Cards Against Humanity's Trolling Of Trump's Border Wall Shows How The Internet Has Removed Gatekeepers
from the trump-card dept
I suppose because too many of my fellow citizens in America have devolved into hyper-partisan rage-beacons, I have to issue the following stupid caveat that I shouldn't have to issue at all: this post is not a commentary on Trump's border wall policy. Great. I'm sure that will keep our comments free and clear of anyone insisting otherwise. With that being said, a common topic we discuss here is how one of the chief benefits of the internet is how it has removed gatekeepers that have long stood in the way of new businesses, or have governed how established businesses do their business. Typically, we have focused on the former, detailing how the internet has allowed for new players in everything from the entertainment industry to products that would have previously existed solely at the pleasure of brick and mortar retail stores.
But this post is about the latter. You may have heard about the viral video making the rounds from the folks behind the hit card game Cards Against Humanity. If you haven't, here it is.
I have to admit, the video is really well done. If nothing else, it serves to remind us that content is advertising and advertising is content.
But it's also true that a campaign that essentially trolls the sitting American President by buying a piece of land where his proposed border wall is going to go and then vowing to defend that land legally for as long as possible is controversial to say the least. Some not inconsequential percentage of Americans -- and, likely, our readers -- think that the border wall is good policy. Some other percentage do not. Whatever you might think, it should be clear that this campaign is likely to piss off some decent chunk of the company's potential customer base. Why the company wants to do this is a valid question, but I'd like to point out why they can do this.
Given the nature of the game, the company has no problem being a bit brash, and because they are self-owned, and don't rely on big box stores to push their product, the company can get away with a bit more.
That's putting it mildly. It's nearly impossible to envision the company taking so staunch a political stance as this were it forced to rely on traditional retail stores, which would likewise feel backlash from supporters of the border wall. You likely have already imagined how many calls there would be on retailers to drop the product if this happened, except it's more likely that the folks behind Cards Against Humanity never would have done this in the first place, save for their ability to sell directly to consumers via the internet.
Political stances are also not a new habit for the company. It's even addressed on the company's FAQ page on its website.
On its FAQ page for the new expansion, one question asks: I don't like that you're getting political. Why don't you just stick to card games?
Their answer? "Why don’t you stick to seeing how many Hot Wheels cars you can fit up your asshole?"
My kind of people, obviously. Again, whatever your political leanings, it's worth recognizing how any company is now more free to engage in controversial behavior like this simply because the gatekeepers are gone and the internet reigns.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: card games, cards against humanity, gatekeepers, politics
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Walls
Sorry, couldn't resist. Your point on gatekeepers is well put.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walls
Though I think Trump is playing a long-game: he builds a wall now, then in 50 years, the wall comes down and the US and Mexico are unified to become simply "North America". Then there are no more Mexicans immigrants stealing jobs because there's no more US or Mexican citizenship- everyone is a North American citizen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walls
What it was for was to deter raids by making it difficult for the raiders to escape while loaded down with loot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just to be clear...
There is a sociopathic madman in the White House with his finger on the nuclear button. As far as I'm concerned, ejecting Trump from the presidency is not a matter of politics, but rather one of survival.
If you disagree, I don't think you're wrong. You're just suicidal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to be clear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to be clear...
Anyway, welcome to the blastula stage. Live long and prosper!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just to be clear...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I don't know. Is that actually a frequently asked question, or did they just add it to a FAQ? (FAQs frequently don't seem to bear any relation to actual questions that are asked a lot. They seem to have gone the way of "white papers".)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
I'm sure you think this noble but it's stupid on every point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
Care to point out why, or should I just ship you a bunch of Hot Wheels?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your big point is a nasty turn of phrase? Sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
Now they've got somewhere else to do that. Or maybe they'll build a wall on it -- pointing north-south.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
The government is then free to use eminent domain to aquire the surface land... but the tunnel will still belong to CAH under geological rights unless they apply eminent domain to that as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Eminent domain
Except to make a bunch of money for some lawyers. What a noble cause. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Eminent domain
And if the government tries to do this, is their plan to fight them in court?
Or like other posters can suggested, could Cards Against Humanity bring in a naturalist and declare their land to be the nesting place of an endangered species? Then the government agency trying to take the land has to argue with the other government agency trying to protect endangered species.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Given the blatantly “anti-PC” nature of the game - this is a card game practically designed to offend people - Cards Against Humanity seems like the perfect kind of game for “fuck PC culture” conservatives. And given how Trump has lowered the standards of decorum and civility in politics within just the past two years alone, the average winning hand in a game of C.A.H. could probably fit into one of his speeches without anyone even noticing. Just about the only kind of Trump supporter that would not enjoy C.A.H. is the Christian conservative, but even then, I have my doubts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The type of people who are fans of CAH are far more likely to be on the liberal side of things. I don't think that this is going to hurt their sales significantly at all and may even improve them. Also CAH are known to be trolls. Trolling the Trump administration is par for the course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't know that that's true. I lean to the right but have no love for extremists and I enjoy the game, even the anti-conservative jabs. There's no place in a world of sense and logic for far-right or far-left political views. Those who vote down the party line are the worst of the worst.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Buying up one plot of land, even assuming the wall *must* go through it and not around it, isn't going to be very effective in delaying the wall overall. Even if they buy 2 miles of land, that's only 0.1% of the border. It's not like the government can't start construction on the other 99.9% of the wall while they litigate that plot (they're not going to simultaneously start construction on every mile of the wall on the same day, after all.) They'll just save that part for last.
And frankly I doubt the ability of lawyers to stall for very long; the government unquestionably has the right to do eminent domain for a project like this. Hiring lawyers specializing in eminent domain doesn't change this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, (AFAIK, IANAL) there is no law against trying to "stall the government" from taking someone's legally owned private property. The reasons for their purchase of the land are irrelevant unless they are doing something actively criminal. Which in this case, they aren't. They bought it and are just sitting on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There's no law specifically saying you can't stall the government. But when you're on record as saying your purpose is delay and obstruction, you can expect to not get any benefit of the doubt. If it's in the judge's discretion to grant you a continuance, he'll be less likely to do so, and he'll be more likely to think your arguments are frivolous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if they buy 2 miles of land, that's only 0.1% of the border.
In other words, a wall blocking 99.9% of the border isn’t much better than a wall blocking 0.1% of the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Even if they buy 2 miles of land, that's only 0.1% of the border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eminent Domain hearings would take about ten minutes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now that would be something. Build the wall such that that little piece of America is on the Mexico side of the wall. Let Mexicans bring their pregnant wives to that tiny slice of America to give birth and BOOM... Instant Americans. Now what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American Dream
A perfect breakfast
Domino's Oreo pizza
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The Pope
Bill Nye the Science Guy
Being a dick to children
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bigger picture here
See also Exploding Kittens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bigger picture here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bigger picture here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bigger picture here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The bigger picture here
https://www.bearsvsbabies.com
Dirkmaster
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The bigger picture here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gratitude.
"hyper-partisan rage-beacons" ..like Twitter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't riseto the level of trolling
The same thing is going to happen here. The USG is not going to negotiate with them to put a wall through their land. If it came to that, they would just run the wall north of their property, and then they can wave to Mexico once the wall is constructed. Perhaps they'll even put in a gate so that they can get back into the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wall, what wall?
Wait till you hear from the beachfront property owners, or users, about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wall, what wall?
We are a nation of laws. That's why people are dying to get here. Ignoring those laws, as open border fantacists would have us do, will only make the US like the hellholes people are dying to escape from.
Only Big Business and the Democrat Party are for open borders. It lowers wages and swells Dems. rolls.
What it doesn't ever do is decrease the number of people living in poverty in hellholes, or the population of those hellholes, or increase the prosperity of those hellholes.
Export the rule of law, not jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't riseto the level of trolling
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/28/cards-against-humanity-hole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Doesn't riseto the level of trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this that website?
thanks!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gatekeeping, this is really interesting.
I just wish this could scale down to individuals, i.e. my freedom of speech could have far less restrictions on it with respect to workplace.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]