3 ms·

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 no

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
      Nobody is throwing away legal processes. I guess I still dont understand. Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with?
      - sparkie 8y ago
        > I guess I still dont understand. Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with? By that argument, you could conclude that anyone has the right to refuse services to any race, gender, sexuality. We have deliberately made laws to prevent this kind of exclusion. Now you suddenly want to bring it back? Of course, the difference is that if you are white, male and straight, you're not part of the "protected" persons, and you can be denied service by anyone. And people wonder why there might be an increase in white people shifting further to the right?
      - grimjack00 8y ago
        > Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with? You mean like making a cake for a same-sex wedding?

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
    Nobody is throwing away legal processes. I guess I still dont understand. Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with?
    - sparkie 8y ago
      > I guess I still dont understand. Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with? By that argument, you could conclude that anyone has the right to refuse services to any race, gender, sexuality. We have deliberately made laws to prevent this kind of exclusion. Now you suddenly want to bring it back? Of course, the difference is that if you are white, male and straight, you're not part of the "protected" persons, and you can be denied service by anyone. And people wonder why there might be an increase in white people shifting further to the right?
    - grimjack00 8y ago
      > Why should a private company be required to support a cause they dissagree with? You mean like making a cake for a same-sex wedding?