That tirade isn't any sort of reasoned political argument, it's a hate-laden diatribe showing off some awful underlying attitudes.
It's not 'enforcing morality', it's deciding not to do business with someone. That individual can do what they like, free speech is preserved, but they have no god-given right to use someone else's platform to raise money.
They have mostly lost this influence and power, only to be replaced by something equally distasteful, your explanation not withstanding. You sound exactly like the supporters. Sure the details differ, but you've nailed down the "ends justify the means" spin, just like every other movement that wants to push their world view and morality. The kicker is the whole "it's not enforcing morality" or defending a world view schtik. It's deciding not to do business with various groups of people, under pressure from other groups of people. As a JFK democrat, and individual, I say fuck that. Good riddance.
Patreon runs a business. You'd force them to do business with people they have no desire to do business with. You're the authoritarian in that picture. There's no reason to think that there's any mysterious group forcing Patreon to act.
I'm neither of the right nor the left, this is a choice of the business, they chose not to do business with someone being actively hateful. Not someone taking a political stance, but someone spewing out prejudice, hatred and bile. I fully support them.
(I cannot reply to the below, being rate limited. The cake thing is discrimination on who someone is, not what they do. Different things. And this is hardly a freedom of speech issue, nobody is denying them the ability to express themselves, I am not obligated to bring you lemonade and let you shout hatred from my front yard in the name of FoS. )
It's like Free Speech. You can't just allow free speech for things you want to hear or it's not free.
Patreon has chosen to not allow free speech, and it's their right as a private entity to do that. The market should decide whether or not to support this principle.
Another company could come along and say that they won't discriminate against people based on political ideology or anything like that, and a lot of people would support that, even if it means the company would be helping projects they find offensive.
If you can discriminate against someone based on their political views, or even ... "something they once said" -which seems to be the substance of all this patreon deplatforming and nazi-calling, you can do so based on their race, sexual habits, color of their shirt, gender, religious identity, ethnicity, cut of their jib, or what city they live in. So, like, welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the south under segregation.
FWIIW someone like Ron Paul who is a "freedom speeches zealot" agrees with you that the whole public accommodation thing violates the rights of businesses.
Freedom Speeches™ is just like weaponizing the 14th amendment (equal protection clause) to protect corporations. I have to tolerate racists, pedophiles, rapists, thieves because corporatists have feelings too.
When we have to tolerate intolerance, everything falls apart.
"So, like, welcome to the legal arguments used by "whites only" restaurants and hotels in the south under segregation."
Uh huh.
Punching up vs punching down. It's about the power imbalance. These specious false equivalence arguments always ignore the context.
When Freedom Markets™ zealots (like Ron Paul) weaponize the Bill of Rights, it's in the service of corporations, not people.
Lastly, you're equating intrinsic traits (gender, ethnicity) with learned behavior (hate, intolerance). Nice.
PS- WTF is "deplatforming"? The SJWs definitely don't have a monopoly on learned victimhood.
Your views as to what is good or bad are not absolute, and, I hate to break it to you, there is no legal principle behind them other than that which used to back up blasphemy laws. We decided as a society in the 1960s that there's no such thing as blasphemy, and that providing a public accommodation means you have to serve everyone who isn't violating the law.
Yes I agree with you, people like you and Ron Paul attempt to weaponize civil rights at the service of corporations, not people. Look at you telling me that Patreon has every right to deny service to people you disagree with. I'm pretty sure if they denied service to, say, atheists, you'd change your mind!
Corporations are people and have the right to speech, above all else, when it serves the plutocrats, hate mongers.
But they're godless oppressors of free speech whenever they refuse to serve haters, thieves.
Which is it?
Pick a side.
--
No.
Patreon is protecting its brand. No different than Apple, Disney/ABC, Hobby Lobby, reddit, Hillsong. What you'd call "discrimination", because apparently there's a shortage of outlets for hate speech.
I also noted that brands are a proxy for trust. If Patreon bans haters, that's a signal to me that they are the kind of people I want to do business with.
Whereas I'm voting with my dollars. If I disagree with Patreon's choices, I simply don't do business with them. What the Freedom Markets™ call the market place of ideas.
But apparently I'm not allowed to make such choices for myself. Because Freedom Speeches™. My bad.
--
Look at you, telling me that there are no ethics, morality. Just what's legal vs illegal. Aka might makes right, dog eat dog.
If you want a might makes right world, which, whether you're capable of understanding it or not, is what you're advocating for, you should at least figure out which side has the guns and tanks. Pretty sure it ain't Patreon censors!
I'm not being clear enough.
Those who insist corporations are people, but then get grumpy when corporations act like people, are hypocrites. Or worse.
All I'm saying is that so long as corporations are people, I will continue to vote with my dollars. (Call it a reverse boycott.)
We might be on the same side here. If so, my bad.
As I said, if some schmuck (an individual business owner) has to bake a cake with a message he profoundly disagrees with, because not doing so violates someone else's civil rights, Patreon (an actual corporation) can suck it up and allow people to make contributions to people who use harsh language on youtube. It's really quite simple.
You don't control your gender, you don't control your sexual orientation, you don't control your race, you don't control where you are born, etc...
Theses aren't the same as being a Nazi, which you certainly control. You decide to push racist propaganda. You aren't born with that speech, you chose to do it. You chose to hurt people with that speech.
That guy that was removed from Patreon is free to use another platform for its hate speech and use Patreon for something without hate. You can't simply change your skin color to be able to go to a "whites only" restaurants.
Would you mind if instead Patreon was removing videos showing a murder? What about child pornography? I'm curious to know where's your line.
"You do you" as people say these days :)
I'm not arguing that these folks shouldn't be able to say their piece, and shouldn't be able to get contributions from their followers, however hateful and misguided
Just that the likes of Patreon are under no obligation to help them out.
We're allowed to do that as a society. Or do you not want same sex couples to be able to get a cake? (half /s)
> but someone spewing out prejudice, hatred and bile.
This is called freedom of speech. Hate speech is still protected speech (at least in the US).