6 ms·

I don't think anyone is calling for forcing Patreon to do anything. They are just looking for an alternative that doesn't behave like Patreon. It's like Free

I don't think anyone is calling for forcing Patreon to do anything. They are just looking for an alternative that doesn't behave like Patreon. It's like Free Speech. You can't just allow free speech for things you want to hear or it's not free. Patreon has chosen to not allow free speech, and it's their right as a private entity to do that. The market should decide whether or not to support this principle. Another company could come along and say that they won't discriminate against people based on political ideology or anything like that, and a lot of people would support that, even if it means the company would be helping projects they find offensive.

Nursie 8y ago
And that's fine! Great even. "You do you" as people say these days :) I'm not arguing that these folks shouldn't be able to say their piece, and shouldn't be able to get contributions from their followers, however hateful and misguided Just that the likes of Patreon are under no obligation to help them out.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  Of course not. I never said anything to the contrary.
specialist 8y ago
Why do all the Freedom Speeches™ zealots ignore all the other rights, such as freedom of association?
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  Obviously someone hasn't thought this through. If you can discriminate against someone based on their political views, or even ... "something they once said" -which seems to be the substance of all this patreon deplatforming and nazi-calling, you can do so based on their race, sexual habits, color of their shirt, gender, religious identity, ethnicity, cut of their jib, or what city they live in. So, like, welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the south under segregation. FWIIW someone like Ron Paul who is a "freedom speeches zealot" agrees with you that the whole public accommodation thing violates the rights of businesses.
  - dwild 8y ago
    > welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants You don't control your gender, you don't control your sexual orientation, you don't control your race, you don't control where you are born, etc... Theses aren't the same as being a Nazi, which you certainly control. You decide to push racist propaganda. You aren't born with that speech, you chose to do it. You chose to hurt people with that speech. That guy that was removed from Patreon is free to use another platform for its hate speech and use Patreon for something without hate. You can't simply change your skin color to be able to go to a "whites only" restaurants. Would you mind if instead Patreon was removing videos showing a murder? What about child pornography? I'm curious to know where's your line.
  - specialist 8y ago
    Uh huh. Because I'm a moron. Freedom Speeches™ is just like weaponizing the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) to protect corporations. I have to tolerate racists, pedophiles, rapists, thieves because corporatists have feelings too. When we have to tolerate intolerance, everything falls apart. "So, like, welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the south under segregation." Uh huh. Punching up vs punching down. It's about the power imbalance. These specious false equivalence arguments always ignore the context. When Freedom Markets™ zealots (like Ron Paul) weaponize the Bill of Rights, it's in the service of corporations, not people. Lastly, you're equating intrinsic traits (gender, ethnicity) with learned behavior (hate, intolerance). Nice. PS- WTF is "deplatforming"? The SJWs definitely don't have a monopoly on learned victimhood.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      "Punching up/down" is not a legal principle; thank goodness, though it sure looks like Patreon is punching down at marginal figures. Nor are "intrinsic traits" any kind of legal principle. Nor are religions, ethnies, language choice, sexual habits, anything any more intrinsic than political beliefs, not that this matters as a legal principle. Your views as to what is good or bad are not absolute, and, I hate to break it to you, there is no legal principle behind them other than that which used to back up blasphemy laws. We decided as a society in the 1960s that there's no such thing as blasphemy, and that providing a public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who isn't violating the law. Yes I agree with you, people like you and Ron Paul attempt to weaponize civil rights at the service of corporations, not people. Look at you telling me that Patreon has every right to deny service to people you disagree with. I'm pretty sure if they denied service to, say, atheists, you'd change your mind!
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  I have no idea what you're trying to say.

Nursie 8y ago

And that's fine! Great even. "You do you" as people say these days :) I'm not arguing that these folks shouldn't be able to say their piece, and shouldn't be able to get contributions from their followers, however hateful and misguided Just that the likes of Patreon are under no obligation to help them out.

ConceptJunkie 8y ago
Of course not. I never said anything to the contrary.

specialist 8y ago

Why do all the Freedom Speeches™ zealots ignore all the other rights, such as freedom of association?

scottlocklin 8y ago
Obviously someone hasn't thought this through. If you can discriminate against someone based on their political views, or even ... "something they once said" -which seems to be the substance of all this patreon deplatforming and nazi-calling, you can do so based on their race, sexual habits, color of their shirt, gender, religious identity, ethnicity, cut of their jib, or what city they live in. So, like, welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the south under segregation. FWIIW someone like Ron Paul who is a "freedom speeches zealot" agrees with you that the whole public accommodation thing violates the rights of businesses.
- dwild 8y ago
  > welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants You don't control your gender, you don't control your sexual orientation, you don't control your race, you don't control where you are born, etc... Theses aren't the same as being a Nazi, which you certainly control. You decide to push racist propaganda. You aren't born with that speech, you chose to do it. You chose to hurt people with that speech. That guy that was removed from Patreon is free to use another platform for its hate speech and use Patreon for something without hate. You can't simply change your skin color to be able to go to a "whites only" restaurants. Would you mind if instead Patreon was removing videos showing a murder? What about child pornography? I'm curious to know where's your line.
- specialist 8y ago
  Uh huh. Because I'm a moron. Freedom Speeches™ is just like weaponizing the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) to protect corporations. I have to tolerate racists, pedophiles, rapists, thieves because corporatists have feelings too. When we have to tolerate intolerance, everything falls apart. "So, like, welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the south under segregation." Uh huh. Punching up vs punching down. It's about the power imbalance. These specious false equivalence arguments always ignore the context. When Freedom Markets™ zealots (like Ron Paul) weaponize the Bill of Rights, it's in the service of corporations, not people. Lastly, you're equating intrinsic traits (gender, ethnicity) with learned behavior (hate, intolerance). Nice. PS- WTF is "deplatforming"? The SJWs definitely don't have a monopoly on learned victimhood.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    "Punching up/down" is not a legal principle; thank goodness, though it sure looks like Patreon is punching down at marginal figures. Nor are "intrinsic traits" any kind of legal principle. Nor are religions, ethnies, language choice, sexual habits, anything any more intrinsic than political beliefs, not that this matters as a legal principle. Your views as to what is good or bad are not absolute, and, I hate to break it to you, there is no legal principle behind them other than that which used to back up blasphemy laws. We decided as a society in the 1960s that there's no such thing as blasphemy, and that providing a public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who isn't violating the law. Yes I agree with you, people like you and Ron Paul attempt to weaponize civil rights at the service of corporations, not people. Look at you telling me that Patreon has every right to deny service to people you disagree with. I'm pretty sure if they denied service to, say, atheists, you'd change your mind!
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
I have no idea what you're trying to say.