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.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Cards Against Humanity's Trolling Of Trump's Border Wall Shows How The Internet Has Removed Gatekeepers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
John85851 (profile) says:

Re: Walls

At one point, there was a story going around about how someone in the Trump administration (or maybe the Trump campaign) was standing next to a section of the Berlin Wall, going on about how great that wall was… completely oblivious to the fact that the wall is gone! She’s literally standing in a front of a section of the wall in a unified Berlin in unified Germany. I just wish the reporters covering her would have pushed her to explain what she meant.

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.

bshock says:

Just to be clear...

I am not enraged by Donald Trump — I am terrified by him.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Just to be clear...

Two generations have grown up now, knowing that there were multiple sociopathic madmen with nuclear triggers. And once every .17 seconds or so, a new spermatozoan awakens and realizes what world it’s in. Some of them manage not to post in internet forums, because … well, all the other spermatozoa already know, right?

Anyway, welcome to the blastula stage. Live long and prosper!

orbitalinsertion (profile) says:

Pff when was that game not political? Weird how politics is all fine and dandy until a handful of elected Federal positions are in question. Or maybe it is just the angle of the politics which is the problem – fine when it is going the other way. But most of all, i thought the popularity of the game was for it’s utterly offensive components.

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”.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Eminent domain

Heh… I just got a better idea for what they can do with the land… they need to get mining rights on it and build a north-south tunnel.

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.

John85851 (profile) says:

Re: Eminent domain

I was just about to say this.
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.

Ed (profile) says:

It is highly unlikely that the typical Trump supporter is a Cards Against Humanity fan. Or has even heard of Cards Against Humanity, at least not until this campaign was mentioned on “Fox & Friends” or Hannity (it has, hasn’t it?). The fake-christian, right-wing hypocrites are too busy trying to elect pedophiles and rapists to turn their narrow minds to a marketing campaign they would never be able to comprehend anyway.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Avatar28 (profile) says:

>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.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The type of people who are fans of CAH are far more likely to be on the liberal side of things.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

I’m not going to support lawfare. By their own admission, they’re just trying to stall the government. The attorneys had better be very careful if they want to avoid sanctions.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Except that eminent domain walks a very dangerous line against the 4th Amendment. I think they could drag this out quite a while.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

If you’re going to try to argue that eminent domain is an “unreasonable seizure” in violation of the Fourth Amendment, you’re going to lose that argument in court, and it won’t be a close call. The Fifth Amendment specifically contemplates eminent domain, so long as there is “just compensation”, and it’s not like there’s no case law. If you want to drag it out, you must at least pose a novel question interesting enough that the appeals courts will want to address it. “Can the government seize land to build something” is not that question.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Even if they buy 2 miles of land, that's only 0.1% of the border.

In fact, the proposed wall will block less than 99.9% of the border. There will still be official crossing points. Even if those were unofficial openings, the 99.9% wall would be much better (for Trump’s definition of “better”) than one blocking 0.1%: guards can easily monitor 0.1% of the border. (Assuming it’s not like 2500 2-foot openings.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Doesn't riseto the level of trolling

This doesn’t come close to being a troll. Certainly they realize that there are many locations where US territory is on the south side of the wall, so that it is cut off from the rest of the United States.

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.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Wall, what wall?

For every barrier created ever, there is, or will be a way through. This wall might change things a little (there will be economic impact from the building, but at the same time they will reduce some of the border protection as ‘not needed’ anymore, as if it was in any way effective now) but the ingenuity of people, those who want to get through, will find a way around. Then they will have to build that wall around the whole country.

Wait till you hear from the beachfront property owners, or users, about that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Wall, what wall?

What you are saying is false. Walls work very well. See: Israel, Hollywood star’s homes, and Berlin pre 1990s.

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Hi! I’m new here. I got e-mail from a Nigerian humanitarian saying that if I had spare uninformed political opinions, there was this internet site where I could post them. He said everyone would instantly realize that they had always been wrong and I was right, and they would make me dictator of teh world.

Is this that website?


Christopher (profile) says:

Gatekeeping, this is really interesting.

I’ve never thought of it this way, but yes, being self-owned and having a logistics solution that is resistant to outside influence is definitely freeing, and marvelously so.

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.


Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...