4 ms·

Patreon hosts tons of youtube channels focused only on weapons including purely military ones, how to make guns more effective (aka better at killing), how to t

Patreon hosts tons of youtube channels focused only on weapons including purely military ones, how to make guns more effective (aka better at killing), how to tweak ammo to be more destructive. That's one fucked up schizophrenic stance, especially from US company in this specific conflict. Does Trump have any influence there by any chance, given his recent statements?

IiydAbITMvJkqKf 5y ago
> Does Trump have any influence there by any chance, given his recent statements? Interesting take to say the least.
ejb999 5y ago
unfocussed_mike 5y ago
Trump campaigners and other alt-right types don't like Patreon due to prior disagreements; they literally founded an alternative platform with a parody name, to avoid it -- Hatreon.
- Cthulhu_ 5y ago
  And how well is that doing?
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    I don't really care :-)
Jolter 5y ago
There is a difference to funding a gun blog or shooting-focused YouTube channel, versus training army personnel and buying guns for them.
- user-the-name 5y ago
  The difference is that the former is pointless frivolity, and the latter is, in this case, defending against a literal invasion.
  - Jolter 5y ago
    Exactly. My point is that they are materially different. A person may disagree with Patreon’s policy, but you have to agree that it is not in fact hypocritical (or “schizophrenic”) to allow funding to one but not the other.
    - salawat 5y ago
      And you, my dear pister, are waffling on the freedom to self-organize, and falling into the Kissinger trap. Soft power; Sickening thing. Once you have it you're responsible for everything. In this case, the U.S. trying to once again get entangled in another spat. Once you start binning which transactions are really appropriate to happen, you're de-facto making policy.
      - Jolter 5y ago
        Now you’re just stringing random words together. What is the “Kissinger trap”? The topic was the freedom of an American corporation to not finance warfare. There is no moral or legal imperative for them to permit their users to finance a foreign country’s military, whether that country is an ally or adversary.
        user-the-name 5y ago
        Of course they are free to do so. Nobody has said they are not. What people are saying is that they are cowards for doing so, and that they will from now on refuse to do business with them. As I am sure you can agree, they are free to do.
        salawat 5y ago
        The Kissinger Trap. As good a name as I can think of. Rule through soft power as enacted top down from a Global power. Basically "sensible defaults" as applied to foreign policy, as interpreted by diplomats. It leads to delegatory attitudes wherein people should cede agency to "the authorities" to broker things out and any type of personal agency being disencouraged or quashed. Works great when people aren't interconnected to the degree we are now, but at the cost of the action potentials being much more strongly gated and open to the idiosyncracies of Heads of State, rather than genuine support across the populace. Now you're faced with reality where funds can potentially be transfered somewhere they can do good. The reliance on a centralized facilitator is technically lower. It'll be interesting to see if the "Game of Kings" plays out the same way when the pawns can signal betwixt themselves more easily.
Cthulhu_ 5y ago
> Patreon hosts tons of youtube channels focused only on weapons including purely military ones, how to make guns more effective (aka better at killing), how to tweak ammo to be more destructive. This is a straw man argument unless you can produce some sources.
breakfastduck 5y ago
I mean you've had to do some pretty serious stretching to compare the two there. Essentially saying there's no difference between e.g. a video game store selling games that have guns in them and actual rifles. Come on. Basically the entire non US western world would find that absurd.

IiydAbITMvJkqKf 5y ago

> Does Trump have any influence there by any chance, given his recent statements? Interesting take to say the least.

ejb999 5y ago

unfocussed_mike 5y ago

Trump campaigners and other alt-right types don't like Patreon due to prior disagreements; they literally founded an alternative platform with a parody name, to avoid it -- Hatreon.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago
And how well is that doing?
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  I don't really care :-)

Jolter 5y ago

There is a difference to funding a gun blog or shooting-focused YouTube channel, versus training army personnel and buying guns for them.

user-the-name 5y ago
The difference is that the former is pointless frivolity, and the latter is, in this case, defending against a literal invasion.
- Jolter 5y ago
  Exactly. My point is that they are materially different. A person may disagree with Patreon’s policy, but you have to agree that it is not in fact hypocritical (or “schizophrenic”) to allow funding to one but not the other.
  - salawat 5y ago
    And you, my dear pister, are waffling on the freedom to self-organize, and falling into the Kissinger trap. Soft power; Sickening thing. Once you have it you're responsible for everything. In this case, the U.S. trying to once again get entangled in another spat. Once you start binning which transactions are really appropriate to happen, you're de-facto making policy.
    - Jolter 5y ago
      Now you’re just stringing random words together. What is the “Kissinger trap”? The topic was the freedom of an American corporation to not finance warfare. There is no moral or legal imperative for them to permit their users to finance a foreign country’s military, whether that country is an ally or adversary.
      - user-the-name 5y ago
        Of course they are free to do so. Nobody has said they are not. What people are saying is that they are cowards for doing so, and that they will from now on refuse to do business with them. As I am sure you can agree, they are free to do.
      - salawat 5y ago
        The Kissinger Trap. As good a name as I can think of. Rule through soft power as enacted top down from a Global power. Basically "sensible defaults" as applied to foreign policy, as interpreted by diplomats. It leads to delegatory attitudes wherein people should cede agency to "the authorities" to broker things out and any type of personal agency being disencouraged or quashed. Works great when people aren't interconnected to the degree we are now, but at the cost of the action potentials being much more strongly gated and open to the idiosyncracies of Heads of State, rather than genuine support across the populace. Now you're faced with reality where funds can potentially be transfered somewhere they can do good. The reliance on a centralized facilitator is technically lower. It'll be interesting to see if the "Game of Kings" plays out the same way when the pawns can signal betwixt themselves more easily.

Cthulhu_ 5y ago

> Patreon hosts tons of youtube channels focused only on weapons including purely military ones, how to make guns more effective (aka better at killing), how to tweak ammo to be more destructive. This is a straw man argument unless you can produce some sources.

breakfastduck 5y ago

I mean you've had to do some pretty serious stretching to compare the two there. Essentially saying there's no difference between e.g. a video game store selling games that have guns in them and actual rifles. Come on. Basically the entire non US western world would find that absurd.