5 ms·

More caving to the ultra-religious pearl grippers who just have nothing better to do than tell others how to live. All the hate speech trash and troll talk on

More caving to the ultra-religious pearl grippers who just have nothing better to do than tell others how to live. All the hate speech trash and troll talk on the Steam forums is fine though. All the war games are fine though. Make sure people can validate genocide and what not but not see titties.

cosmic_cheese 1y ago
No problems with violent imagery in TV and cinema either. In fact some of the most popular shows and movies are full of it. Not that I agree with censoring that (I don’t), but the double standard is puzzling.
- mango7283 1y ago
  You answered your own question - if you go after shows with the popularity of game of thrones or games with the popularity of grand theft auto you will fail. They have picked their battle.
gotoeleven 1y ago
[flagged]
some_random 1y ago
This is being pushed by an Australian Feminist organization, not the American Religious Right.
- righthand 1y ago
  You may want to take a look at how feminist that organization actually is.
  - 8f2ab37a-ed6c 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - some_random 1y ago
    There is a huge sex-negative feminist school of thought, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
    - righthand 1y ago
      I never declared it doesn’t exist? Let me respond with your attacking-style: Just because you like it doesn’t mean it’s representative of feminism at large. It doesn’t mean it’s not a conservative think tank hiding behind a veil of feminism.
    - bluescrn 1y ago
      These days there seems to be a fair bit of sex-inconsistent feminism. With something like OnlyFans, where there's money to be made, the 'sex work is real work!' slogan comes out. And there's a reluctance to criticise big porn sites even after claims of links to sex trafficking etc. But at the same time, scantily-clad videogame characters designed to appeal to the male gaze are deemed unacceptable/objectifying/regressive. And 'sex robots' are seen as a horrifying prospect.
      - some_random 1y ago
        There's a range of views from a range of people, that's no surprise. That said, the common perception of men who pay for sex work (especially OF) is extremely negative, they are marks who deserve it. Meanwhile there is no such perception of men who pay for traditional media.
    - the_af 1y ago
      > There is a huge sex-negative feminist school of thought, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The specific organization we're discussing is not feminist. It's religious conservative, using some of the trappings of feminism.
      - some_random 1y ago
        Is it? The religious conservative organizations I've seen are also wringing their hands over other media as well such as smut or that shitty netflix show, while this one appears to be ambivalent to supportive.
- cosmic_cheese 1y ago
  The group bills themselves as feminist, but aligns with the religious right in most of their policies. They’re directly at odds with many things feminists have fought for.
  - some_random 1y ago
    I agree completely that they align with the religious right in this aspect, but you can't pretend that sex-negativity isn't a huge school of thought in feminism. Vague calls to "stop the sexualization of women in media (aimed at hetrosexual men)" have been a huge part of the casual feminist suite of views for at least a decade.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      It's interesting that you equate opposition to sexualization of women in media with sex negativity. One does not necessarily imply the other. You can be sex positive and believe that media sexualizes women to a problematic degree.
      - some_random 1y ago
        There's a reason I wrote "casual feminist suite of views" because while they two are very closely linked they are indeed separate.
      - Dweller1622 1y ago
        Can you give me an example of this? As far as I understand it sex positivity doesn't seem to be concerned with "media sexualizing women" in and of itself. Consequently I'm not sure what "media [that] sexualizes women to a problematic degree" is or would even look like.
        nosignono 1y ago
        It has to do with agency, primarily. Is the character in the media given the agency and depth necessary to support their sexual appetites? Or are they treated like an object by the camera, a 2 dimensional cutout whose purpose is only to be an object. Compare, for example, Sex and the City, where 4 women were regularly engaged in a variety of sexual encounters and say, background dancers in a music video or advert that exist to appeal as objects to a male audience.
- numpad0 1y ago
  I see Mormon(LDS) churches occasionally mentioned on these topics. The Australian cult angle had only surfaced during the last week or so.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  I believe they get funding from evangelical orgs though and you have to assume MasterCard is willing and cooperating here to some extent
- the_af 1y ago
  > This is being pushed by an Australian Feminist organization, not the American Religious Right. The founder is Christian and writes and speaks in Christian venues and publications. She's not a "feminist" by any reasonable and modern definition of the word.
  - BJones12 1y ago
    Being Christian does not mean one is not feminist. This person seems to advocate for a multitude of things including ones that are historically feminist (of at least one commonly accepted variety of feminism). Those advocations make it reasonable to call her a feminist.
    - the_af 1y ago
      I didn't mean that one cannot be a Christian and a feminist. I meant that this person chooses Christian venues to voice her opinions, and shares with them non-feminist values such as being "pro life", etc. Hers is not a feminist organization, and Collective Shout is perceived by some as a right-wing group seeking to also ban LGTB+ depictions in videogames (which is not standard feminist agenda). Like another commenter mentioned, Collective Shout receives funding from evangelical organizations. And really, you have to ask yourself: since when exactly payment processors paid any attention to what genuine feminist organizations had to say about anything? At some point you cannot ignore the evidence anymore. At best you can point the non-empty intersection of conservative Christian groups and some sex-negative feminists who both seek to ban pornography, but this doesn't make them the same thing. TL;DR this is a variation of "will somebody think of the children!?" pearl-clutching, and everyone should know by now it doesn't lead to anything good.
- baobabKoodaa 1y ago
  It's unfathomable that an Australian Feminist organization wields this much power in the U.S. and globally. It seems more likely that this is a front.
  - tumsfestival 1y ago
    You're not wrong. I read a couple days ago that this group receives funding from evangelical organizations to do stunts like this. I don't know if the intention is to false flag feminists as responsible, but it sure seems like it.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    The processors had this bias for decades. Some calls that already conform to what they want to do needs less nudging than proper consumer rights.
tracker1 1y ago
It's not just mature content... there have been efforts to reduce the ability to legally purchase firearms as well as suppression of prominent social media figures. Not just the CC companies, but even the larger payment processors like Stripe/Paypal etc. are all doing it for different categories. There is a reason you have to pay cash at dispensaries, etc.
- alexjplant 1y ago
  > There is a reason you have to pay cash at dispensaries, etc. I used to work for a fintech. As new employee I had coffee with a colleague who explained KYC, AML, and other compliance topics to me. They mentioned that marijuana businesses can't bank their money due to these considerations as it would make banks knowing accomplices to the federal crime of trafficking a controlled substance. This threat is material because cannabis, unlike adult content, is actually illegal, so I don't think it's a substantially similar example to what's mentioned in this thread.
  - tracker1 1y ago
    I understand that cannabis is slightly different, but my other examples aren't.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
parchin 1y ago
[flagged]

cosmic_cheese 1y ago

No problems with violent imagery in TV and cinema either. In fact some of the most popular shows and movies are full of it. Not that I agree with censoring that (I don’t), but the double standard is puzzling.

mango7283 1y ago
You answered your own question - if you go after shows with the popularity of game of thrones or games with the popularity of grand theft auto you will fail. They have picked their battle.

gotoeleven 1y ago

[flagged]

some_random 1y ago

This is being pushed by an Australian Feminist organization, not the American Religious Right.

righthand 1y ago
You may want to take a look at how feminist that organization actually is.
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 1y ago
  [flagged]
- some_random 1y ago
  There is a huge sex-negative feminist school of thought, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
  - righthand 1y ago
    I never declared it doesn’t exist? Let me respond with your attacking-style: Just because you like it doesn’t mean it’s representative of feminism at large. It doesn’t mean it’s not a conservative think tank hiding behind a veil of feminism.
  - bluescrn 1y ago
    These days there seems to be a fair bit of sex-inconsistent feminism. With something like OnlyFans, where there's money to be made, the 'sex work is real work!' slogan comes out. And there's a reluctance to criticise big porn sites even after claims of links to sex trafficking etc. But at the same time, scantily-clad videogame characters designed to appeal to the male gaze are deemed unacceptable/objectifying/regressive. And 'sex robots' are seen as a horrifying prospect.
    - some_random 1y ago
      There's a range of views from a range of people, that's no surprise. That said, the common perception of men who pay for sex work (especially OF) is extremely negative, they are marks who deserve it. Meanwhile there is no such perception of men who pay for traditional media.
  - the_af 1y ago
    > There is a huge sex-negative feminist school of thought, just because you don't like it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The specific organization we're discussing is not feminist. It's religious conservative, using some of the trappings of feminism.
    - some_random 1y ago
      Is it? The religious conservative organizations I've seen are also wringing their hands over other media as well such as smut or that shitty netflix show, while this one appears to be ambivalent to supportive.
cosmic_cheese 1y ago
The group bills themselves as feminist, but aligns with the religious right in most of their policies. They’re directly at odds with many things feminists have fought for.
- some_random 1y ago
  I agree completely that they align with the religious right in this aspect, but you can't pretend that sex-negativity isn't a huge school of thought in feminism. Vague calls to "stop the sexualization of women in media (aimed at hetrosexual men)" have been a huge part of the casual feminist suite of views for at least a decade.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    It's interesting that you equate opposition to sexualization of women in media with sex negativity. One does not necessarily imply the other. You can be sex positive and believe that media sexualizes women to a problematic degree.
    - some_random 1y ago
      There's a reason I wrote "casual feminist suite of views" because while they two are very closely linked they are indeed separate.
    - Dweller1622 1y ago
      Can you give me an example of this? As far as I understand it sex positivity doesn't seem to be concerned with "media sexualizing women" in and of itself. Consequently I'm not sure what "media [that] sexualizes women to a problematic degree" is or would even look like.
      - nosignono 1y ago
        It has to do with agency, primarily. Is the character in the media given the agency and depth necessary to support their sexual appetites? Or are they treated like an object by the camera, a 2 dimensional cutout whose purpose is only to be an object. Compare, for example, Sex and the City, where 4 women were regularly engaged in a variety of sexual encounters and say, background dancers in a music video or advert that exist to appeal as objects to a male audience.
numpad0 1y ago
I see Mormon(LDS) churches occasionally mentioned on these topics. The Australian cult angle had only surfaced during the last week or so.
nemomarx 1y ago
I believe they get funding from evangelical orgs though and you have to assume MasterCard is willing and cooperating here to some extent
the_af 1y ago
> This is being pushed by an Australian Feminist organization, not the American Religious Right. The founder is Christian and writes and speaks in Christian venues and publications. She's not a "feminist" by any reasonable and modern definition of the word.
- BJones12 1y ago
  Being Christian does not mean one is not feminist. This person seems to advocate for a multitude of things including ones that are historically feminist (of at least one commonly accepted variety of feminism). Those advocations make it reasonable to call her a feminist.
  - the_af 1y ago
    I didn't mean that one cannot be a Christian and a feminist. I meant that this person chooses Christian venues to voice her opinions, and shares with them non-feminist values such as being "pro life", etc. Hers is not a feminist organization, and Collective Shout is perceived by some as a right-wing group seeking to also ban LGTB+ depictions in videogames (which is not standard feminist agenda). Like another commenter mentioned, Collective Shout receives funding from evangelical organizations. And really, you have to ask yourself: since when exactly payment processors paid any attention to what genuine feminist organizations had to say about anything? At some point you cannot ignore the evidence anymore. At best you can point the non-empty intersection of conservative Christian groups and some sex-negative feminists who both seek to ban pornography, but this doesn't make them the same thing. TL;DR this is a variation of "will somebody think of the children!?" pearl-clutching, and everyone should know by now it doesn't lead to anything good.
baobabKoodaa 1y ago
It's unfathomable that an Australian Feminist organization wields this much power in the U.S. and globally. It seems more likely that this is a front.
- tumsfestival 1y ago
  You're not wrong. I read a couple days ago that this group receives funding from evangelical organizations to do stunts like this. I don't know if the intention is to false flag feminists as responsible, but it sure seems like it.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  The processors had this bias for decades. Some calls that already conform to what they want to do needs less nudging than proper consumer rights.

tracker1 1y ago

It's not just mature content... there have been efforts to reduce the ability to legally purchase firearms as well as suppression of prominent social media figures. Not just the CC companies, but even the larger payment processors like Stripe/Paypal etc. are all doing it for different categories. There is a reason you have to pay cash at dispensaries, etc.

alexjplant 1y ago
> There is a reason you have to pay cash at dispensaries, etc. I used to work for a fintech. As new employee I had coffee with a colleague who explained KYC, AML, and other compliance topics to me. They mentioned that marijuana businesses can't bank their money due to these considerations as it would make banks knowing accomplices to the federal crime of trafficking a controlled substance. This threat is material because cannabis, unlike adult content, is actually illegal, so I don't think it's a substantially similar example to what's mentioned in this thread.
- tracker1 1y ago
  I understand that cannabis is slightly different, but my other examples aren't.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

parchin 1y ago

[flagged]