Could you elaborate on what “respectability politics” is? I’ve never heard that before.
Point is. Making a movement and using the removal of games that fetishize incest as the drop that made the cup overflow. Is simply not going to go the way you think it is. Unless you think it’s going to crash and burn. Then it’ll go exactly how you think it’ll go.
You can make at least 101 far better arguments against Visa and MasterCard using their monopolized position to morally dictate what people can and can not buy, than having to involve incest porn. Or porn at all for that matter.
Porn is art, there’s no compromising on that without throwing someone under the bus. Respectability politics == throwing people under the bus for not being “respectable” enough. It’s been a huge issue in LGBTQ advocacy for a really long time.
You’re obviously just trying to twist my words. Porn has to be consensual, otherwise it’s just abuse material. Hence the term CSAM being advocated rather than CP these days.
Why would you be advocating for a different term other than CP? It doesn’t matter how you depict it. Consensual or not. Abuse or not. CP is CP, and that is bad enough. Anyway. That’s not the topic. I was just floored by that statement.
Point is. It seems like you DO compromise. Everyone does. Somewhere you’ve drawn a line. This is acceptable. This is not acceptable. And regardless of what you think of incest. I’m sure you can agree, that the vast majority of people would frown upon it. And if you say “Visa and MasterCard are bad because they stopped authorizing payments to incest games”. Well… You’re just not going to get a lot of people to sign up. They’re gonna say. “Good.”
So, trying to build momentum in a movement, and then using or citing incest porn games on steam as the catalyst, is just not a particularly good strategy in my opinion.
You generalised to all porn games. Now you’re moving the goalposts again. This move by Visa/Mastercard has been affecting all NSFW games. Just like I don’t think it’s objectionable to have sex depicted in a movie, I don’t think it’s objectionable to have sex in a game. Adults can choose what content they consume. Payment processors should be forced to be common carriers.
I’m not moving anything. We have the same basic opinion. “Visa and MasterCard should not be allowed to leverage their monopolized position into a morality police of what we are allowed to buy or not”
I’m not here to debate you on what is you think is objectionable or not. I simply stated that I wish for people to not make this about porn. Because I don’t think that’s going to be helpful. You’re just giving ammunition for the opposition to use against you. It will take them 5 seconds to use it against you and reach an audience of 100 million. You will have to spend 50 minutes trying to counter, and it will only reach the 10 million that actually bothered to look into it.
How many times do we have to go down this road before anyone learn from it?
So what is the solution? Don’t give them that ammunition to begin with. Use other arguments. Arguments that can not be turned against you.
You don’t have to agree with that advice. That’s fine.
I dunno, I personally think respectability politics is garbage but ya know, To Each Their Own.
Could you elaborate on what “respectability politics” is? I’ve never heard that before.
Point is. Making a movement and using the removal of games that fetishize incest as the drop that made the cup overflow. Is simply not going to go the way you think it is. Unless you think it’s going to crash and burn. Then it’ll go exactly how you think it’ll go.
You can make at least 101 far better arguments against Visa and MasterCard using their monopolized position to morally dictate what people can and can not buy, than having to involve incest porn. Or porn at all for that matter.
Porn is art, there’s no compromising on that without throwing someone under the bus. Respectability politics == throwing people under the bus for not being “respectable” enough. It’s been a huge issue in LGBTQ advocacy for a really long time.
Would you consider child pornography art as well? You don’t compromise, that’s what you said no?
You’re obviously just trying to twist my words. Porn has to be consensual, otherwise it’s just abuse material. Hence the term CSAM being advocated rather than CP these days.
Why would you be advocating for a different term other than CP? It doesn’t matter how you depict it. Consensual or not. Abuse or not. CP is CP, and that is bad enough. Anyway. That’s not the topic. I was just floored by that statement.
Point is. It seems like you DO compromise. Everyone does. Somewhere you’ve drawn a line. This is acceptable. This is not acceptable. And regardless of what you think of incest. I’m sure you can agree, that the vast majority of people would frown upon it. And if you say “Visa and MasterCard are bad because they stopped authorizing payments to incest games”. Well… You’re just not going to get a lot of people to sign up. They’re gonna say. “Good.”
So, trying to build momentum in a movement, and then using or citing incest porn games on steam as the catalyst, is just not a particularly good strategy in my opinion.
You generalised to all porn games. Now you’re moving the goalposts again. This move by Visa/Mastercard has been affecting all NSFW games. Just like I don’t think it’s objectionable to have sex depicted in a movie, I don’t think it’s objectionable to have sex in a game. Adults can choose what content they consume. Payment processors should be forced to be common carriers.
I’m not moving anything. We have the same basic opinion. “Visa and MasterCard should not be allowed to leverage their monopolized position into a morality police of what we are allowed to buy or not”
I’m not here to debate you on what is you think is objectionable or not. I simply stated that I wish for people to not make this about porn. Because I don’t think that’s going to be helpful. You’re just giving ammunition for the opposition to use against you. It will take them 5 seconds to use it against you and reach an audience of 100 million. You will have to spend 50 minutes trying to counter, and it will only reach the 10 million that actually bothered to look into it.
How many times do we have to go down this road before anyone learn from it?
So what is the solution? Don’t give them that ammunition to begin with. Use other arguments. Arguments that can not be turned against you.
You don’t have to agree with that advice. That’s fine.