Jeanne also makes an error here about why things might happen. It is a *political* issue. It is not a *scientific* issue. Going back a decade, there is more than enough grounds to show that it does not drive crime. This is a *political argument*. While more science might be helpful, it doesn't necessarily change the politics.
I suppose it is time for someone to bust out the Anki and those other tools to learn an extra language or two to take advantage of the new functionality.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382465676_Reported_Consequences_of_the_Ban_on_Sex_Dolls_With_a_Childlike_Appearance_-_A_Content_Analysis_of_Affected_Persons'_Reports
Unsurprisingly, if a party with a name like the Party of Jesus Christ gets elected (what happened to keeping religion out of politics?), you might get morality based policies which are not based in science and violate human rights (although, "won't anyone please think of the children?"* would not be new rhetoric from politicians). Curiously, this country happens to have a branch of the notorious white savior fundamentalist group, IJM, and they come up more often than you'd think.
I haven't looked into this particular law though, so I don't know how it works in practice. I'm going by what Jeanne is saying here. Jeanne makes it sound disturbingly broad.
I haven't looked deeply into this but this feels like a likely forensic adjacent group (especially with the emphasis on whether it increases or decreases crime, and the author being a student in a forensic field), rather than a more representative sample which better represents the general population. Also, I don't think a representative sample (though that is one example she picked out) would use that identity. It concludes that the dolls reduce crime though.
https://qoto.org/@olives/113204617130506428 For my science based piece on such things (among other things like porn), there is this post.
@freemo https://git.qoto.org/explore There appear to be spammers on your Gitlab.
@freemo https://github.com/statping/statping Since the server seems to have eaten this post, I don't know if it reached you. Have you considered using some sort of status page (on a separate sub-domain?)? Here's an example of one.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/what-are-human-rights
"Human rights are rights we have simply because we exist as human beings - they are not granted by any state. These universal rights are inherent to us all, regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, language, or any other status. They range from the most fundamental - the right to life - to those that make life worth living, such as the rights to food, education, work, health, and liberty."
#HumanRights
"What do you think of so-called anime localizers?"
Well, remember that the area has had it's fair share of bad localizers. For instance, 4kids didn't really respect it as a cultural export, but as something they could change in whatever way they wanted to create their own highly opinionated products. So, they might take a more romantic story and awkwardly turn it into an "edgy" one (i.e. Cardcaptor Sakura, they also hated the idea of a girl being in love with a girl in it).
They also hated the idea that someone might eat any food that isn't stereotypically American. In one title, they decided to add in the American national anthem, and not only was it racist and imperialistic to do that, it was also cringeworthy. They were so bad that they were practically a meme, I think they went bankrupt in the end.
Also, many of these titles are not really "for kids", but 4kids would insist on adapting it anyway in that way. And honestly, even kids should be able to deal with the concept of there being more than one country out there in the world. It's also ironic that guns were censored in America of all places in one.
At some point, it was assumed that bad localizers would go away, because it is clear that no one likes what they do, but it seems there were a few cringe localizers who brag about inserting things like crude slang on social media.
Another flaw was having a hard to reach moderated community and an unmoderated one which seemed to have quite a few trolls (and morons who reckoned it should be a "free speech zone").
The "free speech" might be to call for criminals to be violently killed. It's purely disruptive and has *nothing to do* with the org's apparent aims. For the most part, it seemed unused and forgotten, but conspiracists took note.
That happened under a previous executive director.
https://nichegamer.com/triangle-strategy-coming-to-vr-platforms/ On the subject of VR, here's a game which is explicitly targeting that, among other things.
"What do you think of Prostasia?"
Historically, there were issues with transparency. Without understanding how it operated, the roles of staff other than officers, the mental health group, or getting a summary of how those are going, conspiracies (and angst) spread, particularly with the personal dispute between the previous executive director and Ayden, him giving attention to an unethical Swedish physician (who is accused of mistreating criminals) and used something like Kickstarter, and so on.
You could argue there were other flaws but that was the main one.
Also, quite a few of these are actually just far right extremist or "think of the children" groups up to censorial nonsense, if you dig a bit.
It appears to be run by a few social workers. Presumably, they hired a generic web designer to build the site (or used a pre-made design), but a generic site design isn't one that is appropriate for dealing in sensitive matters (frankly, we should all question whether we want Facebook trackers on our sites).
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.