1. Videogames are still a relatively "new" phenomenon. Consider that they've only been around for, what, 40 years? 50 at the outside? Movies and TV have been around for much longer. Books and art for much, much longer before that. People (Speaking in general) are slow to change and accept new things.
2. Watching a movie or TV show, or reading a book or looking at a piece of art is one thing. Games are interactive. The fact that you can do more than just be passively entertained by someone's "morally bankrupt" work but be an active participant in it, probably freaks the pearl clutchers out.
While the post you're referring to was sarcastic, I think both of you are absolutely correct. And to play devil's advocate here, I don't even think it is a double standard - which doesn't mean I agree with it, just that there
is a difference between interactive and non interactive media.
Let's move away from incest to shooters. There is a difference between murders existing in a virtual world (which is realistic of course) and you being the one doing it, especially if in the former case it's way easier to discuss how bad killing is than in the latter (of course this does not always hold true, there are movies gloryfying it and games really deconstructing the "good guy with a gun saves the day" trope).
So I see a difference, which has a certain objectivity, which isn't a double standard. Still, that doesn't mean that I think that difference is sensible (I don't think so and IMO they should go all the way or leave it be).
But as Vordertur pointed out, games are still a "new" phenomenon, especially as an everyday activity for adults. The mere existence for 50 years for nerds doesn't do it justice. Maybe 30 years ago they became commonplace but they left their small little corner even later. So there is a good chance that you'll have execs and other decisionmakers in these companies who are from a generation where they never really played video games. They will slowly grow old and disappear, but it's easier to wait the resistance get out of the picture than to change them.
Here in Germany, as you may know, we had a similar issue with references to the Third Reich in video games. Not because swastikas were all forbidden, as many people thought, but because video games were legislated as child toys and had way heavier scrutiny. All video games, even if they were only allowed for ages 18+. Swastikas in e. g. movies were fine, if historically appropriate. (NB: Gloryfying the Nazi era or Nazi ideology is still a crime - but for all media). Similarily, video games, even 18+, had to get rid of a lot of brutality. Enemies were turned into robots who were leaking oil instead of blood. Dismembered limbs didn't exist (which made Fallout 3 more difficult to play, since dismembering limbs is a part of the strategy - the mechanism still worked, but you got no feedback on whether you were able to cut off the arm). There's a slow change going on here right now, but the reason is/was: those in power just didn't have any experience with video games and thought only kids (i. e. people younger than them) used them. These days more and more people of course just realize that they are just another medium.
But in the end, Patreon is a private company and allowed to build their business model as they see fit. If they want any references to people names Jack out of the projects, because their CEO lost his high school sweetheart to a guy named Jack, that may be stupid, but it's perfectly within their rights to do so. Of course people don't have to condone it and can look for competitors to do their business, but we'll have to roll with these decisions.
