While I think Harris is sincere in his desire for free speech, I can't help but find it telling that the people he tends to stand up for the free speech of almost always happen to be pretty far to...
While I think Harris is sincere in his desire for free speech, I can't help but find it telling that the people he tends to stand up for the free speech of almost always happen to be pretty far to the right. Sargon, who was referenced in the article, literally got his career started by harassing women as part of Gamergate. There has to be better people to make this stance for.
Yeah, I am really torn on Sam Harris. I love reading his works on cognitive neuroscience and neurophilosophy... but his political and religious/irreligious views are really not something I agree...
Yeah, I am really torn on Sam Harris. I love reading his works on cognitive neuroscience and neurophilosophy... but his political and religious/irreligious views are really not something I agree with or can get behind at all. I honestly wish he would stick to his wheelhouse and STFU about most other things (similar to Dawkins and Jordan Peterson). :/
His conversation with Siddhartha Mukherjee immediately after the explosion that followed his conversation with Charles Murray drove me absolutely mad. He continually insisted to one of the world's...
His conversation with Siddhartha Mukherjee immediately after the explosion that followed his conversation with Charles Murray drove me absolutely mad. He continually insisted to one of the world's most renowned experts on genetics that the Bell Curve was based on indisputable fact, and refused to hear Mukherjee's arguments that it was based on a flawed premise. I only listened to about four episodes of his podcast, but he seemed to have a pattern of listening to a single perspective on a new topic and then assuming he was now an expert in that subject, even in the face of a body of evidence to the contrary.
There's a fantastic antique word, "ultracrepidarian" which describes Harris' behavior. He is a very smart man, truly expert in several subjects, who assumes he's prepared as an expert on matters...
There's a fantastic antique word, "ultracrepidarian" which describes Harris' behavior.
Thank you very much for introducing me to that word, I love it. I also wholeheartedly agree about his lack of empathy, it really shone during his rants about the Vox editor and criticism against...
Thank you very much for introducing me to that word, I love it. I also wholeheartedly agree about his lack of empathy, it really shone during his rants about the Vox editor and criticism against him in general.
It's completely possible, and in my opinion important, to separate the scientist's work from their personality while still remaining sceptical as to the motivations behind the research. If...
It's completely possible, and in my opinion important, to separate the scientist's work from their personality while still remaining sceptical as to the motivations behind the research. If anything science is built upon a continuous process of picking and choosing what knowledge to keep or to discard, even when the source's moral character can be called into question. For example Sigmund Freud was undeniably a huge influence on modern Psychology, but some of his research has been pretty thoroughly discredited as pseudoscientific bunk. Or more recently people like Steven Pinker's work in the field of Linguistics is well-respected, but not everybody is on board with his political views.
Sure and generally I would agree with that stance. However when certain scientists also happen to be media whores who are seemingly trying to build a bit of a cult of personality around themselves...
Sure and generally I would agree with that stance. However when certain scientists also happen to be media whores who are seemingly trying to build a bit of a cult of personality around themselves like Harris, Dawkins and Peterson are, that makes separating their work from their personality and political/religious opinions much harder to do, IMO. Hence why I said I wish they would stick to their wheelhouse. I still have tremendous respect for Harris and Dawkins in their fields (neuroscience / neurophilosophy and evolutionary linguistics, respectively) but have very little respect for them outside that. And that absolutely goes for Pinker as well.
He is a pretty well renowned and regarded psychologist. And even his views on Catholicism and the Bible are somewhat enlightening, IMO, which I say even as an ex-Catholic atheist. Everything else...
He is a pretty well renowned and regarded psychologist. And even his views on Catholicism and the Bible are somewhat enlightening, IMO, which I say even as an ex-Catholic atheist. Everything else though? Oooh boy. What a misogynistic, transphobic, disingenuous, lying sack of shit (e.g. the FUD he spreads about Bill C-16) he is.
<3 Natalie and Contrapoints so, so much. She has rapidly become one of my favorite YouTubers. She is not only wicked smart and incredibly rational but also manages to be hilarious at the same time.
<3 Natalie and Contrapoints so, so much. She has rapidly become one of my favorite YouTubers. She is not only wicked smart and incredibly rational but also manages to be hilarious at the same time.
You're missing the point if you think he's defending anyone in particular - he's defending anyone who would be attacked for their speech regardless of their position (excluding true hatespeech -...
You're missing the point if you think he's defending anyone in particular - he's defending anyone who would be attacked for their speech regardless of their position (excluding true hatespeech - which is legally defined for a reason).
The reason for his defence is that, depending on the political and social conditions, anyone could become the one being squelched by the state or mob- i.e. People preaching for democracy in a communist state don't last very long. You're supposed to allow a free flow of ideas and the good ones to be chosen by the majority on their merits. Bad ideas are rarely chosen in a free society.
The thing people are missing is that some of the conditions have changed. Inequality has risen world wide and has made the situation for certain groups poor enough that they start to become vulnerable to bad ideas. The idea that some minority group is after their stuff or the reason for their problems becomes one that normally reasonable people might begin to consider. You only need to look at the rise of the Third Reich to understand how this degradation proceeds.
We currently have a very strange situation where corporate media giants (with their own obvious agenda) lambast or ignore ideas like social democracy regularly, and then others knuckle under to the mob's threats of boycotts because their platforms are being used to promote bad alt-right ideas.
The people have allowed these corporations to administer the public square, and in doing so have given up the constitution's free speech protections, trading them for vague TOCs that can be enforced or ignored at the company's (or by extension, mob's) whims.
The only good choice is for rational people to rise up and make good ideas prominent again - and they are trying to do it - the yellow vests movement is a perfect example. The vast majority of French are pushing for improved social programs/progressive wealth distribution and against austerity/corporate welfare. The media is ignoring the main group, and trying to sell the protesters as alt-right radicals who think "dirty immigrants" are the reason for their declining situation. Luckily, I think majority of French (and even the world) are beginning to see the truth of their situations.
I honestly don't see how you can say that with a straight face. Free society thought slavery and Lynch mobs were a good idea at one point. There is a reason why society does not want mob rule.
Bad ideas are rarely chosen in a free society.
I honestly don't see how you can say that with a straight face. Free society thought slavery and Lynch mobs were a good idea at one point. There is a reason why society does not want mob rule.
Honestly, I fully support these companies deplatforming all those who willingly spread hate. A tolerant society cannot be tolerant of intolerance. So not so rarely then, given NSDAP was elected...
I feel like you completely ignored the whole class argument I made. Just because a society is democratic doesn't mean its people are free. The Nazis took advantage of the anger/hunger in the...
I feel like you completely ignored the whole class argument I made. Just because a society is democratic doesn't mean its people are free. The Nazis took advantage of the anger/hunger in the streets and was were able to parlay that into a government takeover.
So now we're at a place where another potential fascist movement is on the rise and your suggestion is to keep people like Sargon (an opportunist) from having an audience. To drive that movement underground instead of keeping the argument out in the open where it belongs. You're just creating martyrs while 40% of the US is living below or near the poverty line and just two years ago voted an oligarch with fascist leanings into power.
If you were in the park and kicked the soapbox out from under a speaker you didn't like, how do you think the people who were actively listening to him would react?
I refuse to equate people like Sargon who actively, deliberately and willingly spread hate with "people I don't like". I wouldn't kick the soapbox from under someone in the latter group, but for...
If you were in the park and kicked the soapbox out from under a speaker you didn't like, how do you think the people who were actively listening to him would react?
I refuse to equate people like Sargon who actively, deliberately and willingly spread hate with "people I don't like". I wouldn't kick the soapbox from under someone in the latter group, but for Sargon I would kick the soapbox, him and his entire platform until he no longer speaks to anyone.
Again, I won't be tolerant of the intolerant no matter how many "free speech" or "vulnerable poor people" arguments anyone brings up.
I think you're missing my point. Harris isn't standing up for "anyone who would be attacked for their speech." If he was, then why did he say nothing and continue to use Patreon when they banned...
I think you're missing my point. Harris isn't standing up for "anyone who would be attacked for their speech." If he was, then why did he say nothing and continue to use Patreon when they banned adult content? Or the leftist group It's Going Down? You can argue that this was the straw that broke the camels back, but a misogynist who was banned for calling people racial and homophobic slurs is a really small straw.
My point is that free speech advocates like Harris usually don't stand up for women who get sent death threats or trans people who get their youtube channel demonitized or leftists who are berated or ignored by most of the mainstream. They stand up for the people who lead the harassment against women, who say that trans people are mentally ill, who concoct absurd conspiracies about anybody left of Reagan.
I'm not going to defend Harris' inconsistency on the adult content matter (or his ideology in general) but that's like saying people who advocate for combating climate change can't drive an ICE...
I'm not going to defend Harris' inconsistency on the adult content matter (or his ideology in general) but that's like saying people who advocate for combating climate change can't drive an ICE car.
I don't feel like people advocate for trans rights or against violence against women are losing places to speak on the subject, in fact I'd argue that those to topics are on the rise in the mainstream - even leftist ideas are getting a bit of attention.
I don't think that comparison fits in the slightest. I already said Harris isn't being hypocritical. He does care about free speech. But he only really cares when it's somebody right leaning who...
I don't think that comparison fits in the slightest. I already said Harris isn't being hypocritical. He does care about free speech. But he only really cares when it's somebody right leaning who gets attacked.
And those topics are on the rise, but the rise is from functionally nonexistant in mainstream discourse, other than as a source of derision or a thing to attack, to being a small footnote.
Here's the email sent to subscribers: This wasn't about solidarity, it was about minimizing exposure to risk.
Here's the email sent to subscribers:
As many of you know, the crowdfunding site Patreon has banned several prominent content creators from its platform. While the company insists that each was in violation of its terms of service, these recent expulsions seem more readily explained by political bias. Although I don’t share the politics of the banned members, I consider it no longer tenable to expose any part of my podcast funding to the whims of Patreon’s “Trust and Safety” committee.
This wasn't about solidarity, it was about minimizing exposure to risk.
Isn't The Washington Times owned by The Moonies? On a closer look, it was founded by the Unification Church, but sold off a few years ago https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times...
Isn't The Washington Times owned by The Moonies?
On a closer look, it was founded by the Unification Church, but sold off a few years ago
I couldn't find a better source talking about the topic of de-platorming from Patreon so this what the best I could find, but the reason I posted this is because I found it very interesting. The...
I couldn't find a better source talking about the topic of de-platorming from Patreon so this what the best I could find, but the reason I posted this is because I found it very interesting. The offense that Sargon that led to the banning of Sargon didn't have anything to do with Patreon. None of the content was linked to Patreon in any way that has presented to me other than Sargon uses Patreon and he said those words. My problem is that I see Patreon not as a social media platform or a content hosting/ sharing site but more as a financial transaction middle man yet they want to try and govern things that do not occur on their site. The actions of Sargon did not violate any of the Terms of Service as they were stated yet Patreon felt it justifiable to take heavy handed action to complete remove their services from him. This of course is only his side of the story but I can find no other information to counter that claim. I find this disconcerting, which is why I posted the article. I do feel free speech is something worth defending but the issue isn't completely about free speech. Do companies have the right to cut of services based on manifest observable behavior that does not even occur on their platform?
In this link Jimmy Dores ask whether utility companies can shut off someone's power or electricity in the same manner. As states before I view Patreon more a financial transaction facilitator so I think that that line of questioning applies. To further this, once Sargon moved to Subscribe Star (an alternative to Patreon), Paypal stopped service to Subscribe Star.
Here is the link to the podcast where Sargon uses the "N" word.
The quote the article posts cuts off the quote mid sentence as Sargon continues "... the way you describe black people acting, is the impression I get dealing with the Alt-Right"
I don't agree with his words and I don't know much about his ideal, though I have seen a few of this videos. I do feel like further context subtly changes the way in which he uses the word. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74llFWdeKNM&feature=youtu.be
Uhm, yes they did: https://www.patreon.com/guidelines#hate-speech [emphasis mine]
The actions of Sargon did not violate any of the Terms of Service as they were stated yet Patreon felt it justifiable to take heavy handed action to complete remove their services from him.
Hate speech includes serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or serious medical conditions. When reviewing an account for a potential hate speech violation, we consider some of the following questions:
...
Is the creator using racial slurs or negative depictions of a protected class?
I'm sorry, but what exactly would be "US-Left aligned rhetoric" comparable to a cis white guy using the n-word and faggot over and over again like Sargon did? Read Patreon's rules and guidelines....
I'm sorry, but what exactly would be "US-Left aligned rhetoric" comparable to a cis white guy using the n-word and faggot over and over again like Sargon did? Read Patreon's rules and guidelines. If you think they are somehow "US-left aligned" then we honestly have nothing more to talk about, because I see them as just enforcing basic human decency which the vast majority of people on both the "US-Left" and "US-Right" should be more than capable of abiding by. Apparently not Sargon though, which is why he was deservedly kicked off the platform.
Honestly... you have lost me with about 90% of your comment. I don't even really know where to start or what to address because of how hard it is to parse what exactly you're trying to convey. I...
Honestly... you have lost me with about 90% of your comment. I don't even really know where to start or what to address because of how hard it is to parse what exactly you're trying to convey. I am not even going to touch that giant mess about "black guys" and "wallets" but I will try to address everything else you asked in good faith.
From the section of the guidelines you quoted surely anyone who tweets out some "kill all white men" nonsense should be banned. In terms of UK equality law it would be a call to violence based on a protected characteristic. Are they? (Incidentally I have no idea, I'm just pointing out a flaw in your argument not taking sides here)
Yes, it absolutely would be banned on Patreon since that is "calling for violence" against a "race", which is clearly spelled out as in breach of the guidelines in that hate-speech section of it. Do you have any evidence of someone doing that and yet still keeping their Patreon account? If not, then what exactly is your point here and how does that "[point] out a flaw in [my] argument"?
Special protected classes of people is to my mind quite a different thing to protecting people from harm based on neutral characteristics. But they don't seem to define what these classes are so maybe it has the same meaning?
Your own government defines "Protected Characteristic" as nearly identical to what Patreon calls "Protected classes" and your own government's definition of hate-speech is virtually identical as well:
Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation is forbidden. Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden. The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.
Now compare that to Patreon's Hate-speech guidelines:
Therefore, there is no room on Patreon for hate speech such as calling for violence, exclusion, or segregation. Hate speech includes serious attacks, or even negative generalizations, of people based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, age, disability or serious medical conditions. https://www.patreon.com/guidelines#hate-speech
They are nearly identical definitions, so I don't understand why you are acting as if Patreon is somehow out of line in their approach when your own government uses a virtually identical definition, criteria and approach.
If patreon et all actually want to appear neutral surely they can dig up some leftie nutters and ban them too? A quick google suggests they haven't, seems weird, hell there are plenty of left aligned anti-semites out there.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you can not find any instances of them banning "left aligned" creators who spouted "anti-semitic" remarks does not mean they haven't done so. Now, if you were to actually find any "left aligned anti-semite" creators on Patreon who are still on the platform and you reported them but Patreon fails to remove them, that actually would be evidence of hypocrisy. But you haven't.
https://youtu.be/ofpbDgCj9rw In this interview with the CEO of the company, the CEO explicitly says they do not use the activities on other platforms when determining violation of terms. He even...
https://youtu.be/ofpbDgCj9rw
In this interview with the CEO of the company, the CEO explicitly says they do not use the activities on other platforms when determining violation of terms. He even gives an example of content on Twitter content would not be subject to these terms.
I do appreciate the information you've given me though. I am still not familiar with the whole situation but am interested as I do use the site in funding a person that streams on twitch. As stated I don't much about Sargon other than this incident but I was more interested in Patreon's reaction to the situation and whether I agree with it or not.
So in your view was it the fact that it was a podcast/ collaboration in which these things were said that led to the ban or who he have been banned if a private recorded conversation in which he used the same language was made public.
The point where he talks about content policy is 9:15. The point where he says they build a system of warnings to warn creators before just out right cutting them off from the site is at 35:00.
The point where he talks about content policy is 9:15.
The point where he says they build a system of warnings to warn creators before just out right cutting them off from the site is at 35:00.
I don't feel this qualifies as hate speech and the quote still refers to activity on Patreon. I'm not okay with services governing behavior and refusing service due to what they view as none...
I don't feel this qualifies as hate speech and the quote still refers to activity on Patreon. I'm not okay with services governing behavior and refusing service due to what they view as none acceptable general behavior. Just like I wouldn't agree with a store refusing service of a person because historical behavior not occurring on their property.
Sorry for the ugly Editting and double reply. It just takes me some time to do these things and you had already replied to my original prior to this edit
Jack separated the policy in to mutliple sections when he was talking about it. For the purposes we are discussing section one which governs activities on Patreon and section two which gives...
Jack separated the policy in to mutliple sections when he was talking about it. For the purposes we are discussing section one which governs activities on Patreon and section two which gives grounds for removal regardless of whether they are associated to Patreon or not. From my reading you are quoting from the first section that governs activities on Patreon.
I'm not going to defend the use of the language because I don't agree with their usage in polite or every day conversation. Name calling using them does not constitute hate speech for me however.
I'm not going to defend the use of the language because I don't agree with their usage in polite or every day conversation. Name calling using them does not constitute hate speech for me however.
I feel like there is a certain threshold that had to be reached to consider something general hate speech. Merely using language that is reprehensible does not in my opinion reach that threshold....
I feel like there is a certain threshold that had to be reached to consider something general hate speech. Merely using language that is reprehensible does not in my opinion reach that threshold. But how do you consider this hate speech?
I find that definition much too broad and far reaching to be of practical use in governing the interactions of the real world. By loosely applying that definition to the Lion King could arguable...
I find that definition much too broad and far reaching to be of practical use in governing the interactions of the real world. By loosely applying that definition to the Lion King could arguable be considered hate speech.
Which part constituted hate speech to you? His choice of language, his assumption that the Alt Right individuals were white or that they were racist or that their behavior towards him was in his eyes similar to the behavior the racial stereotype he assumed they associated to black people?
While I think Harris is sincere in his desire for free speech, I can't help but find it telling that the people he tends to stand up for the free speech of almost always happen to be pretty far to the right. Sargon, who was referenced in the article, literally got his career started by harassing women as part of Gamergate. There has to be better people to make this stance for.
Yeah, I am really torn on Sam Harris. I love reading his works on cognitive neuroscience and neurophilosophy... but his political and religious/irreligious views are really not something I agree with or can get behind at all. I honestly wish he would stick to his wheelhouse and STFU about most other things (similar to Dawkins and Jordan Peterson). :/
His conversation with Siddhartha Mukherjee immediately after the explosion that followed his conversation with Charles Murray drove me absolutely mad. He continually insisted to one of the world's most renowned experts on genetics that the Bell Curve was based on indisputable fact, and refused to hear Mukherjee's arguments that it was based on a flawed premise. I only listened to about four episodes of his podcast, but he seemed to have a pattern of listening to a single perspective on a new topic and then assuming he was now an expert in that subject, even in the face of a body of evidence to the contrary.
There's a fantastic antique word, "ultracrepidarian" which describes Harris' behavior.
He is a very smart man, truly expert in several subjects, who assumes he's prepared as an expert on matters far outside his domain. Literature research isn't sufficient for expertise; professional activity in the field (personal experience and tacit knowledge) is usually required for deep understanding.
Harris' failures of empathy are just frosting on that basic lack of humility and intellectual honesty.
Thank you very much for introducing me to that word, I love it. I also wholeheartedly agree about his lack of empathy, it really shone during his rants about the Vox editor and criticism against him in general.
It's completely possible, and in my opinion important, to separate the scientist's work from their personality while still remaining sceptical as to the motivations behind the research. If anything science is built upon a continuous process of picking and choosing what knowledge to keep or to discard, even when the source's moral character can be called into question. For example Sigmund Freud was undeniably a huge influence on modern Psychology, but some of his research has been pretty thoroughly discredited as pseudoscientific bunk. Or more recently people like Steven Pinker's work in the field of Linguistics is well-respected, but not everybody is on board with his political views.
Sure and generally I would agree with that stance. However when certain scientists also happen to be media whores who are seemingly trying to build a bit of a cult of personality around themselves like Harris, Dawkins and Peterson are, that makes separating their work from their personality and political/religious opinions much harder to do, IMO. Hence why I said I wish they would stick to their wheelhouse. I still have tremendous respect for Harris and Dawkins in their fields (neuroscience / neurophilosophy and evolutionary linguistics, respectively) but have very little respect for them outside that. And that absolutely goes for Pinker as well.
He is a pretty well renowned and regarded psychologist. And even his views on Catholicism and the Bible are somewhat enlightening, IMO, which I say even as an ex-Catholic atheist. Everything else though? Oooh boy. What a misogynistic, transphobic, disingenuous, lying sack of shit (e.g. the FUD he spreads about Bill C-16) he is.
<3 Natalie and Contrapoints so, so much. She has rapidly become one of my favorite YouTubers. She is not only wicked smart and incredibly rational but also manages to be hilarious at the same time.
That's exactly how I feel about most people, especially entertainers.
You're missing the point if you think he's defending anyone in particular - he's defending anyone who would be attacked for their speech regardless of their position (excluding true hatespeech - which is legally defined for a reason).
The reason for his defence is that, depending on the political and social conditions, anyone could become the one being squelched by the state or mob- i.e. People preaching for democracy in a communist state don't last very long. You're supposed to allow a free flow of ideas and the good ones to be chosen by the majority on their merits. Bad ideas are rarely chosen in a free society.
The thing people are missing is that some of the conditions have changed. Inequality has risen world wide and has made the situation for certain groups poor enough that they start to become vulnerable to bad ideas. The idea that some minority group is after their stuff or the reason for their problems becomes one that normally reasonable people might begin to consider. You only need to look at the rise of the Third Reich to understand how this degradation proceeds.
We currently have a very strange situation where corporate media giants (with their own obvious agenda) lambast or ignore ideas like social democracy regularly, and then others knuckle under to the mob's threats of boycotts because their platforms are being used to promote bad alt-right ideas.
The people have allowed these corporations to administer the public square, and in doing so have given up the constitution's free speech protections, trading them for vague TOCs that can be enforced or ignored at the company's (or by extension, mob's) whims.
The only good choice is for rational people to rise up and make good ideas prominent again - and they are trying to do it - the yellow vests movement is a perfect example. The vast majority of French are pushing for improved social programs/progressive wealth distribution and against austerity/corporate welfare. The media is ignoring the main group, and trying to sell the protesters as alt-right radicals who think "dirty immigrants" are the reason for their declining situation. Luckily, I think majority of French (and even the world) are beginning to see the truth of their situations.
I honestly don't see how you can say that with a straight face. Free society thought slavery and Lynch mobs were a good idea at one point. There is a reason why society does not want mob rule.
Honestly, I fully support these companies deplatforming all those who willingly spread hate. A tolerant society cannot be tolerant of intolerance.
So not so rarely then, given NSDAP was elected fairly and democratically by a free society. One Third Reich is one too many.
I feel like you completely ignored the whole class argument I made. Just because a society is democratic doesn't mean its people are free. The Nazis took advantage of the anger/hunger in the streets and
waswere able to parlay that into a government takeover.So now we're at a place where another potential fascist movement is on the rise and your suggestion is to keep people like Sargon (an opportunist) from having an audience. To drive that movement underground instead of keeping the argument out in the open where it belongs. You're just creating martyrs while 40% of the US is living below or near the poverty line and just two years ago voted an oligarch with fascist leanings into power.
If you were in the park and kicked the soapbox out from under a speaker you didn't like, how do you think the people who were actively listening to him would react?
I refuse to equate people like Sargon who actively, deliberately and willingly spread hate with "people I don't like". I wouldn't kick the soapbox from under someone in the latter group, but for Sargon I would kick the soapbox, him and his entire platform until he no longer speaks to anyone.
Again, I won't be tolerant of the intolerant no matter how many "free speech" or "vulnerable poor people" arguments anyone brings up.
I think you're missing my point. Harris isn't standing up for "anyone who would be attacked for their speech." If he was, then why did he say nothing and continue to use Patreon when they banned adult content? Or the leftist group It's Going Down? You can argue that this was the straw that broke the camels back, but a misogynist who was banned for calling people racial and homophobic slurs is a really small straw.
My point is that free speech advocates like Harris usually don't stand up for women who get sent death threats or trans people who get their youtube channel demonitized or leftists who are berated or ignored by most of the mainstream. They stand up for the people who lead the harassment against women, who say that trans people are mentally ill, who concoct absurd conspiracies about anybody left of Reagan.
I'm not going to defend Harris' inconsistency on the adult content matter (or his ideology in general) but that's like saying people who advocate for combating climate change can't drive an ICE car.
I don't feel like people advocate for trans rights or against violence against women are losing places to speak on the subject, in fact I'd argue that those to topics are on the rise in the mainstream - even leftist ideas are getting a bit of attention.
I don't think that comparison fits in the slightest. I already said Harris isn't being hypocritical. He does care about free speech. But he only really cares when it's somebody right leaning who gets attacked.
And those topics are on the rise, but the rise is from functionally nonexistant in mainstream discourse, other than as a source of derision or a thing to attack, to being a small footnote.
Here's the email sent to subscribers:
This wasn't about solidarity, it was about minimizing exposure to risk.
Isn't The Washington Times owned by The Moonies?
On a closer look, it was founded by the Unification Church, but sold off a few years ago
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Washington_Times
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Washington_Times
I still think of the Washington Times as the "Moonie Paper". :)
I couldn't find a better source talking about the topic of de-platorming from Patreon so this what the best I could find, but the reason I posted this is because I found it very interesting. The offense that Sargon that led to the banning of Sargon didn't have anything to do with Patreon. None of the content was linked to Patreon in any way that has presented to me other than Sargon uses Patreon and he said those words. My problem is that I see Patreon not as a social media platform or a content hosting/ sharing site but more as a financial transaction middle man yet they want to try and govern things that do not occur on their site. The actions of Sargon did not violate any of the Terms of Service as they were stated yet Patreon felt it justifiable to take heavy handed action to complete remove their services from him. This of course is only his side of the story but I can find no other information to counter that claim. I find this disconcerting, which is why I posted the article. I do feel free speech is something worth defending but the issue isn't completely about free speech. Do companies have the right to cut of services based on manifest observable behavior that does not even occur on their platform?
TheJimmyDoreShow: Sam Harris Drops Patreon - Other Creators Follow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGPgE_-2Dmk
In this link Jimmy Dores ask whether utility companies can shut off someone's power or electricity in the same manner. As states before I view Patreon more a financial transaction facilitator so I think that that line of questioning applies. To further this, once Sargon moved to Subscribe Star (an alternative to Patreon), Paypal stopped service to Subscribe Star.
Here is the link to the podcast where Sargon uses the "N" word.
The quote the article posts cuts off the quote mid sentence as Sargon continues "... the way you describe black people acting, is the impression I get dealing with the Alt-Right"
I don't agree with his words and I don't know much about his ideal, though I have seen a few of this videos. I do feel like further context subtly changes the way in which he uses the word.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74llFWdeKNM&feature=youtu.be
Uhm, yes they did: https://www.patreon.com/guidelines#hate-speech
[emphasis mine]
I'm sorry, but what exactly would be "US-Left aligned rhetoric" comparable to a cis white guy using the n-word and faggot over and over again like Sargon did? Read Patreon's rules and guidelines. If you think they are somehow "US-left aligned" then we honestly have nothing more to talk about, because I see them as just enforcing basic human decency which the vast majority of people on both the "US-Left" and "US-Right" should be more than capable of abiding by. Apparently not Sargon though, which is why he was deservedly kicked off the platform.
Honestly... you have lost me with about 90% of your comment. I don't even really know where to start or what to address because of how hard it is to parse what exactly you're trying to convey. I am not even going to touch that giant mess about "black guys" and "wallets" but I will try to address everything else you asked in good faith.
Yes, it absolutely would be banned on Patreon since that is "calling for violence" against a "race", which is clearly spelled out as in breach of the guidelines in that hate-speech section of it. Do you have any evidence of someone doing that and yet still keeping their Patreon account? If not, then what exactly is your point here and how does that "[point] out a flaw in [my] argument"?
Your own government defines "Protected Characteristic" as nearly identical to what Patreon calls "Protected classes" and your own government's definition of hate-speech is virtually identical as well:
-Source, which is based on information taken directly from the UK Equality Act 2010 (Protected Characteristics defined there) and various Criminal Statues as defined in various acts; Public Order Act 1986, Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994., Crime and Disorder Act 1998, Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, Criminal Justice Act 2003, Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Now compare that to Patreon's Hate-speech guidelines:
They are nearly identical definitions, so I don't understand why you are acting as if Patreon is somehow out of line in their approach when your own government uses a virtually identical definition, criteria and approach.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you can not find any instances of them banning "left aligned" creators who spouted "anti-semitic" remarks does not mean they haven't done so. Now, if you were to actually find any "left aligned anti-semite" creators on Patreon who are still on the platform and you reported them but Patreon fails to remove them, that actually would be evidence of hypocrisy. But you haven't.
https://youtu.be/ofpbDgCj9rw
In this interview with the CEO of the company, the CEO explicitly says they do not use the activities on other platforms when determining violation of terms. He even gives an example of content on Twitter content would not be subject to these terms.
I do appreciate the information you've given me though. I am still not familiar with the whole situation but am interested as I do use the site in funding a person that streams on twitch. As stated I don't much about Sargon other than this incident but I was more interested in Patreon's reaction to the situation and whether I agree with it or not.
So in your view was it the fact that it was a podcast/ collaboration in which these things were said that led to the ban or who he have been banned if a private recorded conversation in which he used the same language was made public.
The point where he talks about content policy is 9:15.
The point where he says they build a system of warnings to warn creators before just out right cutting them off from the site is at 35:00.
I don't feel this qualifies as hate speech and the quote still refers to activity on Patreon. I'm not okay with services governing behavior and refusing service due to what they view as none acceptable general behavior. Just like I wouldn't agree with a store refusing service of a person because historical behavior not occurring on their property.
Sorry for the ugly Editting and double reply. It just takes me some time to do these things and you had already replied to my original prior to this edit
Jack separated the policy in to mutliple sections when he was talking about it. For the purposes we are discussing section one which governs activities on Patreon and section two which gives grounds for removal regardless of whether they are associated to Patreon or not. From my reading you are quoting from the first section that governs activities on Patreon.
I'm not going to defend the use of the language because I don't agree with their usage in polite or every day conversation. Name calling using them does not constitute hate speech for me however.
Shouting racial slurs at someone doesn't count as hate speech? Could you expand upon this idea for me a little?
I feel like there is a certain threshold that had to be reached to consider something general hate speech. Merely using language that is reprehensible does not in my opinion reach that threshold. But how do you consider this hate speech?
Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race. Textbook definition.
I find that definition much too broad and far reaching to be of practical use in governing the interactions of the real world. By loosely applying that definition to the Lion King could arguable be considered hate speech.
Which part constituted hate speech to you? His choice of language, his assumption that the Alt Right individuals were white or that they were racist or that their behavior towards him was in his eyes similar to the behavior the racial stereotype he assumed they associated to black people?