"gamer fury" over not being able to buy porno video games with their credit cards is not exact something that is going to garner the Dems any new support or votes.
If, instead, you frame it as "Duopoly of payment processors are deciding which legal content you are allowed to purchase.", surprise, you'll get more support.
From whom?
There are better free-speech hills to die on. Unless gamers start organising themselves civically, this issue has too many weaknesses to base on.
There's comments here talking about other industries and goods that have been affected by similar decisions as well.
I'm also sure that people can rally around more than one free speech issue at a time.
It's not. But framing matters. Gamers are a terrible political beachhead for anything.
Needs to be specific. Visa and Mastercard, to their credit, are picking their battles carefully.
However, someone smarter than me will have to come up with what that looks like. I don't have the perfect framing to present to you, or I would be heading up the political movement myself.
>There are better free-speech hills to die on.
And that attitude is why the Left has gotten so weak. The Right died on the hill of some emails and a laptop. Maybe we should start with some smaller battles first.
Conspiracy and cover-up by the leader of the opposition is a great hill to die on. It comes with a built-in constituency who will actually show up.
The problem the American left has had is it keeps picking niche issues that appeal to folks who only show up in deep-blue cities.
Until you become the leaders covering it up, I suppose. It's a great thing Trump doesn't think that far in advance. A proper personality conman would be truly terrifying.
Maybe it's a good hill to climb. A stupid one to die on if you don't deliver. Conspiracy theorists only have allegiance to justifying themselves, not a personality.
>appeal to folks who only show up in deep-blue cities.
So, half the population? Seems like a large base to appeal to. Oh well, nothing a little gerrymandering won't fix.
Sure, covering up your own messes is survival. That said, it’s not like Trump being a rapist and liking them young was concealed from the electorate ex ante…
> Maybe it's a good hill to climb. A stupid one to die on if you don't deliver
It’s a lucrative hill to climb. I wouldn’t say it’s a good one.
The funny thing about Trump is he’s been done in, in part, by his authoritarianism. He can’t credibly claim an external force is holding him back (as he did with his tax returns) because he’s eviscerated all such forces.
> half the population?
Oh man no, maybe 5% of the population in Manhattan shows up. So maybe half of that. (Which is a lot of people. But not a lot of districts.)
Censorship has lots of popular support most places. The reason it's less successful in the US isn't because people in the US are broadly opposed to it; it's because the courts have traditionally upheld strong rights to freedom of expression under the 1st Amendment.
They don't allow their cards to be accepted by pornography sites.
You can do everything with a debit card, it probably already happened that Visa was used to facilitate buying a weapon for a school shooting: Were they annoyed?
You can buy a dildo with a Mastercard on Amazon: Are they annoyed?
But games? Why?
Loud, wealthy people with extremist beliefs are behind most of the actions that restrict our ability to exercise our rights.
This one in particular is an attack on art. It’s not just games, but traditional types of art as well that are currently affected by this issue. There is a certain ideology that views non-mainstream art - particularly art that tells a story about uncomfortable subjects - as something “degenerate” to be eradicated.
> as in corrupt > having or showing lowered moral character or standards > a movie about a gang of degenerate drug dealers
> as in pervert > a person who has sunk below the normal moral standard > a degenerate who is uninterested in anything but his own gratification
Seems to fit perfectly to describe a video game that is pro sexual assault and rape.
You are using that term when talking about an issue that disproportionately targets marginalized groups and victims of traumatic assault.
There is one very specific, well known group in history who would take your side on this issue and use the same terminology. You know who they are.
A video game whose purpose is to take enjoyment (and let's be hoenst, sexual gratification) from rape and sexual assault media is morally reprehensible.
> You are using that term when talking about an issue that disproportionately targets marginalized groups and victims of traumatic assault.
No, I am talking about people who enjoy rape media.
If you are saying this is in effect targeting marginalized groups then you are saying these groups enjoy rape media at a higher rate to the wider public. I am sure that's not what you're trying to say, but that's how the argument is sounding from reasonable people who think games that promote rape should be banned.
Stop hiding disgusting behaviour behind "marginalized groups". It won't do anything good for them.
You know what the word degenerate means, who uses it and why.