Forums - Politics Discussion - Sam Harris Drops Patreon - Other Creators Follow

Errorist76 said:
DarthMetalliCube said:
I'm definitely getting the sense that there will very soon be a huge power vacuum/market demand for platforms that allow for free speech (it already seems to be starting). Since platforms like Patreon, Twitter, and Google no longer seem to wish to provide that, the consumers will flock to others that will. If the people are not getting the services they are looking for in the market from a particular provider, they'll gravitate towards one that will. If there is none, someone out there will inevitably create one. The beauty of the free market.. I think people should definitely keep their eyes out for a platform that seems to be on a mission right now to make some waves - Gab. But who knows, the revolution could come from a totally different, as of yet unknown company out of left field.

People seem to think that Silicon Valley is infallible, but I really don't think they are. They can collapse just as quickly as they've risen up if they continue to get further out of touch with what the masses want.

I find it interesting that people think racism should be covered by free speech. It should not.

Then it is not free speech.  "Hate" speech is the only speech that needs to be protected.  Speech you agree with never needs protecting.  And now that the Left is conveniently labeling just about everything the Right says as hate speech, that word really has no meaning anymore, anyway. 

StriderKiwi said:

Sargon didn't even break terms of service. They banned him for made up reasons and for clear political bias and Patreon's CEO refused to speak to him concerning his abrupt ban, despite speaking to others (Tim Pool) about his banning, while still stating "we don't talk about other individual's accounts." Keep in mind, there are countless other pages/users, some more prolific than Sargon, on Patreon, using similar or worse language (Chap Trap House told viewers to commit suicide) without so much as a warning.

Only the most staunch, blind dems can defend Sargon's banning, regardless of your view of him and his stances. Patreon's knee-jerk reaction has cost them, and countless innocent content creators who use Patreon, revenue. Look up Styx, Tim Pool, or even non-political youtubers and such making statements of how many subs/revenue they've lost since Sargon's banning.

It was a stupid decision that hurts content creators using Patreon as a platform the most.

The Silicon Valley pseudo-religious elites need to be brought to heel, and if our government won't do it, it's up to us as consumers to vote with our wallet to bankrupt them.

I do not give a damn about what values a rich "liberal" elite pretends to have for political posturing, I purchase a service to get the service.

I swear the dem elites now have more in common with the Puritan Bible-thumpers of yore. And they wonder why Gen Z is the most conservative/Libertarian generation since the 50s...

Exactly.  The Left is getting afraid of anyone who is not Left, even if that includes those in the center or are Libertarian, spreading their message.  They created these platforms, embracing (or at least seemingly) the idea of free speech.  They got in bed with the government for legal protection on the grounds that they are unbiased, open platforms.  But, ever since they lost the last election, they have started cracking down, thinking that free speech is what helped get Trump elected.  Leaked footage from places like Google prove this to be the case.

It's why they constantly attack Pewdiepie, a more center-right guy, in the media.  Hell, Google probably would erase him from Youtube, if only it wouldn't mean a revolt by 10s of millions of users.  They already got a taste of this rebellion with their Youtube React, the most hated video on Youtube.  The media went after Gab, not because of some racist who used it, but because it was an alternative to Twitter that actually embraces free speech.  Now, they are going after Tik Tok because of your last sentence.  It's the new Vine, but filled with this new Gen Z, who is rebelling against their push for a strict PC culture.

Puppyroach said:
thismeintiel said:
Wow, people actually believe we live in a free market? Boy, that's laughable. If we lived in a free market, big companies wouldn't be able to lobby the government to make two sets of rules. One for them. And one for their competition. These big corporations are protected, and probably get certain breaks, for being an "open platform." Those same protections are not given to up and comers. And in a free market, we don't have bailouts because a company "is too big to fail." That's a Socialist idea. In a true free market, if that company couldn't cut it, either by evolving with the market or cutting spending, they would go under and another company would take their place. That is a true free market. Not one where the government meddles with you pretty much every step of the way.

@ OP

I'm pulling my support from Patreon, as well. They were just looking for any excuse to take Sargon off. So, they finally found a video from months back, on a channel that wasn't his, and only had a few thousand views, where he said that racists were the actual "niggers." The truth is, there are probably tons of people on Patreon that use that word in their videos, but I guess they are from a protected class.

No, you live in a mixed economy, just like most other countries. A completely free market works just as bad as a completely socialist system. But I don't see what that has to do with this case? Or is your argument that, because you don't have a completely free market, the government should force private entities to accept account that violates their terms?

Violate their terms?  Please.  How many people are on that site that have done or said worse in their vids?  Rucka Rucka Ali is on there and he says worse things daily.  The difference is Rucka is making edgy songs, while Sargon is spreading his own message and Patreon is worried that he may be effective in that cause.

Last edited by thismeintiel - on 20 December 2018

Around the Network
thismeintiel said:
Errorist76 said:

I find it interesting that people think racism should be covered by free speech. It should not.

Then it is not free speech.  "Hate" speech is the only speech that needs to be protected.  Speech you agree with never needs protecting.  And now that the Left is conveniently labeling just about everything the Right says as hate speech, that word really has no meaning anymore, anyway. 

 

No man...it's not "the left"...One just needs to be a decent human being to oppose racism, no matter what your political stance is.



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?

Last edited by Munn75 - on 20 December 2018

"There are things which, if done by the few, we should refuse to imitate; yet when the majority have begun to do them, we follow along - just as if anything were more honourable because it is more frequent!"

-Seneca

Errorist76 said:
thismeintiel said:

Then it is not free speech.  "Hate" speech is the only speech that needs to be protected.  Speech you agree with never needs protecting.  And now that the Left is conveniently labeling just about everything the Right says as hate speech, that word really has no meaning anymore, anyway. 

 

No man...it's not "the left"...One just needs to be a decent human being to oppose racism, no matter what your political stance is.

You can oppose racism without becoming a fascist.



o_O.Q said:
SuaveSocialist said:

You must not have seen the OP, then. Fourth paragraph in Harris states that “the company maintains that each was in violation of its terms of service” (and you are certainly free to review those terms at your own leisure).  The reason for the Gavel’s fall is on record. 

lol uh harris wasn't banned he chose to close his account

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



Around the Network

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?



Errorist76 said:
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.

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..



 

"We hold these truths t-be self-ful evident. All men and women created by the.. Go-you know the.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

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.



Who he called a N-word is irrelevant. It's the underlying connotation of the word itself. The word is a term of disparagement of the black race. Period. When used by the race that brought it into the English lexicon knowing and being fully aware of its function, history, relevancy, context...you then are ignoring the pejorative nature of the word and it is that willful ignorance that does not absolve you from being called racist.

To sum up....you know it's wrong and you do it anyway = racist.

And it's made worse because he is basically saying white people are superior to black people. He said a white person of poor action/thought is a white N-word. He was calling them white-black people. As though being black is a bad thing to be.

I can't believe we have to explain this stuff. This is why this shit has persisted for so long.

And this isn't about free speech. It's about a violation of the Terms of Service which I've already linked to. Further that, you don't have free speech like you think you do. Freedom of Speech in the US is merely the freedom from the government from censoring or denying you the right to speak. It doesn't mean jack all for private enterprise (which is ironic given how the right wants private enterprise to set rules as they please).



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Errorist76 said:

 

o_O.Q said:

well i was speaking generally, not about what sargon of akkad wrote

but regardless what exactly was racist about that passage?

at this point "You act like white n*****s" its pretty clear that he's not using that word to target a racial group, so can you clarify for me where you see racism?

I wonder...why didn't you include the whole quote in your post?

 

“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."


Even regardless of the wording, and using the word ni**ers as a swear word, you honestly tell me you can't see what could be considered racist about this comment? The last sentence alone is enough for me.

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.