No matter the argument for or against allowing a game, the role of deciding this should not fall to a payment processor basically holding a game platform hostage.
I mean isn’t this the gaming concept of scrub mentality? If I believe a specific moral act outweighs a minor dishonourable act, then shouldn’t I still do that act?
Say I know someone is being beaten in a locked room. It is an important government room, and only key holders elected by the community should enter.
I think it’s justifiable to kick down the door and stop the beating, because beating people up is against my morals so much more than ensuring proper procedure.
But when if someone does that, and everyone endlessly gripes about how “passerbys should not have authority to enter the special room” instead of “well at least I’m glad someone isn’t being beaten up anymore”, then I have to wonder if most people are fine with beatings?
Terrible analogy, non-equivalent etc, but do you see what I’m saying. Because I agree with you that card companies shouldn’t set the terms of what’s acceptable - I mentioned it in my first post.
Using the card company to stop the distribution of tape material is a cheap tactic, but if preventing harm is winning, then saying it’s never justified is scrub mentality, as if beating someone by spamming hadoken doesn’t count.
Patch the game later if it’s so unfair, this is the only way to get it removed right now. The deck is stacked against activists - usually the only effective options they have are disruptive and outside the system.
I think it would be different if the provocateurs in question weren’t, like, religious zealots or whatever. I have little confidence their aim is to move the needle in a direction I’d like it to go.
I’ve argued with plenty of do-nothing dip shits about Just Stop Oil who are concerned solely with getting to work on time and, apparently, the plexiglass in front of famous paintings. But the difference is, Just Stop Oil is a cause I can get behind. I’m not worried that supporting them would also lead to mandatory chastity cages, you know?
I mean, I will admit the first steam list I saw, I thought “This seems bad. Can’t imagine missing any of these titles, though.”
[edit] I actually forgot to mention this: The “right way” to do, like, CSAM counter-terrorism on the level of whatever is happening now will virtually always incense a bunch of libertarians—it’s not really avoidable.
To be clear, I’m talking about leadership. It’d be a bit like celebrating J.K. Rowling for her advocacy against spousal abuse, meanwhile, she’s still dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into nazi anti-trans groups. More of a broken clock situation than a slippery slope.
No matter the argument for or against allowing a game, the role of deciding this should not fall to a payment processor basically holding a game platform hostage.
I mean isn’t this the gaming concept of scrub mentality? If I believe a specific moral act outweighs a minor dishonourable act, then shouldn’t I still do that act?
Say I know someone is being beaten in a locked room. It is an important government room, and only key holders elected by the community should enter.
I think it’s justifiable to kick down the door and stop the beating, because beating people up is against my morals so much more than ensuring proper procedure.
But when if someone does that, and everyone endlessly gripes about how “passerbys should not have authority to enter the special room” instead of “well at least I’m glad someone isn’t being beaten up anymore”, then I have to wonder if most people are fine with beatings?
Terrible analogy, non-equivalent etc, but do you see what I’m saying. Because I agree with you that card companies shouldn’t set the terms of what’s acceptable - I mentioned it in my first post.
Using the card company to stop the distribution of tape material is a cheap tactic, but if preventing harm is winning, then saying it’s never justified is scrub mentality, as if beating someone by spamming hadoken doesn’t count.
Patch the game later if it’s so unfair, this is the only way to get it removed right now. The deck is stacked against activists - usually the only effective options they have are disruptive and outside the system.
I think it would be different if the provocateurs in question weren’t, like, religious zealots or whatever. I have little confidence their aim is to move the needle in a direction I’d like it to go.
I’ve argued with plenty of do-nothing dip shits about Just Stop Oil who are concerned solely with getting to work on time and, apparently, the plexiglass in front of famous paintings. But the difference is, Just Stop Oil is a cause I can get behind. I’m not worried that supporting them would also lead to mandatory chastity cages, you know?
I mean, I will admit the first steam list I saw, I thought “This seems bad. Can’t imagine missing any of these titles, though.”
[edit] I actually forgot to mention this: The “right way” to do, like, CSAM counter-terrorism on the level of whatever is happening now will virtually always incense a bunch of libertarians—it’s not really avoidable.
That’s just about how I feel.
Although I do wish we could take action on obviously terrible media without fearing slippery slopes to mandatory chastity cages.
I have to assume there are many non-zealot feminists who exist and are happy to see this gone. But all I see online is grumbling- it’s disturbing
To be clear, I’m talking about leadership. It’d be a bit like celebrating J.K. Rowling for her advocacy against spousal abuse, meanwhile, she’s still dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into nazi anti-trans groups. More of a broken clock situation than a slippery slope.
Never thought I would be finding common ground on a controversial topic with a guy named petrol_sniff_king but here we are