User talk:UmJammer Lammy

Revision of My Edit

We'll talk more on some other congruent subjects, but for now, this is solely about my edit, and the need to do it right. On November 18 2021, you undid an edit I made about Chris's attraction to cartoon characters. Your reasoning was "Removing this both for being poorly-written and because Chris isn't exceptional in this regard." So, I went back and made an in depth edit with links to other pages on the site which serve as proof, and overhauled my prose to fit what I felt was the Cwcki's neutral wiki standard POV. I removed *Channer terms like "rule 34" and explanations thereof, believing that such things were what you and 4CentUser considered as "poorly written". So, no condemnations, not even a hint of condemnation. No opinions. No silly willy channer talk. Just notations of instances of Chris expressing sexual arousal to cartoons and anime, and it was perfectly in line with the other sub headers. It went down like this: 1. Homosexuality 2. Pedophilia 3.Bestiality and than 4. Schediaphilia. And yes, I research too, the scientific term for this kind of sexual attraction, according to Urban Dictionary is "Schediaphilia" from the Greek word for "Love of Drawings". So here, I felt that my edit meets the standards. But no, because then on November 25 2021, I see my edit removed again, with your reasoning being: "Chris isn't exceptional in this regard, it just reads like you have a personal agenda against things you don't like just because Howard Stern said so." So now, I really trying hard here, to meet the standards of this CWCki. What am I doing wrong? And if Chris being attracted to cartoons is not notable, then would that mean the "Is Chris a furry?" segment is not notable or "exceptional" either? TippyToesTommyTalarico (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Exceptionalism

On another note, just so that we're on the same level of understanding, what do you mean by "exceptional"? I browse Kiwi Farms a lot sometimes, and there, "exceptional" is the word filter word for "retarded". So when you say "Chris is not exceptional in that regard", do you mean he is not notable enough in that aspect? Or do you mean that this aspect does not make him stupid? TippyToesTommyTalarico (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply; Cartoon and Anime Porn 1, Relevancy to Chris

Chris finding cartoons to be arousing is actually quite relevant. He got "married" to his own creation Magi-chan and willingly believed the many obvious falsehoods of the Idea Guys; the central core of which being that a "sexy" cute anime girl named Hyper Dimensional Neptunia was going to enter his dimension, wave a magic wand and make all his problems disappear. My thesis here is that Chris Chan created a disconnect with real life in favor of a fantasy, and just like many of his weird behaviors can be contributed to his autism mixed with his upbringing, so too, can his disconnected grasp of reality be attributed to his being sexually aroused by cartoon women. True, Chris is indeed, far from the only person who masturbated to cartoons, and he is also far from the only person who threw tantrums on the internet, and he is also far from the only person to make a recolor of Sonic The Hedgehog and think Sega would scout him, and he is far from the only person to draw himself as a furry anime hero, and he is also far from the only person to not shower and not get a job and still wonder why girls don't like him. The thing is, is like those latter things, masturbating to cartoons is an embarrassing thing and the hallmark of a loser. A lolcow. And maybe it should be that way, because otherwise, we might be normalizing a bad thing and bringing all society down with that. Or, maybe not. Maybe I'm wrong about that and hentai has its place in the world like a lot of other things like I used to think when I was back in late high school/college. But still, I'd argue that attraction to cartoons should a noted, maybe just a few sentences next time if there's a next time. TippyToesTommyTalarico (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)