6 ms·

I fail to understand what's your issue with this. Are you questioning that the queer, trans, disabled, PoC are in a weaker (and often precarious) position than

I fail to understand what's your issue with this. Are you questioning that the queer, trans, disabled, PoC are in a weaker (and often precarious) position than the cis white (male)? Or is it emotional blackmail to point out that a change (once again) hits hardest for the people that are in a weak position? Isn't it considered common decency to keep in mind the needs of the people that are weaker than us? That might just barely make a living and that don't have the time and energy to make their voice heard? I consider that debate important preciously because it hits the marginalized people worst. I can make my living where I choose (and buy my adult content where I wish to and as a male, I'm probable considered a "proper male" if I do). Those people can't as easily as I.

yipopov 9y ago
Come on, it sounds like these people believe the KKK is going to gather a lynch mob if they can't peddle porn through Patreon anymore. Besides, apart from the disabled most of these are in a weak position because of their own lifestyle choices. Even certain ethnic minorities, like the African-Americans or Mexicans in the United States, are overrepresented in terms of risk-seeking behaviour through gangster culture. Not that I think they're behind the petition, it's probably all white kids from privileged families who decided to act out their teenage angst through sexual experimentation.
graphene 9y ago
It may have been the "literally scared for our lives" part.
nippples 9y ago
If it's important to include the bit, then why stop the list there? What about apostates? Autists? Fat people? People who are otherwise unemployed? I agree with the other poster. This feels like not only emotional blackmail, but tired, overused emotional blackmail. You can very reasonably bring up the angle of people who depend on the platform for their income without dragging around the identity politics baggage with it.
- Certhas 9y ago
  Maybe it's just important to include that bit, because it actually reflects the experience of the authors? The community that signed the letter? Are those groups you mention actually disproportionately affected by this change? Either way, this whole letter consisted of a few sentences that brought in the identity angle. These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities. Non discriminatory changes can have discriminatory effects. This is important. The anti-PC crowd immediately latched onto these few sentences and now HN top upvoted thread is all about how the letter made the HN crowd feel uncomfortable. When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story? When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail? Because I sure as heck don't remember any discussion threads on HN going: I agree that he shouldn't be fired over this, but why do they have to drag this tired, overused emotional blackmail into it?
  - nippples 9y ago
    > When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story? If they'd start their complaint with "we as white men" I'd get tired of reading it pretty early too. > When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail? I'll admit I'm less tired of this particular brand of emotional blackmail. Having children is holding responsibility for other people's lives.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities. The letter didn't say anything about what makes the LGBT "disproportionately" affected by this change. What I read was > We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression. We’re deeply disappointed in your handling of clarity with regards to adult content on your platform, and the mixed messages we have been receiving. Which seems like a reasonable concern. Followed non sequitur by: > Not only that, the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives. Why is Patreon having a fuzzy stand against pornography disproportionately affecting the LGBT community?
Myrmornis 9y ago
Being rational, and without arguing either way, we can certainly ask about the logic here: let's agree that the stated groups are more "vulnerable" than other people. Is the enrichment for vulnerability among the NSFW content creators a necessary part of the appeal to Patreon? Would the appeal not be reasonable, or be less compelling, if the creators were not enriched for vulnerable individuals?
vacri 9y ago
Why are demographics not defined by their sexuality (disabled, PoC, english-second-language) more likely to make sexual/nudity content, and hence be more affected by this issue? I'm big on egalitarianism, but I'm not keen on co-opting unrelated groups in order to make your case sound more important.
- lmm 9y ago
  Because personal identity becomes more important to people in sexual content, and so sexual content is a disproportionate market for people in those demographics?
- icebraining 9y ago
  The letter doesn't say they are more likely to make such content, but that the negative effects are more harmful to people who are already more vulnerable.
  - vacri 9y ago
    The whole first paragraph is completely overbearing. "Quick, pull in every non-mainstream group we can think of, and then describe them all as literally in fear of death from an ambiguous policy about fringe content. Oh, and of course all these people rent off landlords so nasty that they won't accept a single delayed rental payment and they'll end up homeless if that happens". It's completely indefensible hyperbole.
Majestic121 9y ago
You're using the same kind of 'emotional blackmail' speech, and it is annoying because it forces the discussion into a Manichean stereotype of good (poor, weak, discriminated) vs evil (big company full of white guys trying to stomp on the weak). This is bad for the debate as it tries to shut down all opposition (and I'm not even opposing) and remove all possibility of nuance. This is taking the conversation hostage. There's saying that this might greatly impact the (especially vulnerable) LGBT+ population, which is a very valid point and should be taken into account And then, there's tearjerker speech like : > the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives. > We know people who would be homeless if it wasn’t for making porn on Patreon – and it’s not a small number. Which just feels like strong-arming the reader into your opinion
- mikojan 9y ago
  Would you not be "literally scared" for your life when faced with the prospect of becoming homeless? I would be. Why is it a "tearjerker speech" if that is your situation and if you want that situation to be taken into account as they do? If you think they're lying say so. Calling this a "tearjerker speech" strikes me as dishonest.
  - Certhas 9y ago
    I agree. This is ridiculous and hypocritical. People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent, hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes, and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods, because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter.
    - zoul 9y ago
      I don’t want people to “hide what community they represent”, but I also don’t want them to use that fact as a bargaining chip instead of arguments.
pmorici 9y ago
"scared for our lives" sounds like the same line police officers trot out and repeat over and over when they kill someone they ought not have. I think that sort of claim evokes a negative reaction when it seems like the sentiment is unfounded based on the circumstances because it feels like the person saying it isn't being genuine but just trying to manipulate people.
- mikojan 9y ago
  A disproportionate number of homeless youth identify as LGBT+. LGBT+ youth are overrepresented in the populations of youth who are at risk of arrest. Is it unfounded to assume that those same people are maybe dependent on precarious work, like creating porn to sell on a third-party platform, to make a living?
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    > A disproportionate number of homeless youth identify as LGBT+. LGBT+ youth are overrepresented in the populations of youth who are at risk of arrest. I haven't heard that before. Is there any data to support this?
    - mikojan 9y ago
      I quoted the Wikipedia almost verbatim. Studies are referenced in the footnotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_among_LGBT_youth_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_among_LGBT_youth_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_in_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_in_prison
      - ankushnarula 9y ago
        Just to clarify, the aforementioned disproportionate representation is with "street children" not homeless youth as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#United_States
lhnz 9y ago
The ability to leverage performative victimhood invalidates any claim that you are weak. If you are actually weak, you will do anything not to draw attention to your self, as you will not be able to control the perceptions or actions of others.
- timthelion 9y ago
  I guess the key phrase there is "leverage". Does your performace succeed? In the case of trans people on US coasts, this seems to be changing. For a short time, their identity had leverage, but the fact that this discussion is criticizing the authors of the letter for trying to leverage trans victim-hood, suggests that this leverage is waning. As an example of a group without victim-hood leverage, see NAMBLA [1], which represents another sexual orientation, but one which bears no leverage. Another victimized group with seemingly no leverage are those victims of child abuse who are suffering from multiple personality disorder. I know, in the abstract one would say that a victim of child abuse certainly has leverage, but if you read the appeals by those who suffer from severe psychological disorders as a result, you will immediately feel yourself recoil in disgust and grant them no audience. People tend to not see "monsters" as victims, and if we find people too weird or frightening we don't see them as victims. What other groups have no leverage? Perhaps some drug users, we tend to blame them for their problems. I would argue, that leverage is sometimes directly related to power. For example, the Jews were rich before WWII, and are still rich today. Since the holocaust, their victim-hood has born unparalleled leverage. However, in the same holocaust, the Roma people of the Czech Republic were treated just as badly as the Jews, and being poor, far fewer of them escaped. Yet the Roma have almost no leverage from their holocaust victim-hood. But do you think that trans people have power? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_As...
  - lhnz 9y ago
    > But do you think that trans people have power? In this particular case this identity is instrumentalised in order to modify the behaviour of Patreon. This simply wouldn't be done so readily unless the identity within this context carried power. I do not think that trans people in general have power. However, a lack of power in one context, can sometimes be an arbitrage opportunity in contexts where an oppressed identity is currency. I'm not against this but the underlying power dynamics are too interesting to be ignored. That said, I dislike the usage of the phrase "literally scared for their lives". This phrase is meant to be used to call on others to defend lives and here it is being used to call on other's to defend an ability to make money selling porn. Crying wolf undermines the ability for truly endangered people to ask for help. It is ethically repulsive to me that people that consider themselves good dilute the meaning of cries for help for base political expediency. By doing this, they may well deprive the most desperately helpless people of their only means for help. It seems obvious to me that they're conflating economic opportunity with safety, as it is the only viable political position left to them. As has been established elsewhere, companies do not owe workers a means to make money. I do not personally agree with deplatforming, but there is currently no right to a job, and, if such a right was to exist, it would not be possible to administer it fairly depending on the relative oppression/privilege of a person. On the other hand, I guess accrued wealth and number of potential income sources could be seen as reducing the likelihood of homelessness and perhaps we should use this to determine whether a loss of income could affect somebody's safety. (In this case I think that's unlikely: there are so many other online social networks that are supportive.)

yipopov 9y ago

Come on, it sounds like these people believe the KKK is going to gather a lynch mob if they can't peddle porn through Patreon anymore. Besides, apart from the disabled most of these are in a weak position because of their own lifestyle choices. Even certain ethnic minorities, like the African-Americans or Mexicans in the United States, are overrepresented in terms of risk-seeking behaviour through gangster culture. Not that I think they're behind the petition, it's probably all white kids from privileged families who decided to act out their teenage angst through sexual experimentation.

graphene 9y ago

It may have been the "literally scared for our lives" part.

nippples 9y ago

If it's important to include the bit, then why stop the list there? What about apostates? Autists? Fat people? People who are otherwise unemployed? I agree with the other poster. This feels like not only emotional blackmail, but tired, overused emotional blackmail. You can very reasonably bring up the angle of people who depend on the platform for their income without dragging around the identity politics baggage with it.

Certhas 9y ago
Maybe it's just important to include that bit, because it actually reflects the experience of the authors? The community that signed the letter? Are those groups you mention actually disproportionately affected by this change? Either way, this whole letter consisted of a few sentences that brought in the identity angle. These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities. Non discriminatory changes can have discriminatory effects. This is important. The anti-PC crowd immediately latched onto these few sentences and now HN top upvoted thread is all about how the letter made the HN crowd feel uncomfortable. When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story? When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail? Because I sure as heck don't remember any discussion threads on HN going: I agree that he shouldn't be fired over this, but why do they have to drag this tired, overused emotional blackmail into it?
- nippples 9y ago
  > When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story? If they'd start their complaint with "we as white men" I'd get tired of reading it pretty early too. > When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail? I'll admit I'm less tired of this particular brand of emotional blackmail. Having children is holding responsibility for other people's lives.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities. The letter didn't say anything about what makes the LGBT "disproportionately" affected by this change. What I read was > We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression. We’re deeply disappointed in your handling of clarity with regards to adult content on your platform, and the mixed messages we have been receiving. Which seems like a reasonable concern. Followed non sequitur by: > Not only that, the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives. Why is Patreon having a fuzzy stand against pornography disproportionately affecting the LGBT community?

Myrmornis 9y ago

Being rational, and without arguing either way, we can certainly ask about the logic here: let's agree that the stated groups are more "vulnerable" than other people. Is the enrichment for vulnerability among the NSFW content creators a necessary part of the appeal to Patreon? Would the appeal not be reasonable, or be less compelling, if the creators were not enriched for vulnerable individuals?

vacri 9y ago

Why are demographics not defined by their sexuality (disabled, PoC, english-second-language) more likely to make sexual/nudity content, and hence be more affected by this issue? I'm big on egalitarianism, but I'm not keen on co-opting unrelated groups in order to make your case sound more important.

lmm 9y ago
Because personal identity becomes more important to people in sexual content, and so sexual content is a disproportionate market for people in those demographics?
icebraining 9y ago
The letter doesn't say they are more likely to make such content, but that the negative effects are more harmful to people who are already more vulnerable.
- vacri 9y ago
  The whole first paragraph is completely overbearing. "Quick, pull in every non-mainstream group we can think of, and then describe them all as literally in fear of death from an ambiguous policy about fringe content. Oh, and of course all these people rent off landlords so nasty that they won't accept a single delayed rental payment and they'll end up homeless if that happens". It's completely indefensible hyperbole.

Majestic121 9y ago

You're using the same kind of 'emotional blackmail' speech, and it is annoying because it forces the discussion into a Manichean stereotype of good (poor, weak, discriminated) vs evil (big company full of white guys trying to stomp on the weak). This is bad for the debate as it tries to shut down all opposition (and I'm not even opposing) and remove all possibility of nuance. This is taking the conversation hostage. There's saying that this might greatly impact the (especially vulnerable) LGBT+ population, which is a very valid point and should be taken into account And then, there's tearjerker speech like : > the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives. > We know people who would be homeless if it wasn’t for making porn on Patreon – and it’s not a small number. Which just feels like strong-arming the reader into your opinion

mikojan 9y ago
Would you not be "literally scared" for your life when faced with the prospect of becoming homeless? I would be. Why is it a "tearjerker speech" if that is your situation and if you want that situation to be taken into account as they do? If you think they're lying say so. Calling this a "tearjerker speech" strikes me as dishonest.
- Certhas 9y ago
  I agree. This is ridiculous and hypocritical. People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent, hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes, and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods, because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter.
  - zoul 9y ago
    I don’t want people to “hide what community they represent”, but I also don’t want them to use that fact as a bargaining chip instead of arguments.

pmorici 9y ago

"scared for our lives" sounds like the same line police officers trot out and repeat over and over when they kill someone they ought not have. I think that sort of claim evokes a negative reaction when it seems like the sentiment is unfounded based on the circumstances because it feels like the person saying it isn't being genuine but just trying to manipulate people.

mikojan 9y ago
A disproportionate number of homeless youth identify as LGBT+. LGBT+ youth are overrepresented in the populations of youth who are at risk of arrest. Is it unfounded to assume that those same people are maybe dependent on precarious work, like creating porn to sell on a third-party platform, to make a living?
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > A disproportionate number of homeless youth identify as LGBT+. LGBT+ youth are overrepresented in the populations of youth who are at risk of arrest. I haven't heard that before. Is there any data to support this?
  - mikojan 9y ago
    I quoted the Wikipedia almost verbatim. Studies are referenced in the footnotes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_among_LGBT_youth_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_among_LGBT_youth_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_in_prison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_people_in_prison
    - ankushnarula 9y ago
      Just to clarify, the aforementioned disproportionate representation is with "street children" not homeless youth as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children#United_States

lhnz 9y ago

The ability to leverage performative victimhood invalidates any claim that you are weak. If you are actually weak, you will do anything not to draw attention to your self, as you will not be able to control the perceptions or actions of others.

timthelion 9y ago
I guess the key phrase there is "leverage". Does your performace succeed? In the case of trans people on US coasts, this seems to be changing. For a short time, their identity had leverage, but the fact that this discussion is criticizing the authors of the letter for trying to leverage trans victim-hood, suggests that this leverage is waning. As an example of a group without victim-hood leverage, see NAMBLA [1], which represents another sexual orientation, but one which bears no leverage. Another victimized group with seemingly no leverage are those victims of child abuse who are suffering from multiple personality disorder. I know, in the abstract one would say that a victim of child abuse certainly has leverage, but if you read the appeals by those who suffer from severe psychological disorders as a result, you will immediately feel yourself recoil in disgust and grant them no audience. People tend to not see "monsters" as victims, and if we find people too weird or frightening we don't see them as victims. What other groups have no leverage? Perhaps some drug users, we tend to blame them for their problems. I would argue, that leverage is sometimes directly related to power. For example, the Jews were rich before WWII, and are still rich today. Since the holocaust, their victim-hood has born unparalleled leverage. However, in the same holocaust, the Roma people of the Czech Republic were treated just as badly as the Jews, and being poor, far fewer of them escaped. Yet the Roma have almost no leverage from their holocaust victim-hood. But do you think that trans people have power? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_As...
- lhnz 9y ago
  > But do you think that trans people have power? In this particular case this identity is instrumentalised in order to modify the behaviour of Patreon. This simply wouldn't be done so readily unless the identity within this context carried power. I do not think that trans people in general have power. However, a lack of power in one context, can sometimes be an arbitrage opportunity in contexts where an oppressed identity is currency. I'm not against this but the underlying power dynamics are too interesting to be ignored. That said, I dislike the usage of the phrase "literally scared for their lives". This phrase is meant to be used to call on others to defend lives and here it is being used to call on other's to defend an ability to make money selling porn. Crying wolf undermines the ability for truly endangered people to ask for help. It is ethically repulsive to me that people that consider themselves good dilute the meaning of cries for help for base political expediency. By doing this, they may well deprive the most desperately helpless people of their only means for help. It seems obvious to me that they're conflating economic opportunity with safety, as it is the only viable political position left to them. As has been established elsewhere, companies do not owe workers a means to make money. I do not personally agree with deplatforming, but there is currently no right to a job, and, if such a right was to exist, it would not be possible to administer it fairly depending on the relative oppression/privilege of a person. On the other hand, I guess accrued wealth and number of potential income sources could be seen as reducing the likelihood of homelessness and perhaps we should use this to determine whether a loss of income could affect somebody's safety. (In this case I think that's unlikely: there are so many other online social networks that are supportive.)