Holy s*** Mastercard Has FORCED Patreon to BAN People

[z4v4]

Thats right, false flag operations are the big conspiracy right now. I'd say 30-40% don't believe the official story of Vegas or Parkland.
The banning and censorship of videos on the topic added more validity to the claims.

Well, yeah, when a bunch of dullards go down a path of inanity and a site decides to pull it for the insensitivity toward the people affected, conspiracy types will feel vindicated. It's called confirmation bias.

[BFast55]

Millennials learning that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to businesses.

Is this behavior that the left should condone?

[leafs43]

Is this behavior that the left should condone?

Only for stuff they believe in.

Christian bakers on the other had....

[z4v4]

Is this behavior that the left should condone?

Don't care about that. Read the 1st Amendment. It specifies government cannot suppress your free speech. Left/right is irrelevant.

[BFast55]

Don't care about that. Read the 1st Amendment. It specifies government cannot suppress your free speech. Left/right is irrelevant.

Citing the 1st amendment is a red herring. It does not apply to this situation. I'm simply asking you if this behavior is a good idea.

So you don't care about companies being actively discriminatory over political views? Correct? Asking for clarification.

[ImpressiveGainz]

LOL this is hilarious. Illegal to discriminate against people for race, sex, "gender identity", sexual orientation, mental illness, gang affiliation, criminal status, illegally entering the country, or being a Muslim, but it's fine to discriminate on the basis of political affiliation (only if you're not a Democrat), if you're a Christian or a white male, or if you advocate against abortion. What a time to be alive.

[z4v4]

Citing the 1st amendment is a red herring. It does not apply to this situation. I'm simply asking you if this behavior is a good idea.

So you don't care about companies being actively discriminatory over political views? Correct? Asking for clarification.

The only reason I cite the 1A is because everyone has been crying about free speech being infringed since Jones got booted.

Which companies are discriminating over political views? You can't defame specific individuals and call it discrimination when your **** gets pulled.

[Shortfuze]

But is it legal for social pressure (mob rule) to force a business to close its business with an individual simply because that individual espouses alternative views?

[ymer]

This doesn't fall under free speech, no one is denying them their right to their opinions.

However, this left is walking a very thin line and could horribly backfire.

[z4v4]

But is it legal for social pressure (mob rule) to force a business to close its business with an individual simply because that individual espouses alternative views?

It has nothing to do with alternative views; it has to do with money. If these alternative views brought in tons more revenue, then they'd tell all the sjw's to piss off.

[BFast55]

The only reason I cite the 1A is because everyone has been crying about free speech being infringed since Jones got booted.

No, most people understand that it isn't a 1A issue. Those who do are mistaken. It is also a mistake to hide behind it or use it as justification for the OP topic, as you appeared to have done in this thread.

Which companies are discriminating over political views? You can't defame specific individuals and call it discrimination when your **** gets pulled.

Don't be naive. I'm no fan of Jones, but he's been spouting his chit for years, but suddenly now he is too offensive to be on social media? Get real.
Using terms like "defame" or "offensive" is highly subjective. I also don't like the idea of digital mobs (or real mobs in many cases) strong arming businesses into cutting off certain people. Mob rule is not healthy for civil society. What do you plan on doing when this gets used against you or someone you happen to agree with?

Plus, why ban him from the internet when you could be doing this hilarious chit:

[z4v4]

No, most people understand that it isn't a 1A issue. Those who do are mistaken. It is also a mistake to hide behind it or use it as justification for the OP topic, as you appeared to have done in this thread.


Don't be naive. I'm no fan of Jones, but he's been spouting his chit for years, but suddenly now he is too offensive to be on social media? Get real.
Using terms like "defame" or "offensive" is highly subjective. I also don't like the idea of digital mobs (or real mobs in many cases) strong arming businesses into cutting off certain people. Mob rule is not healthy for civil society. What do you plan on doing when this gets used against you or someone you happen to agree with?

Are you really saying you can't notice when slanderous videos occur on Youtube?

[BFast55]

Are you really saying you can't notice when slanderous videos occur on Youtube?

Are you referring to legally slanderous, or in general? I could find any number of YouTube channels that could be considered slanderous to most people. It's all subjective.
Look I get it. Nobody likes Alex Jones. He is insufferably offensive to most well-adjusted people, therefore people are applauding the fact that he is being singled out. I'd rather side with letting people say what they want except in the most extreme circumstances. IMO simply being an offensive CT nut does not meet that criteria. I don't think this is an unreasonable position to have. Do you? (I'll ignore the obvious conversation about this validating Jones, and possibly getting him more followers) Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

This sudden selective banning/demonetizing/cutting-off of certain people should be concerning to everyone. Those who aren't concerned probably think it wouldn't happen to them or someone they know. Those people are naive.

[ymer]

Are you referring to legally slanderous, or in general? I could find any number of YouTube channels that could be considered slanderous to most people. It's all subjective.
Look I get it. Nobody likes Alex Jones. He is insufferably offensive to most well-adjusted people, therefore people are applauding the fact that he is being singled out. I'd rather side with letting people say what they want except in the most extreme circumstances. IMO simply being offensive of being a CT nut does not meet that criteria. I don't think this is an unreasonable position to have. Do you?

This sudden selective banning/demonetizing/cutting-off of certain people should be concerning to everyone. Those who aren't concerned probably think it wouldn't happen to them or someone they know. Those people are naive.

You can't tell someone is talking to a troll when they prepare well-thought long arguments and the counterpart keeps using one liners changing goalposts.

Just sayin'

[BFast55]

You can't tell someone is talking to a troll when they prepare well-thought long arguments and the counterpart keeps using one liners changing goalposts.

Just sayin'

Tuche, but this morning I'm in the mood to stand on a soap box. It isn't lost on me that I might as well be talking to a damp rag.

[EsB818]

So now if you have right leaning views, you won't be allowed to process payments related to your trade / business

Liberals will defend this

Libs: “They should just invent their own payment processor, teh free market breh, huehuehue.”

Also Libs: “Bake that gay/trans/etc etc wedding cake you Christian bigot!!!!”

[z4v4]

Are you referring to legally slanderous, or in general? I could find any number of YouTube channels that could be considered slanderous to most people. It's all subjective.
Look I get it. Nobody likes Alex Jones. He is insufferably offensive to most well-adjusted people, therefore people are applauding the fact that he is being singled out. I'd rather side with letting people say what they want except in the most extreme circumstances. IMO simply being an offensive CT nut does not meet that criteria. I don't think this is an unreasonable position to have. Do you? (I'll ignore the obvious conversation about this validating Jones, and possibly getting him more followers) Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

This sudden selective banning/demonetizing/cutting-off of certain people should be concerning to everyone. Those who aren't concerned probably think it wouldn't happen to them or someone they know. Those people are naive.

Well, even though the internet helps idiots and mischievous people to congregate and it's unhealthy for society, I'm not opposed to them having their voice, as a matter of principle.

However, business is business, so don't expect corporations to lose billions for your muh free speech.

[BFast55]

Well, even though the internet helps idiots and mischievous people to congregate and it's unhealthy for society.

This is the crux of the free marketplace of ideas argument: Either a) Society should decide for themselves which ideas are valid or b) Society can not be trusted to make the right decision, therefore some ideas must be suppressed.

I'm not opposed to them having their voice, in principle.

Not against in free speech "in principle", yet you also "don't care" about a person being singled out and silenced. How do you resolve this contradiction?

However, business is business, so don't expect corporations to lose billions for your muh free speech.

Right, like A. Jones was causing companies to lose billions. You give him WAY too much credit.

[z4v4]

This is the crux of the free marketplace of ideas argument: Either a) Society should decide for themselves which ideas are valid or b) Society can not be trusted to make the right decision, therefore some ideas must be suppressed.

Not against in free speech "in principle", yet you also "don't care" about a person being singled out and silenced. How do you resolve this contradiction?

Right, like A. Jones was causing companies to lose billions. You give him WAY too much credit.

Well, society has proven they cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, so there's that.

There is no contradiction. As a matter of principle, is just that. Call it apathetic if you wish.

Lol, I never stated that Jones himself is going to cost billions in lost revenue.

[BFast55]

Well, society has proven they cannot be trusted to make the right decisions, so there's that.

Your answer doesn't surprise me. The only real follow up question is this: Who gets to decide what society should be trusted with? Think carefully before answering, comrade.

There is no contradiction. As a matter of principle, is just that. Call it apathetic if you wish.

-Claim you support free speech.
-Thinks society cannot be trusted with certain ideas.

Yep, no contradiction there LMAO.

Lol, I never stated that Jones himself is going to cost billions in lost revenue.

Then your statement was even more insane that I thought. Who's ideas are costing companies "billions of dollars"? Do tell.

[Forty0zFreedom]

I pretty much got the Leftist tools in R/P to say banning someone from the internet in the US is OK because they can open a new website in another country. That's "Freedom" to them. They are authoritarian little statists at heart. Notice they all rush to use the "wedding cake baker" logic to justify this, but have no real honest principles about the matter themselves . . its all just "Take that, haha". Effeminate little snakes.

[z4v4]

Your answer doesn't surprise me. The only real follow up question is this: Who gets to decide what society should be trusted with? Think carefully before answering, comrade.


-Claim you support free speech.
-Thinks society cannot be trusted with certain ideas.

Yep, no contradiction there LMAO.


Then your statement was even more insane that I thought. Who's ideas are costing companies "billions of dollars"? Do tell.

-Well, not the people who flat-out make up ****. To you, that's CNN.

-Again, a business can tell you to piss off. You said this has nothing to do with 1A, yet you bring it up as a means to point out some perceived contradiction.

-If you have the specifics of all the ways youtube earns revenue and how those streams may or may not be impacted by certain youtube celebs, then show it, otherwise I'm not really interested in the cabal of censorship angle.

[jfcantu]

I pretty much got the Leftist tools in R/P to say banning someone from the internet in the US is OK because they can open a new website in another country.

If that's what you took away from my comments in that thread, my condolences on your reading comprehension.

[ParsleyTea]

When news web sights were writing about using banks to go after gun sellers, not allowing gun sellers to using banking services, it did have me wondering if it would stop there. As an example ~

"Banks are mulling a creative way to enforce gun control even if the US government doesn't make a single change"

https://www.businessinsider.com/bank...hooting-2018-2

"A New York Times columnist floated the idea that banks and credit-card companies could cut business ties with retailers that sell assault weapons and accessories.
Some finance-industry executives are already on board with the idea, the columnist says...."


Looks like the idea of using banks to go after others areas people disagree with has spread. It will likely continue to spread further is my guess.

Imagine regulation will eventually be needed in this area. Then again possibly separate banking system will emerge.

[z4v4]

I pretty much got the Leftist tools in R/P to say banning someone from the internet in the US is OK because they can open a new website in another country. That's "Freedom" to them. They are authoritarian little statists at heart. Notice they all rush to use the "wedding cake baker" logic to justify this, but have no real honest principles about the matter themselves . . its all just "Take that, haha". Effeminate little snakes.

Who got banned from the internet?

As far as I can tell looking briefly, Infowars is hosted in Denver. That's located in the good ole USA.

[BFast55]

-Well, not the people who flat-out make up ****. To you, that's CNN.

Exactly, it is arbitrary. Hence why it is a bad idea. Now you're getting it.

You also avoided my question. Who gets to decide for society?

-Again, a business can tell you to piss off. You said this has nothing to do with 1A, yet you bring it up as a means to point out some perceived contradiction.

Why are you pivoting back to a point nobody is disputing? You claim to have a "principled" stance in favor of free expression of ideas, yet are "apathetic" when it actually happens. How does that work exactly?

I assume you are also against discrimination on the basis of race in principle. Does that mean if you personally disliked a certain black individual, you would be apathetic if they got singled out for their skin color?

-If you have the specifics of all the ways youtube earns revenue and how those streams may or may not be impacted by certain youtube celebs, then show it, otherwise I'm not really interested in the cabal of censorship angle.

LMAO you're asking me for sources? I don't think you understand how this works. The burden of proof is on the person making insane claims, not the people who despute it. Ironically that is something Alex Jones would do.

[Ilikebeef]

Republicans rules:

Corporations are people.
People should have freedom of religion and speech allowing them to discriminate at will.
Political donations are speech.

Corporations are now using their right to discriminate that was given to them by republicans.

Republicans want to discriminate based on factors that cannot be changed and believe that is ok.
Liberals are now discriminating based on political viewpoint. Your political view is like smoking or being fat, you have a choice and so its not protected anyway.

Corporations now have the ability to discriminate based on any non protected factor, such as political view, because they are people and there is no law against discriminating based on non protected reasons.

Internet companies can have a TOS or a EULA that says conservative views are not allowed on the service if they want.

Republican companies can do the same.

Id say its unwise for any company to state their political affiliation tho.

[Doxx6755]

Grasping at straw eh

#triggered

Lefties turning into exactly what they hate.

[RamataKahn]

Who got banned from the internet?

The Daily Stormer did.

[redmelly]

Thats right, false flag operations are the big conspiracy right now. I'd say 30-40% don't believe the official story of Vegas or Parkland.
The banning and censorship of videos on the topic add more validity to the claims.

I believe whatever CNN tells me and anyone who doesn't, and tries to get others to question it, needs to be banned from making any money and they need to be shunned from life.

Question: why don't conservatives own any of these companies? Why is it that only liberals can take away a person's livelihood?