This was just something that came to mind when I was reading over those posts (which I do plan on making something else later, as some other things came to mind that I wanna address later), but to keep to the title of the post, I do honestly feel like we're just throwing the word loli at anyone under the age of 18 in an anime when that has never been the case.
Kanna Kamui, from Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, is a loli.
Anya Forger, from SPY X FAMILY, is a loli.
Eri, from My Hero Academia, is a loli.
Genshin Impact specifically has a 'short female' model, which nine playable characters have, and eight of them would be lolis, using the actual definition pre-'New Right' era (Diona, Kachina, Klee, Nahida, Qiqi, Sayu, Sigewinne and Yaoyao).
Why am I going through these examples? Mostly because I want to show people what characters fit under the classical definition used before the past few years of the anti-anime movement trying to use 'language creep' to muddle the definition.
I don't care which side of the argument you're on, I just wish that people would at the very least use the actual definitions of words because saying that Satsuki Kiryuin, Ryuko Matoi, Marin Kitagawa, among many other 'under 18 but visibly not like the kids I mentioned above' characters are lolis is rather bullshit and only serves to work against the right.
Just my two cents on the topic, but overall, whether or not things become legal or illegal, I am hoping that people are at least able to actually work with the true definitions of words rather than abusing language to get whatever they want. Attempts to ban Eastern media isn't going to make people suddenly love current Western media, it's going to make people further check out of society.
MADD was yet another crusade of urban liberal women against rural working class men. Because those "backwards rednecks" were the ones most likely to be in a position to drive home from the bar after working a hard shift.
The "drunk driving" statistics were entirely cooked. The key words are "alcohol related". If a drunk pedestrian jumps in front of a sober driver that is counted. If a passenger has alcohol but not the driver that is counted. If the person with alcohol in his system isn't at fault that is still counted. Solo crashes are counted even though a high percentage of the fatal ones are actually suicides. If a driver has alcohol but is under the legal limit, even significantly, that is counted. And here is the best one, if the driver wasn't tested that is usually counted because it is presumed that it is "alcohol related".
The auto makers supported it to virtue signal and to justify passing regulations of high-profit "safety" features like airbags and crumple zones that make it much more likely to total cars even in low speed collisions. Law enforcement was all over it because it gives them almost unlimited power over anyone who drives, including blatantly unconstitutional stuff like "sobriety" roadblocks. Government loves it because it is a non-tax revenue stream from unsympathetic targets (working class men) and a way to extract kickbacks from "traffic schools" and "interlock devices".