman puts on her burqa and dressing like a slut might even get her killed by stoning. It's obscene to them but not to us. Is it obscene to walk around showing off your body with revealing clothing? Kind of? It sort of depends on if you find the person attractive. You might like it or you might find it repulsive if the woman is fat and ugly. Is it obscene to wear a bikini at the beach? Kind of. Or it's kind of culturally-appropriate to wear a bikini at the ocean or to get in the water. So is it obscene or not obscene to wear a bikini at the beach? It's subjective.

Another example of obscenity. 50 years ago, almost everyone considered inter-racial relationships and inter-racial marriage to be obscene. Now it is celebrated by leftist progressives and even centrist people as wholesome and based. What was obscene 50 years ago is now normalized and commonplace. The law said you can't do that and now the law says you can, in fact, have sexual intercourse with someone of another race or get married to them. So what is it about the idea of obscenity that changed over time? Having a relationship with a person or another race 50 years is the same thing as doing it now. What about tv shows and movies? Do you know how much garbage is on tv? All horrors movies could be considered obscene. Reality tv shows. South Park. Family Guy. I think it's obscene to me when I go to the store and see fat people walking around and jiggling and riding mobility scooters 'cause they're so fat. It's gross and disgusting but no one is going to write me a federal law saying it's illegal to be fat or to be ugly. It's obscene when ugly fat white women are walking around Walmart with black dudes and in a relationship. But these 2 people are adults consenting to this and want this and there is no law stopping them. Or I find it obscene for people to be walking around in pajamas in the store like they just rolled out of bed in their sleepwear and are forcing me to look a them in pj's, especially men. Or people walking around in revealing clothing when they're fat and ugly. I find it obscene when people are riding around playing loud, vulgar rap music and forcing me to listen to that garbage with gross sexualized lyrics and cursing every breath and the loud pounding bass. I am also offended when people drive down my road in trucks and motorcycles, trying to break the sound barrier by being as loud as humanly possible and it hurts my ears. But no one is writing me a law saying it's illegal to modify your car to be even louder or to fly down the road at max speed. Or to ban motorcycles bc some hick narcissist wants to interrupt everyone on the street and force you to look at him making so much noise riding down the road.

So basically what I'm saying is I don't think that snippet of law means what you THINK it means. Don't distribute porn to minors. Yes. We know. The concept of obscenity is not a valid legal concept. The term is too nebulous and the burden of proof would be too high to meet in most cases thanks to the 1st amendment. If you're gonna invoke legal law to back up your arguments, you might wanna pick something on more stable ground that isn't subjective. I hope you enjoyed my arguments on obscenity. I rest my case. 😋

>Touhou=loli=pedophile.
Have you ever played a Touhou game? I would recommend you download one for free from Moriya Shrine. They have all of the games translated and playable for free. It's clear you are fairly ignorant on the subject so maybe broaden your horizons, step out of your comfort zone, and try understand another's perspective. They are bullet-hell shooter games that feature girl characters. They are actually not sexualized at all. And the games have nice music and cool gameplay. Now, where this becomes a problem is people turning everything into rule34. People are going to make porn of anything. Hell, there are people that make porn of Homer Simpson or Family Guy even though these are not even sexualized. Some people are going to jerk it to Homer but that does make Homer pornographic or even inherently-sexualized. There are people that like feet but that doesn't make feet inherently-sexualized. Should we ban feet pics cause some people are jerking it to feet? I would hope not.
Ahem.
Actual loli porn is something that would definitely be something total degenerates would dap to, whether or not they’re actually attracted towards children.

And to tie it back to the thread topic, Josh definitely has a history of being such, by virtue of that weird shota shit.
 
>Lolicon
>Please become Orthodox
It's always these fucking people every time. God damn it, this is why I don't give a shit about religions. I know not every religious person is like this but the fact it happens so often isn't a good look. I can't make this not what it is. Another orthopedo
I wonder why le heckin' based and redpilled internet Christians are always guaranteed to be lolicons
 
She basically defends him no matter what, which is weird. Is it a parasocial thing where this female is super-bonded to Moon by watching his podcast and reading his posts all day?
You've answered your own riddle.
I do remember at one point, Moon said a specific female user threatened to break ties with the site when Moon opened a board trying to pander to Vtubers.
1:27:15
He never said it was Lidl Drip though so it wasn't conclusive.
Listen well, it is evident it is not.
 
Jersh arguing over religion because he wants a cult of personality around him. He pretends to be this major tech geek when he and his entire site haven't even heard of Telecomix and deny it's existence. Hell, I bet they don't even know about Lulzsec despite that even crossing over briefly to Chris Chan lore with the Sony hack but you know, they are retarded. Jersh talking about religion is the same as him talking about tech, he knows absolutely nothing and probably gets it all from Europa Universalis 4.
The man lived in Serbia for years and knows literally nothing about the Orthodox Church. That should be all you need to know about Josh’s depth of knowledge on Christianity.
 
News that Joshie is about to appear at Andy Warsky's "Kino Casino" And talk about someGator Gamer whom you might remember as one of Ethan Ralph bud-buds (so was Null but both cases of friendship were a lifetime ago) https://kiwifarms.net/threads/kino-casino.110845/post-21992300

Humble reminder that there's a certain belief that Warski, being not the smartest man in the bloke, have been streaming child porn at least once. Null's clitty is bleeding and all swollen from amounts of sweep sweeps he have to apply every day because of casinobros and their effeminate affection toward Warski' CP whoopsie-doo.
 
Humble reminder that there's a certain belief that Warski, being not the smartest man in the bloke, have been streaming child porn at least once. Null's clitty is bleeding and all swollen from amounts of sweep sweeps he have to apply every day because of casinobros and their effeminate affection toward Warski' CP whoopsie-doo.
He never streamed CP. He showed some Instagram page with underage models, which is far from fitting the definition of CP.
 
Reason: Hating Loli is normal and so is pointing out how certain types of people are always into it.
As Trump continues embarrassing himself with the Epstein coverup, I've noticed multiple users who haven't posted in years post anti-Trump statements. Combined with the femcels running the forum, Null might finally be getting the forum he's always wanted.
I was always against politicians in general regardless of what side they and their supporters are on.
 
He never streamed CP. He showed some Instagram page with underage models, which is far from fitting the definition of CP.
That's stop really fucking weird and a huge red flag.
 
Feminist Josh™ seems to have little sympathy for Lauren Southern who "allowed herself" to be raped by "black muslim" Andrew Tate, who Josh seethes about constantly.
Screenshot_20250715_235522_Brave.jpgScreenshot_20250715_235541_Brave.jpg
 
That's stop really fucking weird and a huge red flag.
I have only seeing the censored video on YouTube after that one fag spammed the big red text on KF, but it looked to me as if Andy Warski was trying to "expose" the page in some kind of attempt at investigative work. In any case, as creepy as it might have been, it was an Instagram page about models and nothing illegal.
 
Feminist Josh™ seems to have little sympathy for Lauren Southern who "allowed herself" to be raped by "black muslim" Andrew Tate, who Josh seethes about constantly.
View attachment 95122View attachment 95123

Remember this is a woman who dated Destiny, and if she was interested in throwing someone under the bus for money or notoriety, Tiny has way more fame, relevancy and money than Tate. Whatever you would imagine Lauren might get out of accusing Andrew Tate of wrong-doing, she would get more of out of accusing Destiny.

And also I think we can all agree Destiny is a pervert who does not conduct himself right.
So imagine what it takes to make a woman who thought DESTINY was her soulmate, to think you're too sexually aggressive?
I am not big on just believing accusers for no reason but I cannot think of a good reason for Lauren to fabricate this.

I think a famous reporter woman should be able to go interview Tate without rape being on the table. He should have some empathy.
I seriously doubt she's someone who couldn't handle herself in 99% percent of situations and women shouldn't have to look over their shoulder suspecting rape when they go to interview a famous person.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top