Time to sue my credit card company for preventing my purchases, but failing to prevent a purchase that was detrimental to me

We don't know their reasoning. However, we do know their requirement, which is not "no illegal content." It's "no content involving rape or incest" or something like that. They have also stated publicly they do not want to be involved in regulating legal content, but, again, that isn't what they required. If they only cared about illegal content then that's what their requirement would say, but it isn't.

Okay so none then.

And also none from the person above, but the logic doesn't check out. Using basic inference, we know it isn't about legal content. That already wasn't allowed, so no changes needed to be made. There must be another reason. What is it? I don't know. I'm not making a claim to knowledge of what it is. I'm only proving that it isn't what the other person claimed. Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, not the one disputing it.

A stretched out pink butthole full of cum, yes

That's one way to not understand what I meant, I guess.

The point is "I haven't heard them say this" is not a legitimate argument, because you haven't heard them say anything about anything, because they haven't said anything, and speculation is all we have.

And kids, that's how I met your mother

Nah, most likely Veggie Tales. Elmo is too woke and might cause dissonance with supremacists and Christian Nationalists. Oh, wait. I just repeated myself - sorry.

Why cant the payment processors just fucking ignore them oh my god

I feel like even those games will be banned if we don't stop them now. My thoughts are that games like 'I am Jesus' is the end goal here.

asterisk

gross, who would fuck them?

don't you mean Joe Lieberman?

i assume you’re allowed to buy guns with them in the US? that’s WAY more directly attributable

E Pluribus Anus.

So close to the Greendale flag from Community.

I think there are probably some skeletons in the closets of Collective Shout's members. It's always projection with these people.

Honestly horrors get old when you can read in the news about "respected people" calling to exterminate Gaza and build beachfront cottages there. Even from just reading that and knowing that the same people can put anything onto your Android devices via a Facebook update or any of the Google applications update, on a whim. Nobody will even know.

About this - is it even legal to obey such pressure?

EDIT: I mean, how is it different from banning sellers by skin color when racists complain, or by religion when Muslims complain (all Hindus are Satan worshipers, didntcha knaw), or whatever else.

EDIT2: But it pains me to see how public offering was, in fact, an important part of market regulations, when everybody just ignores it without getting 9 lifetimes in jail for executives. I was against it at some point. That is - customer associations are important, and there are almost none, and when customer associations demand businesses to act like public offering, then it's almost as good as if enforced, and no such regulation is a good stimulus for customer associations to keep existing. But - feels shitty when it's in the law of most countries and hasn't been removed.

But they can be used as an example

The people who would typically be expected to push back against collective shout also typically wouldn't be expected to do anything effective whereas the people involved with collective shout are the type of people who give politicians money.