I think this has the potential to be a major turning point and will be something that is looked back upon in the future. For quite a while now, many of the Silicon Valley tech companies have had a bias against conservative voices. While they are private businesses and are within their rights to do what they want to with their platforms, it sets a dangerous precedent as you can see the near monopoly companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and even Patreon have. More on that in a minute.

As for Sargon, I have watched a lot of his content and in my opinion he is not a racist. While the things he said were inarticulate and poorly chosen in the stream that Patreon is referencing as the reason they are banning him, the context shows that it was not an overt attack against minorities or gay people. In fact it was an attack against the alt right. Sargon is very pro free speech and is anti PC. I believe this is what leads him to sometimes use provocative language to bring attention to the matter.

The things I have the biggest issue with are as follows:

1. Patreon has been very inconsistent with their terms of service. Jack has stated that the TOS is in regard to things that are part of your Patreon account, not outside things. Sargon was banned for something he did on another contributor's channel.

2. Patreon is inconsistent in the application of the TOS. You can find examples on Patreon of users using the same words as Sargon but with clear racist intent. Many of those users have not been banned. This is similar to how Twitter and Youtube will allow Antifa to call for violence and not be banned while their right wing equivalent is banned.

3. Patreon could have simply issued a warning stating that the behavior was unacceptable and if it happened again there would be a suspension. They also dropped the ball with the way they handled communication and transparency.

Ultimately these companies should establish guidelines that are clear and equally applied to everyone. If someone is suspended or banned, they should be able to point specifically to the rule that was broken and their should be due process.

I think this a great opportunity for a new alternative to emerge that can give the Silicon Valley companies some good competition. A platform based on free speech and equal opportunity for left and right alike would be quite welcome. The system works best when ideas from both sides of the aisle can be brought up and discussed in a reasonable manner. The only speech that should be banned is that which specifically incites violence. Everything else should be out in the open. If it is bad, lets discuss it and help people understand why it is bad. Context matters too. Joe Rogan brought up a great point about how people are now getting offended by sounds. The context in which words are spoken clearly matters. We need to look at the intention of the words. What was the person trying to say or do?

I think someone like Sam Harris taking the principled stand to walk away from Patreon is a big deal. He doesn't see eye to eye with Sargon but can see that what Patreon is doing is not good. He is taking a risk and leaving a lot of money on the table. Patreon will now have to look at their actions in regard to Sargon which seem to be motivated not by what is best for business but what is best for their political position. This move has cost them a lot of money. In the end, will they deem it worth the loss of revenue to deplatform someone they don't agree with based on a video from nearly a year ago?

You can oppose racism without becoming a fascist.

Good thing I never said Harris was banned. I merely relayed what was said, where it was said. and who said it.

I saw someone link Right Wing Watch as a source so I figure it's time to get some fair reporting from Tim Pool (Liberal. Former Vice Media Journalist). Stream where he discusses initial Patreon CEO lying to him among other things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgj4K_4uhlA

This behavior is nothing new for Patreon. Vice had lawyers attack Patreon to get Naomi Wu kicked off of Patreon. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FETt5JzufY4

Also, Sword and Scale, the 5th highest Patreon account has announced they will be leaving Patreon once Peterson and Rubin's new platform starts up.

To all the left-leaning types defending Patreon (a Silicon Valley corporation), I'd like to hear your answers to a few questions:

Why should a corporation buckle to an alt-right harassment campaign and ban a centrist like Sargon? The quote was from his debating of alt-right troll commenters , and ever since he debated Richard Spencer, there's been constant campaigns to deplatform/defund him. Why are you handing the actual ethno-nationalists and far-righters a victory by being their useful idiots?

Is it fair for a platform like Patreon to ban someone for a single offense, with no warning, while allowing other higher-profile individuals to stay with multiple violations of racism, calls to violence, and holocaust denying conspiracies? For the record, Sargon has done neither of these. In regards to the latter two, he regularly tells his viewers not to harass his opponents, and the alt-right types give him nicknames like Sargoy for "defending his Jewish masters."

Why should a corporation ban a female Chinese engineer (STEM), from mainland China, when the targeting is coming from U.S. based sources like VICE? If China has a censorious nature concerning Chinese women dressing in a manner more common in western civilizations, why should "progressive" U.S. corporations enforce dated sexist interpretations of female attire for a content creator posting to a global platform, who isn't even from the same country as them?
 
Why is it that every company/individual that becomes a contender against Patreon gets banned from Paypal and Stripe? Do you really think there is no Silicon Valley collusion to silence "wrongthink", and if there is, why is this justified? Subscribestar, a Patreon alternative is now unable to process through Paypal after the Patreon bannings.

Is it fair for Sargon, self-employed, relies on donations/ad revenue, to be banned for a single offense while a multiple-offender of racism Sarah Jeong stays employed with a six figure salary at The New York Times (has always and continues to work for massive corporations)?

If the Sargon banning is due to racism, then why are non racists (Tim Pool, Sam Harris, Sword and Scale, Styxhexenhammer666, Dave Rubin, Matt Christiansen, Wranglerstar, etc) concerned/contemplating leaving/actually leaving?

If Patreon's banning of Sargon is in violation of Federal Anti-trust Laws as some are now claiming, what should be done in regards to this specific situation and those affected by it (Sargon, his patrons, Patreon) and what should be done to prevent this from reoccurring?

Well it's fair enough that the company lays out terms of service, and if they're broken, then fine. As long as the rules are enforced equally across the board. They have a right to do that as a private entity I suppose. Doesn't mean I agree with it, or that many are going to want to put up with it.

I guess where I draw the line is if and when the powers that be start going after alternative platforms that DO want to have total free and open speech, like Gab.

I don't know much about Sargon, but I've heard he's actually center-left if anything, he's just a bit of a shit stirrer and utterly rejects PC culture. But I don't know, that article title sounds quite like propaganda to me, and I question how much they stretch the term "white nationalist" and "alt right". I mean, there are outlets that actually brand Pewdiepie this way, so it's tough to take MSM seriously anymore..

I think it's debatable if Sargon should have been banned or not, he clearly used the N-word to mock the alt-right but the "fagot" was kinda random, it didn't have the same context I think.
The whole instant could lead to the emergence of a new crowdfunding platform, there are already other platforms besides Patreon, but I don't think it will be a nice place for most content creators. With people like Sargon, Milo and Jordan Peterson on it, it will probably be a right wing, anti-SJW circle jerk.

I understand it can be considered racist but it doesn't have to be racist considering context, these snippets also do not draw a full picture from the full converstions it is pulled from. Also that last sentence about white people is not more racist than the recent trend of openly blaming white people for everything used by lots of lefty's and the N word in itself and the use of it is one giant hypocrisy in my opinion.

No, intentionally using the N-word does not automatically make you a Racist. There are exceptions for black people, in art, etc.

Look at it in this way, in Germany it is forbidden to use the swastika but even for such a hard law exceptions exist.

But if you only make a word racist for one race because of history and not by direct action then that is racist in itself i do think.

So we actually agree that the context is key here. Where we seemingly disagree is if a white person can use the N-word at all, I would say yes in certain instances