Adult Content Warning

This community may contain adult content that is not suitable for minors. By closing this dialog box or continuing to navigate this site, you certify that you are 18 years of age and consent to view adult content.

Intellectual Dark Web Dark Money

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Dcc001, Dec 16, 2018.

  1. Gravy

    Gravy
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    244
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    1,622
    Location:
    The void.
    You said it should be illegal to exclude or favor a defined minority. Ergo doing any of those things is wrong.

    Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m really not seeing where in your stated position it should be illegal for patreon or any other private company to tell Sergeant Arcade or anyone like him to kick rocks.

    Either way, I’m dropping this. Have a good one.
     
  2. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    336
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,107
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    In terms of hiring or refusing service. Saying, “All members of the Redeemer congregation get a free coffee with lunch,” (an incentive) is fine. Saying, “We only serve Christians,” is not.

    My position is that corporations are different from the individual, and don’t enjoy the same abilities to discern. Also, as Juice pointed out, the digital companies we’ve been discussing have vague, constantly shifting terms of service that are being wildly inconsistently applied.

    My ultimate argument is for clear rules, uniformly enforced.
     
  3. Clutch

    Clutch
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    407
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    3,385
    Is there a meaningful difference between giving white people a discount versus charging nonwhite people more? Most of the anti-discrimination laws we have get kind of confusing when you look at anything beyond the clear cut cases.
     
  4. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    336
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,107
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    I’m not sure where you got “charge minorities more” from my post...

    In Canada, race is one of the specifically prohibited things to descriminate against. Given that it’s expressedly forbidden in legislation, I would think anyone who did it would be risking a lawsuit or a case with the provincial Human Rights tribunal.

    In the “grey area” vein is gender. It’s legal right now for, say, a gym to offer services to women only. But if a person who looks like Frank Mir shows up and tells the desk that he identifies as a woman, he must be granted membership and access to the change rooms. That issue in particular is going to get sticky, because I’m not sure how you sort it out from a legal perspective.
     
  5. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    295
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,066
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I don't know a whole lot about collusion and antitrust laws so I'm going to tread softly here, but it's not so far fetched that paypal and patreon broke these laws in regards to the fallout from the Sargon situation. Not from banning Sargon specifically, but from Paypal's subsequent pulling out from subscribe star.



    It seems to be quite the grey area in the legal realm. Paypal and Patreon, as companies, have freedom of speech in much the same way individuals do. As such, they can choose to not offer services to Subscribe Star in the same way an individual can choose not to associate with someone. Simple enough, but it gets murky because if Paypal chose to cancel services to Subscribe Star because they didn't want them to compete with Patreon then it's illegal. Barring some sort of really blatant statement of motivation, how do you differentiate the two in a courtroom? On the one hand it's ok for a company to not associate with businesses and people they find unethical for whatever reasons, but at the same time it's not legal for them to deny essential services that stifle competition. To make it even murkier it could be conceivably argued that Paypal, as well as being an essential service provider, is also a direct competitor of both Patreon and Subscribe Star. *I don't think* that an antitrust lawsuit against Paypal and Patreon would win in court here, but maybe someone who knows the law better than I do can shed light on that.

    I don't see how a plaintiff would have a case on the price fixing side of antitrust laws, but they probably do have a case on the basis antitrust laws pertain to controlling output. It's just that, in most cases these two are typically tied much closer together than they are here.

    https://www.theantitrustattorney.com/elements-monopolization-claim-federal-antitrust-laws/

    T
     
  6. Nettdata

    Nettdata
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    1,752
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    17,419
    That, I think, is the key... I doubt very, very much that Paypal is considered an "essential service". Essential Services are defined by legislation, whereas PayPal isn't even considered a bank (which is why they get away with their shit service like they do).

    I tend to think that if/when an anti-trust lawyer steps up and reviews this it will be pretty obvious that this isn't a case of anti-trust violations, otherwise I can't help but think that there would be legal action under way already.

    It's very, very easy for a legal layperson to totally misunderstand the law when it comes to specific terminology like this.
     
  7. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    867
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,696
    Location:
    Boston
    Anti-trust would be having a Twitter account somehow prevents you from having a Facebook account.

    Think back to when Microsoft tried to fuck Netscape by packaging IE with Windows 98. It’s that brazen.
     
  8. Jimmy James

    Jimmy James
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    166
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    1,780
    Location:
    Washington. The state.
    Equality and equity aren't the same. Equity is only giving David a slingshot. Equality is giving David, Goliath, and everybody else in the Philistine army a slingshot. In a perfect word, equality would be the best solution because equality works when everyone is on equal footing. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. Until that blessed day comes where all races are equally likely to be killed by police, maybe say "n-word" instead of the actual word. I know it's difficult for white people to wrap their minds around the idea that your skin color being a disadvantage, but then again, white people haven't gotten lynched for allegedly whistling at a black woman.

    Using your example, I believe the problem lies with asking people who are either marginalized or have empathy for those marginalized people to accept the idea that it's okay for white people to say the n-word. People have used the fear of censorship as a bad faith argument to say shitty things to people for hundreds of years. Marginalized people and those that are empathetic to them know this, assume that this is the case regardless of intent, and have a visceral reaction to it. Rather than white people asking themselves why there is a visceral reaction, they ask those marginalized folks to explain that reaction. Depending on the marginalized person, they can either attempt to explain it (again, because you aren't the first to ask), or get even more angry because it is inconceivable to them that a white people has to ask why it isn't okay for a white person to say the n-word.

    Now, instead of racism, use any other topic where you might take a position that would generate a visceral reaction from the other side. The other side's reasons for that visceral reaction can be myriad, but whatever the reason, it will still generate that same level of reaction. One reason for a person's reaction might seem ridiculous to you, but your incredulity doesn't make that person's reason for reacting any less valid than any other person's reason.

    I realize that a lot of this comes down to how people in general react when confronted with something that runs counter to who they are or what they believe in. That's why constructive dialog is so hard. If someone says or does something that upsets you, the human response is to get defensive. When you get defensive, you lose empathy and an open mind, which makes you dig in even more.

    Societally, straight white people have been on top in western civilization forever, so it makes sense that they would just assume everybody's interactions are just like theirs. Now that marginalized people are becoming more and more vocal, straight white people are starting to come to grips with the fact that since their interactions are different from non-whites and LGTBQ people, they just might be collectively responsible for treating entire swaths of people like shit for no other reason than that they could. As a result, it's up to straight white people to do the heavy lifting in terms of being empathetic and educating themselves. Until each white person takes a hard look at themselves, this won't stop.
     
  9. Kampf Trinker

    Kampf Trinker
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    295
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,066
    Location:
    Minnesota
    The person being interviewed in the video I posted is an attorney and he is taking legal action. He's compiling a case history of antitrust court precedence and filing it to the FTC. Whether the case survives first depends on the complaint moving to a motion to lead to discovery phase, and then that discovery phase turning up evidence or testimony from Paypal, Patreon, and/or Stripe. That by itself is a pretty steep hill to climb, and I don't think they're going to win either. I completely agree that it's easy for a layperson (which I most certainly am with regards to the law) to obfuscate and confuse how these laws are applied, but I think it's an interesting development and I'm looking forward to seeing how it shakes out if for nothing other than sheer curiosity.

    That's essentially what the argument is. Patreon banned Sargon, who moved to Subscribe Star. Subscribe star is a relatively new start up in the market, who got a ton of press and attention within the (IDW, god I hate that term) community. Usually these deplatforming situations have been isolated to one or a handful of individuals, but that wasn't that case here. In a very short time period there were a lot of creators moving away from Patreon to Subscribe Star in protest against Patreon, or simply as a perceived lack of trust towards Patreon in the fall out. Many more professed an eagerness to leave for viable alternatives. Paypal and Stripe subsequently stopped servicing Subscribe Star, which immediately froze payouts, financially impacting all stakeholders involved.

    So, the anti-trust case is you have group boycotting from Paypal and Stripe acting in an anti-competitive way that benefits Patreon, and in a way that affects all the stakeholders, the content creators downstream. Within the niche Paypal by itself arguably meets the legal thresholds for 'dominant market share' and 'monopolistic power'. Combined with Stripe they're well over it.

    The immediate fallout from all this is spurring a growth in alternative currency, and that by itself is crazy to me. Whatever the legal ramifications, I don't think it can be argued that there isn't a concerted effort to shut down the processors and platforms that are being set up as an alternative, and the way it is being done is really toxic and fucked up. If wikileaks can manage to get donations while drawing the ire of so many governments I'm sure the content creators will manage just fine, but it's still profoundly sad and speaks volumes to what a lunatic space the current political environment has become.



    It's one thing for an entity to say "Hey, that's not cool" and kick someone off their platform. When you start to chase after them and try to shut them down where ever they go you're starting to act like a psycho.
     
  10. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    336
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,107
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    *edit - replying to Jimmy James

    So let me clarify...are you suggesting that word useage be allowed based on the race of the speaker?

    My argument isn’t that white people should be able to say anything with impunity; my argument is that if there’s a rule, it has to be enforced blindly. I have no issue with a network or platform expressedly forbidding certain words - they’ve done it since George Carlin’s famous rant. But to suggest that white people should be subjected to different rules because of white guilt or whatever reason, that’s ridiculous.

    Either a rule applies to everyone, or it’s not valid.
     
  11. kindalas

    kindalas
    Expand Collapse
    Experienced Idiot

    Reputation:
    13
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2009
    Messages:
    233
    Location:
    Ottawa Canada
    So it isn't fair that white person faces more social consequences than a black person does for using the N-word.

    It's like the social consequences of a statement reflects the perceived power of the person making the statement.

    It's why we don't take Tom MacDonald seriously at all yet we'll destroy a political career for expressing the same views.
     
  12. Juice

    Juice
    Expand Collapse
    Moderately Gender Fluid

    Reputation:
    867
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    8,696
    Location:
    Boston
    I understand and in theory agree with you on this sentiment. But in practice it seems to go further than hard introspection into self-flaggelation and mainstream acceptance of widespread anti-white racism. That’s not the same thing as just educating ourselves. That’s retribution and it tends to have a reverbating effect. Saying white people just need to deal with it is unacceptable. That’s a terribly unproductive approach for a society to take.
     
  13. ODEN

    ODEN
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    136
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,142
    How often has this occurred in recent history? Is this a pervasive problem today or are you living in the past?
     
  14. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    336
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,107
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    We have to tread carefully, because if the content of the thread becomes centred around racism or it devolves into one-race-against-another, it will be blocked and that will be that.

    The fact that it’s coming up, though (racism, I mean) is at the heart of the SJW warrior vs. IDW vs. Censorship vs. De-platforming issue. There’s groups of people that want to see policy change, or clarity implemented in the institutions. Then there’s groups that want to make entirely about race or classification and are unwilling to discuss the matter unless a specific race or group is named as more marginalized and acknowledged.

    Again, without devolving the thread into white vs. POC, I’m not sure how we can address the issue of censorship if the heart of the matter is being viewed through two incompatible lenses.

    Maybe this question will help:

    What specific policies or laws should be enacted to ensure that free speech is preserved, while at the same time liberty for all remains in tact?
     
  15. ODEN

    ODEN
    Expand Collapse
    Emotionally Jaded

    Reputation:
    136
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,142
    Sorry, I was just intrigued why he was conjuring up a ghost in an empty house, it's really neither here nor there in regards to this thread.

    Not sure what policies need to be enacted, if any. I think in parallel about the Cake Maker who wouldn't bake the gay cake. I think as a private commercial entity; he is within his right to choose where, when, why and how he provides his services. I think that holds true for Patreon/Youtube/Twitter as well. Whether or not it is a good idea to turn clientele away due to differing ideologies is a totally separate but entirely related issue. Generally, people seek out information and services that agree with their view. If one platform no longer provides that view, then people will go elsewhere, in this case they won't magically become liberals; at least I don't think. The consequences of this are easy to see; another platform will materialize that doesn't discriminate based on political views and those previous platforms will go away.

    I mean look, this is the concept of the free market. Jeff Bezos has spoken at length about the death of Amazon and that it is coming. If the richest man in the world speaks in no uncertain terms about the death of his brainchild that made him the wealthiest human being on the planet than it should be easy to see this concept. Time is finite, even for businesses; every decision made nudges companies closer or further away from their own destruction. The only question now is whether or not de-platforming of pundits of particular political stripes helped or hurt these companies. I personally lean towards the free market principles of allowing the market to decide and staying out of it.
     
  16. Dcc001

    Dcc001
    Expand Collapse
    New Bitch On Top

    Reputation:
    336
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    4,107
    Location:
    Sarnia, Ontario
    Timely post that confirms some ideas already discussed: