The problem is that in the current environment all it takes is one right wing grifter to go “visa protects rapists and pedophiles and their sick twisted games/fantasies” for conservative “boycotts” and negative PR campaigns to go in to full swing. And if they survive that, there’s always a chance the current White House will catch wind and use it themselves as a cudgel.
Are these "cancel culture" takedown campaigns at all reflective of popular sentiment?
In 2018 and 2019 these campaigns and their ramifications (be they positive or negative) were consistently present in in-person conversations I was having at the time.
In 2025, these campaigns strike me as outdated and significantly less popular compared to 5-7 years ago. The people I know in real life talk about other things.
It is plainly clear to me that with a decent botnet one can easily manufacture the illusion of social outrage on Twitter/X.
With that in mind, I find it hard to believe that there is even a critical mass of people supporting this takedown campaign.
Has anyone with any sort of reputation backed this takedown campaign?
>Are these "cancel culture" takedown campaigns at all reflective of popular sentiment?
I mean look what happened to Budweiser for sponsoring one person identifying as trans and making like 2 cans for it. Doesn’t matter if it’s popular or not, if the outrage is loud enough you can dominate these businesses.
I just don't believe those boycotts have the power they think. How many people are going to give up their Visa card because some do-gooder pearl-clutching MAGAtastic group is crying about it on tik-tok and facebook
It is not specific to right wing grifters. Left wing grifters use the same talking points but with a different reason behind. Yet they want to censor the same products: one group based on puritanism & moralism while the other based on feminism & LGBT rights. Both extremes want the same thing.
Are there any examples where someone got "de-banked" or "de-payment-processored" because of misogynistic (but legal) content?
Two different people might both want $100 from you, but that isn't enough for an equivalence: I'm sure you'll agree there's an enormous practical difference between the one that does/doesn't think "knife stabs" are a valid tactic. Or even just between two where only one owns a knife.
> Are there any examples where someone got "de-banked" or "de-payment-processored" because of misogynistic (but legal) content?
You don't even have to express misogynistic ideas to attract that kind of attention; you only need to question the current mode of politically correct thought.
> [Super Seducer] came under fire by a number of video game critics; one described it as the "world's sleaziest game",[37] and another criticized the game for "normalizing rape culture"[38] Prior to its release, the game had its crowdfunding campaign suspended by Kickstarter. According to its press release, this was due to "inappropriate content, including but not limited to offensive or pornographic material", and "spamming or abusive behavior, offering rewards in violation of Kickstarter's rules."[39][40]
This is absurd characterization of the gameplay, but the entire concept of "pick-up artistry" causes strong prejudice.
Literal debanking etc., I wouldn't know. I haven't kept tabs on these kinds of stories for many years.
That said, Collective Shout is explicitly arguing that the porn content they're trying to censor via these tactics is inherently misogynistic.
And it wasn't, as far as I can tell, right-wing groups complaining about the Senran Kagura series several years back, either the games or the anime. Just look at the domain names that come up in searches if you try to look that one up; you don't get conservative forums, but you do get ResetEra and VICE, along with the usual "gaming news" rags.
I don't think it makes sense to label either group of grifters based on stated political affiliation; These groups are linked because they are both grifters.
The politics are just a costume that ingratiates the grifter with their target market.
I don't get why they're being called grifters. These groups - both left and right - probably genuinely believe this stuff is harmful and are following their beliefs to their logical conclusion. I don't think companies should bow to such pressure, but that doesn't make them "grifters".
"Grifter" seems like the new shorthand for "person I don't like".
The grift is they are asserting a power and authority over everyone else that is not warranted. That's why they sabotaged Valve, Itch.io and adult content creators using the payment networks instead of taking them on in court or at the legislative level where they would face many hurdles coercing them to their will.
Citation needed. The 'extreme' feminism & LGBT tends to revolve around identical pay, being able to walk down the street without getting assaulted or being able to work without being harassed or discriminated against.
Feminist groups also regularly try to get games banned from Steam, typically for sexism or violence against women. Eg.
> Women in Games CEO Dr Marie-Claire Isaaman has called on Valve to “act urgently” and remove the game from Steam, saying the game’s content “is not only vile and dangerous, but also actively promotes the dehumanisation of women and girls.”
> In “Irreversible Damage,” Abigail Shrier argues youth are being “fast-tracked” into medical transition — a claim experts say isn’t true and harms trans youth.
Anti-trans activities is the fascist agenda. Fascism should always be stopped. Saving democracy and lives of transpeople by stopping fascists is not controversial in any way.
When you start digging past their marketing material, you quickly discover that these organisations are just right-wing fronts, against trans-people, against abortion.
Here's a 38 minute video that walks through some of the recent major incidents.
Why should feminism be incompatible with right-wing politics?
How do I know what is or isn't a legitimate feminist position, given that the list apparently constantly changes over time?
I am constantly told that there are many different kinds of feminism and that my various complaints about feminism — based on actual interactions I've personally had with feminists — are not valid because they don't generalize across the whole thing (even if I point at well-known, established feminist literature and critiques thereof). Yet I also constantly see groups of self-identified feminists point at each other and try to claim that the others don't actually count as feminists because they disagree about some other issue.
I assume you accept the validity of more than two genders. Will you accept the validity of more than two kinds of political position?
>The 'extreme' feminism & LGBT tends to revolve around
There are countless statements from feminist authority figures that are impossible to reconcile with this claim. But HN is not the place to have this argument, or even to attempt to turn it into a discussion; and elsewhere on the Internet, I have repeatedly seen people persecuted as misogynists simply for collating such evidence.
It’s very easy to make everyone you agree with sound incredibly reasonable when you don’t have to give any examples of when they showed their true colors.
> In 2008,[4]: 84 [Melinda Tankard Reist] co-founded Collective Shout for a World Free of Sexploitation (or simply Collective Shout), which self-describes as "a grassroots movement challenging the objectification of women and sexualisation of girls in media, advertising and popular culture."[14]
Is that what "right-wing grifters" look like nowadays?
You have to go back 17 years to make a modern cultural argument? 2008 is as far from 2025 as it was 1991, for reference. Instagram came out 2 years after your reference.
> You have to go back 17 years to make a modern cultural argument?
I am not "going back" 17 years; I am pointing out that they have been doing this continuously for 17 years, which is an awful lot of effort for a "grift".
