> Why? Why assume the status quo is perfect? Also, what part of pornography isn't embedded into the human status quo?

No one said that. But you should fool yourself saying that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Here is your own quote:

> I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful.

> No one said that

If the precautionary principle should always prevail, then yes, that's what's being said.

In this case, it's difficult to even disentangle what the status quo is. Pornography, this group's bogeyman, is millenia old. Computer games, decades. The combination is a bit novel, but it's also more precedented than these bans.

> I have seen zero evidence that any of these games are harmful

Yeah. I see evidence they're demanded by the people who we're putatively protecting, however. And I see lots of evidence of other harmful things that aren't banned. Herego, why the fuck are we kneejerking on this?

There's probably a fundamental political question underlying a lot of these discussions: do you default to letting people do things or not?

My long-held belief is that there's a certain hubris to saying that you know best for everyone. So I default to letting people do things, since preventing them is exerting power over them. With that framing, you would need evidence that something is harmful if you're going to exert power over other people to prevent them from doing it.