5 ms·

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

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.
  - danharaj 9y ago
    Part of a negotiation is stating which parties are involved and what their considerations are.
- rootlocus 9y ago
  > People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent, Starting the letter with "We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression." seems to show the community they represent is "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression". > hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes, They shouldn't hide it, but they should at least show some evidence for it. > and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods, They can be emotional all they want, but it's maybe not the best argument to change a company's policy. If it's masquerading as an argument, then it's emotional blackmail. > because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter. I don't mind emotional appeals when they actually make sense.
  - Certhas 9y ago
    Do you have any evidence that: > "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression" on patreon are not whom this letter claims they are? If so you are accusing the letter of lying, without any evidence yourself. What level of evidence would the adult content creators have to bring to the table to satisfy your demands? Representative scientific surveys? Why will you not take their word for whom they are? Do you somehow know that community better? Do you not think it prima facie plausible that LGBT, PoC, disabled, etc... are over represented among the most vulnerable of the content creators? (which is the only thing the letter claims) Because by Jove, that's a damn plausible claim if I've ever heard one.
rootlocus 9y ago
> 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? It's "tearjerker" because it conforms to the definition of tearjerker: "A highly sentimental story, drama, or performance, often intended to arouse heartache or sympathy." [1] They blame Patreon for their vulnerability and use pity to win an argument. Fact is, they placed all their eggs in one risky basket, and now that basket is gone. They have themselves to blame. There are lots of LGBT people out there who aren't scared for their lives because Patreon discriminates against porn. This doesn't affect the LGBT community, it affects people who bet all their income on producing adult content on the Patreon. Arguing that LGBT are scared for their lives has nothing to do with the actual problem: "we can't make adult content on Patreon anymore, and we have no other income, but we don't want to find a job so please have pity [on the LGBT who are scared for their lives]". [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tearjerker http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tearjerker
- mikojan 9y ago
  If those two statements form a "highly sentimental story, drama, or performance" every Reuters report does. If you're convinced of the importance of ignoring misery one believes to be self-inflicted you should have that argument, though.
- noobermin 9y ago
  >They blame Patreon for their vulnerability and use pity to win an argument. Fact is, they placed all their eggs in one risky basket, and now that basket is gone. They have themselves to blame. What other basket is there? I thought that's the whole point of this letter, that patreon has become their lifeline but now even that is clipped.

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.
- danharaj 9y ago
  Part of a negotiation is stating which parties are involved and what their considerations are.
rootlocus 9y ago
> People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent, Starting the letter with "We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression." seems to show the community they represent is "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression". > hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes, They shouldn't hide it, but they should at least show some evidence for it. > and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods, They can be emotional all they want, but it's maybe not the best argument to change a company's policy. If it's masquerading as an argument, then it's emotional blackmail. > because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter. I don't mind emotional appeals when they actually make sense.
- Certhas 9y ago
  Do you have any evidence that: > "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression" on patreon are not whom this letter claims they are? If so you are accusing the letter of lying, without any evidence yourself. What level of evidence would the adult content creators have to bring to the table to satisfy your demands? Representative scientific surveys? Why will you not take their word for whom they are? Do you somehow know that community better? Do you not think it prima facie plausible that LGBT, PoC, disabled, etc... are over represented among the most vulnerable of the content creators? (which is the only thing the letter claims) Because by Jove, that's a damn plausible claim if I've ever heard one.

rootlocus 9y ago

> 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? It's "tearjerker" because it conforms to the definition of tearjerker: "A highly sentimental story, drama, or performance, often intended to arouse heartache or sympathy." [1] They blame Patreon for their vulnerability and use pity to win an argument. Fact is, they placed all their eggs in one risky basket, and now that basket is gone. They have themselves to blame. There are lots of LGBT people out there who aren't scared for their lives because Patreon discriminates against porn. This doesn't affect the LGBT community, it affects people who bet all their income on producing adult content on the Patreon. Arguing that LGBT are scared for their lives has nothing to do with the actual problem: "we can't make adult content on Patreon anymore, and we have no other income, but we don't want to find a job so please have pity [on the LGBT who are scared for their lives]". [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tearjerker http://www.thefreedictionary.com/tearjerker

mikojan 9y ago
If those two statements form a "highly sentimental story, drama, or performance" every Reuters report does. If you're convinced of the importance of ignoring misery one believes to be self-inflicted you should have that argument, though.
noobermin 9y ago
>They blame Patreon for their vulnerability and use pity to win an argument. Fact is, they placed all their eggs in one risky basket, and now that basket is gone. They have themselves to blame. What other basket is there? I thought that's the whole point of this letter, that patreon has become their lifeline but now even that is clipped.