I’d have reported about this sooner if I could have found a link to something other than a pessimistic post on X/Twitter.
I hope a rational voice can be heard over the pessimistic screaming.
Another issue is that the first story explains about dolls being provided rather than just not being proscribed. The story reports inaccurately.
My beef is that punishment cannot be justified.
It’s nonsense to insist something has to be a solution to a problem to not be proscribed. Playing pool isn’t a solution to anything. Punishment cannot be justified. It’s never evil for anyone to think that what happens to a doll doesn’t matter. There’s no evil to punish for.
To the extent that it would be found strange for one to feel more protective of a doll than of a broom, a failure to feel protective of a doll cannot coherently be construed as a failure to feel protective of what matters.
She voted for the law.
Currently, Google shows numerous articles on this topic.
What a shame… She knows better than to support this bill, but is succumbing to her emotions and social pressures. As a mother and physician, her commitment should be to the sciences and harm reduction. Banning things that cause no harm will not make her children, or anybody’s children, less safe.
This law is extremely unconstitutional, and my heart reems with worry and concern for the privacy and civil liberties of those unlucky enough to reside in Kentucky.
This sort of bill sets a very dangerous precedent. It is important to look past whether a mannequin is disturbing or not. If the State can intrude upon someone’s private life over a disturbing mannequin (a few even disturb me), they can intrude on anyone’s private life. QAnon garbage doesn’t justify it.
It looks like she is on the judiciary committee. Politics usually has more behind the scenes than you can see. If everyone agrees to do it, and she doesn’t, it might still pass the committee. The abomination that is KOSA also passed out of committee.
The language could have been better. She should have avoided saying things like “I did a Google Search” or “MAP”. She should have stressed the constitutional and practical issues with it, and that there are other ways to pursue crimes which are perfectly constitutional.
all too common. if only we had politicians who actually committed themselves to being reasonable, and rallying behind their contemporaries and trusting their judgement, rarther than succombing to the mob.
“The bill also criminalizes the use of artificial intelligence to create depictions, whether through computer-generated images or using a real image as the base, of child pornography.”
The “…using a real image as the base…” part I agree with. Again these types of ambiguous laws that go after victimless crimes are what people should find appalling! Laws against people doing private things that harm no one and are of no concern to society, much less anyone’s business. People are voyeuristic, nosey, and LOVE to gossip, speaking badly about others, putting others down, and labelling them in a negative light. As if somehow that makes them “better”?
Church Lady doesn’t approve of someone smoking weed. “That’s “doing drugs” in the eyes of the Lord. And drinking alcohol is a sin!” Yet, those are perfectly legal, and highly profitable and heavily taxed for free money for the goobermint! Yet they create victims of stupidity and death daily! It’s paper houses they build to fill the NGO, highly profitable, prisons. I wish we could weed out stupidity and misguided people mired in false beliefs out of our leadership.
The idea of punishing someone for something they do in private, that harms no one and creates no victims, should be frightening to everyone. The “thought police” are coming for you!
She voted for the bill and claimed that it was ‘conclusive’. She surrendered herself to the very mob that will ream her.
She should have stuck to her initial position and actually tried to educate these ravenous jackals on the science surrounding these dolls and their harmless nature.
I wouldn’t mind if someone from the Foundation reached out to her office or person and tried to reason with her, but politics has become more ‘business’ than anything else.
I don’t get how people can be pro-choice and argue against the blind and ignorant moralism championed by conservatives/right-wingers and support a woman’s right to her body at the expense of the deified potentiality for it, yet when it comes to these types of matters, they cloister themselves in and surrender themselves to that same variety of emotional ignorance.
Nobody in their right mind, with the desire of being taken seriously or being heard, would dare support an adult’s so-called ‘right’ to sexualize or engage in such acts with actual children, but to gloss over the obvious and apparent nuance of sex dolls, outlets, and prevention and how they all intermingle is downright ignorant. She’s knowingly complicit in the disenfranchisement of private citizens who dare choose to reconcile their desires with the reality that they must not/cannot be acted on with an actual child. This is a civil liberties violation no different than the kind she claims to abhor - the kind that involves the imposition of uninformed, irrational views or opinions against another person’s right to free expression and privacy, two things that, the more we research and understand, and disentangle minor-attraction/pedophilia from acts of adult-child sexual contact, are absolutely integral in keeping children safe from sexual exploitation and abuse.
I have noticed for years that these types of posts get many views but relatively few likes and have wondered whether that reflects a general lack of interest among most viewers.
1 like for every 365 views looks weak.
Even with 399 reposts and 124 quotes, it still garnered only about 1 like for every 365 views.
On X/Twitter, high level accounts continue to condemn the senator. A few suggest protesting at her doorstep. This is nuts.
My take from this is that many want to convey the message that anyone who opposes the doll law will be shunned.
There’s a good chance that the vast majority of those on the ground do not care about what dolls someone has or about how someone handles a doll. If that’s the case, and it becomes obvious, this campaign will fizzle out. There has to be folks pouring money into this.
Also, I think the argument that sex dolls are therapeutic is inherently arguing from the wrong angle. Instead, the only thing that should be said is that any sex toy and fiction should be legal. By being too specific in the argument, she left herself open. Really, all that needs to be done is to make a list of porn actresses who had body types that can pass for a “child”, such as Lil Candy and Lupe Fuentes (remember that court case). Fuck, certain non-porn ones, such as Aoi Yuki, count, too.
Fuck, several eroge vendors that sell games with loli characters just have the “everyone is 18+ even if otherwise stated” disclaimer. This politician is really choosing the path of greatest resistance here. I guess she’s trying to appeal to pity, but that’s nearly impossible when the other side considers you “monsters”.
The sheer irrationality behind this whole thing is precisely why they are presumptively covered by privacy and free speech precedents.
I personally don’t mind arguing these things with left-leaning or liberal pundits because, once the logic of your arguments click and they see reason, they usually stop. They probably won’t publicly acknowledge that they were wrong to want to ban these things, but you’ll have made your point.
Conservatives, however, are not capable of being reasoned with. They see evil, they hear evil, and to them, the ends justify the means. It’s why they spread falsehoods about political matters, it’s why they cling to religious ideals and superstitions, and it’s why they see no issue with harming people whom, they admit, may not deserve to be harmed, because ultimately they see their ideals and intuitions as all they can trust.
If this Kentucky Democrat had not supported the bill and actually tried, then others would have looked at her as a proponent of reason, albeit silently.
It takes a lot of courage as a mother to reconcile your maternal instincts and ideals and take what is ultimately an emotional, ideological, social, and political risk by merely acknowledging the the very real implications and further risk that your bill may cause, both as a CSA-prevention medium and a further socio-political item, whose implications reach beyond the act of merely owning a child-like sex doll.
If she sees these posts, I hope she knows she made a mistake, and that her decision to ban these dolls will not make children more safe.
Well nice way to prejudge a group. How is this any different than judging people by the color of their skin, the religion they believe or their ethnicity? What happened to content of their character?
Politics IS the content of your character. There’s a damn good reason why American right-wingers are getting called names like the GQP, Republikkklans, Y’all-Qaeda, Vanilla ISIS, yeehawdists, etc. The 2010s-2020s has seen a rise in right-wing rhetoric ala the 1920s-30s. The AfD, FdI, Hindutva, Fidesz, Golden Dawn, LDP, MAGA, AKP, PPP, Brexit, etc.
