DarthMetalliCube said:
I certainly don't condone racism, but if we're talking in the case of Sargon, then it sounds to me like the actual statement (while crudely and inappropriately worded) was taken out of context if you look into who he was actually criticizing, which were the ACTUAL racists. I think he was just using terms in a language those people could understand, harsh as it was. Of course there should be limits, but outside of direct threats to the safety of others, I don't see how you can start limiting speech without inevitably going down a slippery slope of totalitarianism. Racist speech should not be encouraged, but I strongly feel that the repercussions should be organic - ie, let these people be criticized and hurt financially from fans/consumers directly by voicing their displeasure and/or refusing to provide income to these people, but I don't see why these giant corporations should act as the arbiters of speech and morality online. My solution is not a perfect one, but it's what I think is the most fair - simply let the markets decide accordingly and the voices of the people respond directly. These companies should be there to offer a service to those who want it, nothing more, nothing less. They shouldn't act as the nanny state. It sort of sets a troubling, Authoritarian precedent from where I sit.. |
It's far from the only thing this guy has done, leading in this direction.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/sargon-of-akkad-cites-white-nationalist-propaganda-reveals-his-alt-right-sympathies/
Sorry, but I don't swallow that he could meant those parts in a sarcastic or criticising way.
Those private companies have terms of service. If a user violates them knowingly, they have every right to stop supporting him.
