4 ms·

What stops Patreon et al from becoming extremist? (On the left) IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously dam

What stops Patreon et al from becoming extremist? (On the left) IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in. Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed. Big tech has become extremist in its calculated attempts to deplatform (unperson) people. The people calling out this extremism sometimes have the undesirable effect that they catch the association of reactionaries on the opposite side (the far right). The people on the IDW have consistently made cases against extremism on the right, and in many ways, they are the limiting the extent of a potential radical right backlash that would otherwise come as a result of crackdowns on liberties from the left.

thecatspaw 8y ago
> What stops Patreon et al from becoming extremist? (On the left) Enough people leaving if they do not agree with Patreons views > IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in. Right. We also need to look at ourselves in terms of surveilance and social score systems, which no doubt also exist in some form in european countries and the US. > Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed. Agreed. Free speech is important. Everybody should be able to say what they want, or stay quiet if they choose. However, this does not mean that I have to let my racist neighbour hold a talk in my living room.
- sparkie 8y ago
  > However, this does not mean that I have to let my racist neighbour hold a talk in my living room. The actions of the left are more akin to investigating which bank your neighbour uses, then going to that bank and asking them to close his account down or you will cause a scene.
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    The article makes it seem like patreon became aware of their ideologies _somehow_ and decided they are not a match for their site. How they became aware does not matter. I couldnt find a source for there beeing a scene/public outcry to ban these patreons. If a bank gets made aware that they accidentially support a cause they despise morally, why shouldnt they cancel their account?
    - sparkie 8y ago
      > If a bank gets made aware that they accidentially support a cause they despise morally, why shouldnt they cancel their account? Because a person's political views have nothing to do with banking. Because consumer protection laws exist. Because people are innocent until proven guilty. Do you really want to see what will happen if you continue to take this to the extreme and deny all services to anyone who disagrees with you?
      - thecatspaw 8y ago
        > Because a person's political views have nothing to do with banking. Exactly. But what if it is the "Lets kill all the purple people" fund, in a country where purple people have zero rights. Now its not anymore about the persons political views, but where the money gets used. I dont support patreon banning people with different personal views, but I do support them in their right to not support unwelcome content.
        sparkie 8y ago
        In societies with a rule of law, that would easily fall under incitement to crime, which is a crime. We have legal systems which can and do deal with this so that a bank does not need to take upon itself to make politically charged decisions. In societies without rule of law, then I think it's fair that a bank could cut off access for another, but we also have a legal framework for dealing with this, the UDHR and the ICJ. We built these legal frameworks specifically for the purpose of ending the witch-hunting mentality of our medieval ancestors. It's a shame that so many people want to undo centuries of developing frameworks that protect them for their quick virtue signalling. The real question the far-left needs to ask themselves is, if we throw away legal processes in favor of witch hunts, then who is going to protect them when the tide changes?

thecatspaw 8y ago

> What stops Patreon et al from becoming extremist? (On the left) Enough people leaving if they do not agree with Patreons views > IMO, it has already happened. The far-left have already crossed lines that are tremendously damaging for society, while at the same time they point the finger at countries like China for engaging in the same kinds of actions they themselves are engaged in. Right. We also need to look at ourselves in terms of surveilance and social score systems, which no doubt also exist in some form in european countries and the US. > Free-speech is not just some alt-right or far-right conspiracy to oppress people. It's a fundamental value that our societies are built on. The idea of free-speech means that some people will say some extreme things, and free-speech is what enables you to point out their extremism so that people can be better informed. Agreed. Free speech is important. Everybody should be able to say what they want, or stay quiet if they choose. However, this does not mean that I have to let my racist neighbour hold a talk in my living room.

sparkie 8y ago
> However, this does not mean that I have to let my racist neighbour hold a talk in my living room. The actions of the left are more akin to investigating which bank your neighbour uses, then going to that bank and asking them to close his account down or you will cause a scene.
- thecatspaw 8y ago
  The article makes it seem like patreon became aware of their ideologies _somehow_ and decided they are not a match for their site. How they became aware does not matter. I couldnt find a source for there beeing a scene/public outcry to ban these patreons. If a bank gets made aware that they accidentially support a cause they despise morally, why shouldnt they cancel their account?
  - sparkie 8y ago
    > If a bank gets made aware that they accidentially support a cause they despise morally, why shouldnt they cancel their account? Because a person's political views have nothing to do with banking. Because consumer protection laws exist. Because people are innocent until proven guilty. Do you really want to see what will happen if you continue to take this to the extreme and deny all services to anyone who disagrees with you?
    - thecatspaw 8y ago
      > Because a person's political views have nothing to do with banking. Exactly. But what if it is the "Lets kill all the purple people" fund, in a country where purple people have zero rights. Now its not anymore about the persons political views, but where the money gets used. I dont support patreon banning people with different personal views, but I do support them in their right to not support unwelcome content.
      - sparkie 8y ago
        In societies with a rule of law, that would easily fall under incitement to crime, which is a crime. We have legal systems which can and do deal with this so that a bank does not need to take upon itself to make politically charged decisions. In societies without rule of law, then I think it's fair that a bank could cut off access for another, but we also have a legal framework for dealing with this, the UDHR and the ICJ. We built these legal frameworks specifically for the purpose of ending the witch-hunting mentality of our medieval ancestors. It's a shame that so many people want to undo centuries of developing frameworks that protect them for their quick virtue signalling. The real question the far-left needs to ask themselves is, if we throw away legal processes in favor of witch hunts, then who is going to protect them when the tide changes?