Hacker News Reader

Comment by darkpuma | Hacker News Reader

The real meat of the racist speech:

>"This month, the site’s moderators received a complaint about Mr. Benjamin, who had risen to fame railing against diversity and feminism during the GamerGate movement in 2014. Mr. Benjamin used the N-word and anti-gay language during an interview posted to YouTube on Feb. 7, Patreon found."

I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression Benjamin used that word to insult white supremacists, whom he evidently does not count himself among. It wasn't very smart of him to think everybody would be okay with it just because he chose the 'right' target.

View on HN

What did he say, exactly? This sounds like a possible use-mention distinction problem to me.

Good question. I've found a transcript published by patreon: https://patreonhq.com/hate-speech-on-patreon-a9026e52c2cf?gi...

It's... pretty vitriolic. I'm not totally comfortable with even quoting the redacted version, but here goes nothing:

>“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, it’s really amazing to me.”

Reading this as a straight white guy, the slurs aren't as offensive as the whole underlying philosophy and line of thinking.

Although I like that the No True Scotsman fallacy leaking through the cracks.

Was he espousing this philosophy or merely using the philosophy of his audience to say: "even by your own philosophy, you're wrong"?

But "white people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another" is so counterfactual it's hard to imagine anyone actually believes that.

The slurs seem more like a natural symptom of him thinking that black people act subhuman.

I see him throwing the slurs people in his stream are using back at them.

>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.”

He's saying that these people are acting in exactly the manner they are accusing others of acting, and he's using their slurs to make the comparison.

Yeah no.

> 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, it’s really amazing to me.

He's speaking from their perspective, clearly.

I think that's plausible but ambiguous.

It's about as ambiguous as whether you are a secret racist. This guy is arguing directly against out-and-out unabashed racists in the conversation. How much more anti-racist does one have to be in order to make it not "ambiguous" in your eyes?

I think that particular sentence out of context is objectively ambiguous, since that particular sentence isn't qualified with some sort of arguendo disclaimer... In context, it seems much less ambiguous.

There are a lot of people in this thread who are reading that comment as unambiguously racist. Maybe some of them are being intellectually dishonest, but I think at least some of them aren't. Generally speaking when multiple people read the same sentence and walk away with wildly different notions about what the speaker's intent was, that's an indication that ambiguous language is present.

You're uninformed.

The commenters said that "White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another". From what I can gather, he's not making that statement; he's throwing their own crap back at them. In other words "you people say that white people are better behaved than black people, but look at how you're acting at this very moment."

Thank you for posting this.

Talking about Nazis or not, I don't really think this is defensible. It comes off like some kind of intra-nazi scuffle.

> "White people are meant to be respectful... you guys can't act like white people"

This is a racist statement. I dont want to call him a racist, because "racist" should be a descriptor of actions and not an identity. Instead, he sounds like someone who has little remorse for making racist statements.

Oh, yeah, that's bad. He's not even mentioning the words, he's just using them against white people instead of black, but the way he uses them is still meant as an insult. Oops.

Context matters. The alt-right people he targeted viewed it as an insult, so he used their own language against them and framed them as what they define as bad.

Yes but it's an insult targeted towards black people. I'm not sure it had the impact he thought it'd have, since some white racist would just think "but I'm not black", and he just ended up kind of perpetuating the insult.

I mean, I know he didn't mean disrespect towards black people, it was just in poor taste.

I can't deny, that's uncomfortable to read.

Stepping back from my discomfort, and trying to understand the context in which that statement was made, the impression I get is that he's using white-supremacist stereotypes of white_people==good and black_people==bad against white supremacists. If a white supremacist holds a worldview that white people are polite and civil, and black people are the opposite, then it seems to me there is no more just and cutting insult to a white supremacist than to point out to said white supremacist that he is acting not like the paragon of white virtue he imagines himself to be, but like the black stereotypes he denigrates. The video clip linked downthread seems to support this.

IMO, this falls into the same bucket as feminists using the misogynist language of male chauvinists against them, or pointing out to a homophobe he's acting like his negative stereotype of LGBTQ people. That is, more generally, pointing out to a bigot his hypocrisy.

But if use of slurs generally associated with negative stereotypes is verboten, period, regardless of context, that worries me. There is no better way to take down bigots than to call to light the inconsistency of their ideas and hypocrisy of their behavior. And if someone who'd call out bigots can't do that safely, you've taken away a powerful tool for fighting bigotry. Worse, if you do it inconsistently, you've just handed bigots a powerful rhetorical weapon, for now they can point out your own hypocrisy to cut down your anti-bigotry position.

It sounds like he's also referencing the old and tired racist tactic of arguing that they don't hate black people, just the ones who are "acting like niggers", and turning that argument back on the people who use it.

(Also, the use of slurs isn't verboten period. It's still - so far as I can tell - within the bounds of publicly-acceptable discourse for people with the correct political views to refer to black people with the wrong, conservative views as "niggers" and every other slur. Possibly even whilst threatening violence against them.)

A clip was included in Sargon's first video about this incident: https://youtu.be/4ThPdCicEsg?t=238

I don't agree with his choice of words, and I think its kinda weird that he chose to express himself the way he did when there was a much easier way to go about making the same remark, but that said, it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking (to be clear I'm not talking about you in particular, but just people in general who think what patreon did was ok).

> it's simply amoral to try and cutoff someone's living and censor them just because the way they said something wasn't to your liking

Would it be immoral (or amoral, either one) of my employer to fire me employed if I gave a tech talk and started throwing the N-word around?

Patreon has fairly clear rules on behavior; they're not obligated to keep anyone as their client if they start breaking them.

According to what I've heard, those clear rules state that they apply to what is said as part of work that is funded by Patreon. This could be misinformation, though, and I'd be happy if someone corrects it here.

With that in mind, he made the remarks in question during a conversation that took place on somebody else's YouTube channel. It sounds like Patreon presumes that the guy's patronized work includes all public appearances. This seems like a stretch, or at least an ambiguity worth sorting out.

I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them. Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you.

If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship.

> Companies are run by people.

This is why lawyers have jobs. In a situation like this, the reasonable thing to do is ambiguous, and opinions are strongly split in half. If there's an objective standard, everybody can just point to that. It's not the most communitarian thing, but it's a way to bypass conflict and move on.

Now the particular reason half of the people are up in arms here is that it's stifling to know that you could lose your whole livelihood over a choice of words on (arguably?) your own time. On the other hand it's a choice of words that the other half the people deem beyond the pale in any context. It's a bit of a mess, and I'm not sure whether this will resolve itself on a useful standard that a lawyer can point to, much less what that standard might be.

> I'm not sure why people expect platforms that have ToS to be robotic about them.

Being fair, being open, being honest isn't being "robotic". Treating people like more than something to exploit and throw away is what I would consider "robotic". The constant "it's a private company, brain off", that's what is robotic.

> Companies are run by people. People get uncomfortable when you become known for spraying around racial epithets, and some are not going to want to work with you.

Yeah, people. Not necessarily adult people. Take this man, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORp3q1Oaezw

Do you honestly think you know or have anything he doesn't? Wouldn't you rather think it's the other way around?

If you stand aside as mobs try to kill free speech on the internet, you're banking on them winning, on there never being a time where, if you can't show clear proof that you resisted, nobody wanting to work with you. I doubt you would just say "fair enough". I don't think you'd consider that a humane society just because the majority might claim it is.

> If I'm using some vendor and find out that I really don't like what their public persona is doing, I'm going to reevaluate that relationship.

This isn't just a vendor. We're talking about companies that provide services that really, realistically, should be utilities. You shouldn't get your water turned off for calling obese people names, or your electricity turned off for saying Hitler was right. That's a stone age level regression that not just shows a level of moral bankruptcy on par or worse of the views that are "fought" by these mobs, it also says that these views cannot be fought other than by fighting the people that hold them, virtually or even physically.

It's undoing progress and re-introduces "might is right" as a valid ideal. That is all. If you use Patreon in 2019, you have a.) no alternatives, b.) no clue, and/or c.) double standards, and I for one will not be working with you. A bad standard is a bad standard, a person with double standards is quicksand.

complaining about words others use, not even using words to argue == nuff fucking said.

Actually Patreon rules had explicitly said they will only kick you off if you violate the rules on their website, so technically Sargon was not even breaking their rules.

The primary distinction between your example and what happened was Sargon was using the phrase in a context that made sense because he was talking to white supremacist, and turning the word against them. There is no such corresponding context for any tech talk.

Certainly Patreon has no obligation to keep anyone. I also don't have an obligation to like how they choose to moderate their platform.

> Patreon has fairly clear rules on behavior

Wrong.

There are no clear rules that apply to all, there's just very vague, wishy washy words that are applied differently in different cases, which is "subjective" and "case-by-case":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7hvZee-PQ

I don't really care about his choice of words, it's the hateful intent behind them that makes his views wrongthink for me. It's possible to use the n-word in a way that makes me think Patreon is overreacting but reading the context he's definitely beyond the pale in a way that goes far past verbiage.

Our descendants are going to be seriously confused by our practice of limiting or taking away people's ability to earn money because they publicly used a wrong word. Or so I hope, at least.

> taking away people's ability to earn money

On a single platform. Nobody's preventing Mr. Benjamin from making money; they're just not allowing him to use one specific platform.

He's welcome to sign up for Hatreon, or to use a payment processor directly.

I think that the potential issue is that those other options are not realistically viable. In effect private companies have become the public square. Therefore, for all practical purposes, being banned from them is the same as being banned from the public discourse.

And when the new payment company bans him, then what? And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs?

I tend to favor the smallest government possible, because I think private companies tend to do a better work in many areas (not all of them) so I dont like government intervening. But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple.

> And when the new payment company bans him, then what?

Then he'll learn a valuable lesson about what is and isn't owed to him in life. Why do you suppose that the world owes everyone a soapbox that dispenses money?

> And are you OK if Twitter bans all left leaning people just because of their beliefs?

I'd be miffed, but that's their right. For example, it seems like Tumblr is making almost that exact mistake, as did Livejournal before them. I'm annoyed by it, but in the end it's their court and all I can do is shake my head, take my ball, and head home.

> But when you have an almost defacto monopoly in certain areas (google, facebook, twitter) banning people who has not broken the law should be illegal, plain and simple.

Patreon isn't on that list, so I assume that your small-government philosophy allows for them to stop supporting Mr. Benjamin and his cohorts.

So would you agree with a new black listing in Hollywood for example?

A what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

The Hollywood blacklist—as the broader entertainment industry blacklist is generally known—was the practice of denying employment to screenwriters, actors, directors, musicians, and American entertainment professionals during the mid-20th century because they were accused of having Communist ties or sympathies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist

He's asking whether you think it would be reasonable to reinstate this policy, but directed against "racists" instead of communists.

Last I checked, Hatreon didn't ban people for this sort of thing. Let him go there with his basement-dwelling buddies; that's literally what it's for.

It's the capitalist way: if some private company doesn't want your business, go to another company. If there isn't one, make one. It's all perfectly free-market compatible, and well in keeping with the Internet's ethos of letting anyone set up shop.

Sounds like there is a hole in the market to cater to haters. Feel free to use my idea to become rich.

One does not simply use a payment processor directly. Stripe and PayPal both deplatformed within a week the Patreon alternative that the guy went to after being kicked off Patreon (SubscribeStar). Hatreon was also deplatformed by their payment processor, as noted below. In another recent instance, MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons [1]. Social network Gab is now accepting USD payments only by mailed check for their premium tier. Of course, the pioneer modern instance of being financially deplatformed was Wikileaks, who was deplatformed by both Visa and MasterCard for political reasons. I've gained a new respect for Bitcoin from this incident. If you can't digitally send USD to another person to do legal things, USD has a problem.

[1] https://twitter.com/Patreon/status/1029551216886341634

> "MasterCard demanded that Patreon kick off another person for political reasons."

If true that's disturbing. At a certain point you have to wonder if we're getting close to the spirit of Marsh v. Alabama (e.g the constitutionality of restricting speech in towns that are privately owned by corporations.)

> If true that's disturbing.

"Jihad Watch" seems a fairly obvious hate site.

What's a "hate site"? Anything the law would care about? If no, nuff said, if yes, why would anything but the law have to play gatekeeper?

What's stopping these people from creating a "MasterRacecard" and fulfilling their payment processing?

The card would need to get deals with banks and dealers, which it wouldn't get. So they would need to create their own banks as well, and then they would need to construct all supporting services for those banks as well...

I think you realize that this isn't doable.

> I've gained a new respect for Bitcoin from this incident.

This

How does Hatreon compare with Go-Fundie-Me?

The right to free speech protects you from being persecuted by the government. Patreon and any other private company reserve the right to choose their customers (and workers) based on what they say. This has always been the case. There are countless examples, even in the past, where companies have fired employees for saying things they shouldn't have.

The issue is Jack Conte said behavior that isn't on "Patreon the platform itself" wouldn't be policed by Patreon.

And here we are.

The danger is related to the centralized power of aggregators becomes close to the power that governments have over a single part of society.

Free speech as a concept has been around for a lot longer than the US government.

The problem is if free speech is effectively banned from the internet due to the internet being controlled by a handful of private companies, do we still have free speech?

Let's stay on topic here; being banned from Patreon doesn't limit his speech at all.

But what happens when Patreon, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitch and PayPal all work together to create collective censorship? Is your speech being limited if you're functionally blocked from the meaningfully accessible parts of the internet?

Yes, these are all private companies. In fact someone already tried to create an alternative Patreon (called Hatreon, iirc) that was shut down by Visa. Allowing censorship by private companies doesn't work if private companies control who gets to exist on the internet.

No, your speech is still safe even if Comcast cuts off your service. The internet does not equal freedom of speech. Just because the barrier of entry to Twitter or Facebook is considerably easier than appearing on CNN they are companies that can have rules regarding who they allow on.

If people are being arrested for what they are saying then that's censorship and something to be worried about.

What happens is what's already happening: These platforms start becoming less and less diverse echo chambers where only Silicon Valley approved opinions and world views are allowed, and people who do not hold those opinions or views go off and find alternative services, further isolating people from each other, into their own ideological rabbit holes.

We're talking about Patreon here. These guys are effectively selling their opinions; their supporters want to give them money so that they keep producing their opinions.

What happens if I try to exercise my speech by selling little racist caricature dolls? Walmart, Target, KMart and 7-11 would refuse to stock them. Is my free speech being limited if I'm functionally blocked from the meaningfully accessible parts of our capitalist system?

No, and it would be ludicrous to suggest that grocery stores owe me shelf space.

(Facebook, Reddit and Twitch are a different animal altogether; Comcast, Time Warner, etc. are yet another leve lremoved.)

No, the 1st Amendment attempts to protect this valuable thing in the same way that the 21st Amendment protects your booze supply.

Free speech is a much bigger, and older, idea. And can be seriously threatened by many small changes in our public culture, which need not have anything to do with Washington.

As I see it, a functional democracy requires tolerance of unpopular opinions not just by the government but also by society at large. I don't agree with these sorts of statements, but I believe that censoring them is harmful to society.

> a functional democracy requires tolerance of unpopular opinions not just by the government but also by society at large

If you insert "some" before "unpopular", I'm with you. If you require "all" before "unpopular", then no, I disagree - e.g. people who believe "LGBTQ people should be done away" with, well, that's an "unpopular opinion" that should not be tolerated and, in fact, should be made anathema for anyone to express.

That's because it has other properties besides being unpopular.

What other (I'm assuming redeeming since if they're not redeeming, why would we care?) properties could the opinion "LGBTQ people should be done away with" have?

This runs into the paradox of tolerance[1]. Net, when the things being censored are say, advocating for genocide, the harm they can lead to is much greater than not having people advocating for genocide.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Just because one form of free speech is enshrined in The First Amendment, doesn't mean that other forms aren't also good.

But then what do you think of the McCarthy era, when private companies (Hollywood majors) wouldn't touch someone who was suspected of communism, making it impossible for them to find work?

By your standards it's all OK, because it's not the government?

I don’t think they will be. It’s pretty easy to parse: these users don’t own Patreon; therefore, users whose speech they disagree with are not entitled to their services. This is honestly pretty well established. Patreon does not owe anyone a platform.

Sure, but it depends on how you (and the people of the future) view Patreon. It's true that Patreon does not owe anyone a platform, but neither does Facebook, or Amazon, or privately owned bank or ISP or mobile network operator. And you wouldn't really view an ISP or a bank just as "somebody, who sells you a service", right? There's only so much alternative when you choose an ISP in most of the regions, and pretty much no alternative when you "choose" Facebook. In fact, even if I don't want to have any business whatsoever with the banks, I can't avoid it. My employer just won't pay me in cash. And in some countries you won't be able to pay in cash for most services either.

And, by the way, although I'm more fond of thinking of Patreon as "just a guy, who sells a service" than as a necessity, there's not so much of an alternative for it either. AFAIK.

The English language is pretty large. There are a good number of alternatives to using the word he did that would be safe. He didn't have to use that word, but either did because he uses it often and is comfortable with it, or purposefully thought it would be a good use there. Both of which are questionable.

I'd also argue that Patreon isn't obligated at all to help him earn money here. It's not a employee employer relationship here, and they can choose to not to continue to help a person that they deem harmful to other customers.

Hopefully our descendants are more confused by how we failed to get society to a place that allows people like this guy to exist.

Typo: I meant “doesn’t allow people like this guy to exist”.

Society should chew up and spit out anyone who’s world view is based on hate and racism.

Seems like many went to SubscribeStar, more because Patreon pulled a Tumblr and purged the adult content than political reasons.

Maybe not. We might be shocked that people in Europe in the past got tortured or executed for heresy and apostasy, but we're not really confused by it: if your words undermine the creeds that hold up the power structure, you are punished. It's not complicated.

Our ancestors took away people's ability to earn a living, and sometimes much more than that, because of their ethnicity or sexual orientation. People can control what opinions they voice in public. No one is forced to make racist statements. I see nothing wrong with punishing people for their choices when those choices bring harm to others.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com