9 ms·

The real meat of the racist speech: >"This month, the site’s moderators received a complaint about Mr. Benjamin, who had risen to fame railing against diversit

The real meat of the racist speech: >"This month, the site’s moderators received a complaint about Mr. Benjamin, who had risen to fame railing against diversity and feminism during the GamerGate movement in 2014. Mr. Benjamin used the N-word and anti-gay language during an interview posted to YouTube on Feb. 7, Patreon found." I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression Benjamin used that word to insult white supremacists, whom he evidently does not count himself among. It wasn't very smart of him to think everybody would be okay with it just because he chose the 'right' target.

raiflip 8y ago
I don't agree with his choice of words, and I think its kinda weird that he chose to express himself the way he did when there was a much easier way to go about making the same remark, but that said, it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking (to be clear I'm not talking about you in particular, but just people in general who think what patreon did was ok).
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking Would it be immoral (or amoral, either one) of my employer to fire me employed if I gave a tech talk and started throwing the N-word around? Patreon has fairly clear rules on behavior; they're not obligated to keep anyone as their client if they start breaking them.
  - orblivion 8y ago
    According to what I've heard, those clear rules state that they apply to what is said as part of work that is funded by Patreon. This could be misinformation, though, and I'd be happy if someone corrects it here. With that in mind, he made the remarks in question during a conversation that took place on somebody else's YouTube channel. It sounds like Patreon presumes that the guy's patronized work includes all public appearances. This seems like a stretch, or at least an ambiguity worth sorting out.
    - NegativeK 8y ago
      I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you. If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship.
      - orblivion 8y ago
        > Companies are run by people. This is why lawyers have jobs. In a situation like this, the reasonable thing to do is ambiguous, and opinions are strongly split in half. If there's an objective standard, everybody can just point to that. It's not the most communitarian thing, but it's a way to bypass conflict and move on. Now the particular reason half of the people are up in arms here is that it's stifling to know that you could lose your whole livelihood over a choice of words on (arguably?) your own time. On the other hand it's a choice of words that the other half the people deem beyond the pale in any context. It's a bit of a mess, and I'm not sure whether this will resolve itself on a useful standard that a lawyer can point to, much less what that standard might be.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        > I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Being fair, being open, being honest isn't being "robotic". Treating people like more than something to exploit and throw away is what I would consider "robotic". The constant "it's a private company, brain off", that's what is robotic. > Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you. Yeah, people. Not necessarily adult people. Take this man, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw Do you honestly think you know or have anything he doesn't? Wouldn't you rather think it's the other way around? If you stand aside as mobs try to kill free speech on the internet, you're banking on them winning, on there never being a time where, if you can't show clear proof that you resisted, nobody wanting to work with you. I doubt you would just say "fair enough". I don't think you'd consider that a humane society just because the majority might claim it is. > If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship. This isn't just a vendor. We're talking about companies that provide services that really, realistically, should be utilities. You shouldn't get your water turned off for calling obese people names, or your electricity turned off for saying Hitler was right. That's a stone age level regression that not just shows a level of moral bankruptcy on par or worse of the views that are "fought" by these mobs, it also says that these views cannot be fought other than by fighting the people that hold them, virtually or even physically. It's undoing progress and re-introduces "might is right" as a valid ideal. That is all. If you use Patreon in 2019, you have a.) no alternatives, b.) no clue, and/or c.) double standards, and I for one will not be working with you. A bad standard is a bad standard, a person with double standards is quicksand.
  - raiflip 8y ago
    Actually Patreon rules had explicitly said they will only kick you off if you violate the rules on their website, so technically Sargon was not even breaking their rules. The primary distinction between your example and what happened was Sargon was using the phrase in a context that made sense because he was talking to white supremacist, and turning the word against them. There is no such corresponding context for any tech talk. Certainly Patreon has no obligation to keep anyone. I also don't have an obligation to like how they choose to moderate their platform.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    > Patreon has fairly clear rules on behavior Wrong. There are no clear rules that apply to all, there's just very vague, wishy washy words that are applied differently in different cases, which is "subjective" and "case-by-case": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ
- KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
  I don't really care about his choice of words, it's the hateful intent behind them that makes his views wrongthink for me. It's possible to use the n-word in a way that makes me think Patreon is overreacting but reading the context he's definitely beyond the pale in a way that goes far past verbiage.
apk-d 8y ago
Our descendants are going to be seriously confused by our practice of limiting or taking away people's ability to earn money because they publicly used a wrong word. Or so I hope, at least.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  > taking away people's ability to earn money On a single platform. Nobody's preventing Mr. Benjamin from making money; they're just not allowing him to use one specific platform. He's welcome to sign up for Hatreon, or to use a payment processor directly.
  - apk-d 8y ago
    He's not welcome, Hatreon (first hearing of them now) was shut down after the payment processor suspended them. To the people downvoting: I stand by my statement and I've got karma to burn.
  - harimau777 8y ago
    I think that the potential issue is that those other options are not realistically viable. In effect private companies have become the public square. Therefore, for all practical purposes, being banned from them is the same as being banned from the public discourse.
  - cambalache 8y ago
    And when the new payment company bans him, then what? And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs? I tend to favor the smallest government possible, because I think private companies tend to do a better work in many areas (not all of them) so I dont like government intervening. But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple.
StavrosK 8y ago
What did he say, exactly? This sounds like a possible use-mention distinction problem to me.
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Good question. I've found a transcript published by patreon: https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi=fe9f9484291a https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi... It's... pretty vitriolic. I'm not totally comfortable with even quoting the redacted version, but here goes nothing: >“I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of n_____s, just so you know. You act like white n_____s. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.” >“Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f__gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n____r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me.”
  - pavel_lishin 8y ago
    Reading this as a straight white guy, the slurs aren't as offensive as the whole underlying philosophy and line of thinking. Although I like that the No True Scotsman fallacy leaking through the cracks.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 8y ago
      Was he espousing this philosophy or merely using the philosophy of his audience to say: "even by your own philosophy, you're wrong"? But "white people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another" is so counterfactual it's hard to imagine anyone actually believes that.
    - 8y ago

raiflip 8y ago

I don't agree with his choice of words, and I think its kinda weird that he chose to express himself the way he did when there was a much easier way to go about making the same remark, but that said, it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking (to be clear I'm not talking about you in particular, but just people in general who think what patreon did was ok).

pavel_lishin 8y ago
> it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking Would it be immoral (or amoral, either one) of my employer to fire me employed if I gave a tech talk and started throwing the N-word around? Patreon has fairly clear rules on behavior; they're not obligated to keep anyone as their client if they start breaking them.
- orblivion 8y ago
  According to what I've heard, those clear rules state that they apply to what is said as part of work that is funded by Patreon. This could be misinformation, though, and I'd be happy if someone corrects it here. With that in mind, he made the remarks in question during a conversation that took place on somebody else's YouTube channel. It sounds like Patreon presumes that the guy's patronized work includes all public appearances. This seems like a stretch, or at least an ambiguity worth sorting out.
  - NegativeK 8y ago
    I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you. If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship.
    - orblivion 8y ago
      > Companies are run by people. This is why lawyers have jobs. In a situation like this, the reasonable thing to do is ambiguous, and opinions are strongly split in half. If there's an objective standard, everybody can just point to that. It's not the most communitarian thing, but it's a way to bypass conflict and move on. Now the particular reason half of the people are up in arms here is that it's stifling to know that you could lose your whole livelihood over a choice of words on (arguably?) your own time. On the other hand it's a choice of words that the other half the people deem beyond the pale in any context. It's a bit of a mess, and I'm not sure whether this will resolve itself on a useful standard that a lawyer can point to, much less what that standard might be.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      > I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Being fair, being open, being honest isn't being "robotic". Treating people like more than something to exploit and throw away is what I would consider "robotic". The constant "it's a private company, brain off", that's what is robotic. > Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you. Yeah, people. Not necessarily adult people. Take this man, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw Do you honestly think you know or have anything he doesn't? Wouldn't you rather think it's the other way around? If you stand aside as mobs try to kill free speech on the internet, you're banking on them winning, on there never being a time where, if you can't show clear proof that you resisted, nobody wanting to work with you. I doubt you would just say "fair enough". I don't think you'd consider that a humane society just because the majority might claim it is. > If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship. This isn't just a vendor. We're talking about companies that provide services that really, realistically, should be utilities. You shouldn't get your water turned off for calling obese people names, or your electricity turned off for saying Hitler was right. That's a stone age level regression that not just shows a level of moral bankruptcy on par or worse of the views that are "fought" by these mobs, it also says that these views cannot be fought other than by fighting the people that hold them, virtually or even physically. It's undoing progress and re-introduces "might is right" as a valid ideal. That is all. If you use Patreon in 2019, you have a.) no alternatives, b.) no clue, and/or c.) double standards, and I for one will not be working with you. A bad standard is a bad standard, a person with double standards is quicksand.
- raiflip 8y ago
  Actually Patreon rules had explicitly said they will only kick you off if you violate the rules on their website, so technically Sargon was not even breaking their rules. The primary distinction between your example and what happened was Sargon was using the phrase in a context that made sense because he was talking to white supremacist, and turning the word against them. There is no such corresponding context for any tech talk. Certainly Patreon has no obligation to keep anyone. I also don't have an obligation to like how they choose to moderate their platform.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  > Patreon has fairly clear rules on behavior Wrong. There are no clear rules that apply to all, there's just very vague, wishy washy words that are applied differently in different cases, which is "subjective" and "case-by-case": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ
KaoruAoiShiho 8y ago
I don't really care about his choice of words, it's the hateful intent behind them that makes his views wrongthink for me. It's possible to use the n-word in a way that makes me think Patreon is overreacting but reading the context he's definitely beyond the pale in a way that goes far past verbiage.

apk-d 8y ago

Our descendants are going to be seriously confused by our practice of limiting or taking away people's ability to earn money because they publicly used a wrong word. Or so I hope, at least.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pavel_lishin 8y ago
> taking away people's ability to earn money On a single platform. Nobody's preventing Mr. Benjamin from making money; they're just not allowing him to use one specific platform. He's welcome to sign up for Hatreon, or to use a payment processor directly.
- apk-d 8y ago
  He's not welcome, Hatreon (first hearing of them now) was shut down after the payment processor suspended them. To the people downvoting: I stand by my statement and I've got karma to burn.
- harimau777 8y ago
  I think that the potential issue is that those other options are not realistically viable. In effect private companies have become the public square. Therefore, for all practical purposes, being banned from them is the same as being banned from the public discourse.
- cambalache 8y ago
  And when the new payment company bans him, then what? And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs? I tend to favor the smallest government possible, because I think private companies tend to do a better work in many areas (not all of them) so I dont like government intervening. But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple.

StavrosK 8y ago

What did he say, exactly? This sounds like a possible use-mention distinction problem to me.

darkpuma 8y ago
Good question. I've found a transcript published by patreon: https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi=fe9f9484291a https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi... It's... pretty vitriolic. I'm not totally comfortable with even quoting the redacted version, but here goes nothing: >“I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of n_____s, just so you know. You act like white n_____s. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.” >“Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f__gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n____r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me.”
- pavel_lishin 8y ago
  Reading this as a straight white guy, the slurs aren't as offensive as the whole underlying philosophy and line of thinking. Although I like that the No True Scotsman fallacy leaking through the cracks.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Was he espousing this philosophy or merely using the philosophy of his audience to say: "even by your own philosophy, you're wrong"? But "white people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another" is so counterfactual it's hard to imagine anyone actually believes that.
  - 8y ago