> "People are rightfully angry about the exploitation of socioeconomically-trapped laborers, but — again — abstaining from consumption is a naive gimmick when t

> "People are rightfully angry about the exploitation of socioeconomically-trapped laborers, but — again — abstaining from consumption is a naive gimmick when the relatively small volume of collective abstinence can’t make a dent in the overall picture." "Well it would've happened anyways" is an incredibly poor justification of doing anything. Removing oneself as a source of a problem, while unlikely to turn the world upside down, is anything but a naive gimmick. While I have nothing against porn, it's frustrating that the author is resorting to the same demonization of hypothetical villains that is frequently directed at porn itself. Anyone who doesn't agree fully with his stance is participating in a naive gimmick, or a Victorian-era sex-Nazi. The portrayal here of people's concerns re: porn are treated with the same oversimplifications that is frequently directed at pornography.