PATREON COULD DISSAPPEAR

[jabathehut]

Edit: after a bit of research I realized that this all started around 2018 but it seems to be going downhill for patreon in a bunch of ways.

Edit2: thank yku to whoever made my other posts forward to this one. Didn't know how to do that.

sensationalized clickbait, patreon will be fine. learn how to vet information before you choose to believe it.

 

[GeorgeHaufman]

So here is the issue I take with like everyone crying about their nonPC stuff getting taken down.
Listen they are NOT infringing on your freedom of speech. You agree to their TOS and COmmunity policies when you make an account.
The freedom of speech amendment is specifically written to protect citizens from government censoring. It is not there to keep you from getting kicked off patreon. Just don't break TOS??? In fact, it is within the company's right to ban you from the platform.

 

[LilithFairen]

There is a term, "get woke, go broke," and it applies to the companies that loose on this gamble. So far, I have heard of cases like Nike where their woke messaging caused them to break even on the result, loosing about an equal amount of business to the business they gained for their woke messaging with Collin Capernic. And, I have also heard cases where "get woke, go broke" very much applies in that they lost a huge chunk of revenue after "getting woke." However, these cases often also have other mitigating factors such as these companies that started to "get woke" already loosing money for other reasons.

See, that's what you've heard, but very rarely is that even the case.

What usually happens, as what happened with this Patreon lawsuit, is that the anti-"woke crowd" is just full of delusion. They actively ignore everything that doesn't suit their narratives, make up complete lies of their own, and embrace narratives espoused by their own side just to tell themselves they've "won" and that the "woke crowd" are being punished. It's to make themselves feel like their opinions are really in the majority, that treating people other than straight white males as human beings that exist is something the average consumer will punish companies for.

The obvious irony is that, as much as the anti-"woke crowd" pretends to detest censorship and stifling of opinions, they'll happily endorse censoring opinions they don't agree with. This whole narrative of "Patreon's gonna die!" is just a fantasy that a company is going to be punished for holding views the anti-"woke crowd" people disagree with.

If the anti-"woke crowd" crowd genuinely thinks a company disallowing Nazis to profit from their service is genuinely worse than actually being a Nazi, then why don't they create their own crowdfunding/donation outlet? (And I guarantee you that any "woke" people who attempted to use such a service would end up banned from the platform over contrived excuses, and the same people wishing for Patreon's death would happily defend the anti-"woke" platform doing so.)

 

[Kldran]

Is it just me, or does this "culture war" seem awfully similar to the "war on christmas" that's been going on for decades?

 

[Ace_Arriande]

Remember folks: private businesses banning / "censoring" things you like to protect / boost their image is free market capitalism working as intended. It'd be awfully communist of people to want businesses to treat everybody with true fairness and to not discriminate.

 

[thorbjorn42gbf]

Yall talking about the whole "woke" thing like its anything new for companies thinking they can just not do any work if they put in something they think the audience will like.

Tons and tons of businesses put out lazy shit every year, but when there is a black woman in it its totally bad because they went woke and not because they are lazy fucks who think that the black woman will distract from them not doing any work.

Its also interesting how wide the whole idea of "woke" is, like the new star wars movies had what? a strong female character and a black side character "Go woke go broke lol" if including that is woke holy fuck yall got issues. Comic woke include scary stuff like changing who play a super hero again, again, but this time into a woman/black person which is also like the wildest fucking change right? However will we live through the comic books making new people play a character, they have never done so in the past!

---

For patreon you can hardly call what they are doing "woke" like the large majority of stuff they are banning is directly down to the banks being puritan as heck, and hate basically anything with the word porn in it, most of everything else also falls back on stuff like paypal or the banks, sure patreon may have stuff they don't want on their site but close to all changes have just been reacting to banks/paypal demands to remove certain content.

 

[Jemini]

If the anti-"woke crowd" crowd genuinely thinks a company disallowing Nazis to profit from their service is genuinely worse than actually being a Nazi, then why don't they create their own crowdfunding/donation outlet? (And I guarantee you that any "woke" people who attempted to use such a service would end up banned from the platform over contrived excuses, and the same people wishing for Patreon's death would happily defend the anti-"woke" platform doing so.)

Hmmm.... how about... 1. They tried making their own chat site, it got smeared by the woke crowd and then banned by google and other such sites. They tried making their own video hosting site, same thing happened.

Also, when Carl Benjamin tried going to SubscribeStar, which was previously existing and didn't have any political affiliation at all, the "woke" crowd brigaded Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal and got them to break ties with SubscribeStar.

In case you felt the first 2 examples were deserved in any way, it's pretty clear that the SubscribeStar case genuinely was just a smear job and nothing else. The "woke" crowd is insane and absolutely vindictive to an absurd degree, and this is their standard tactic. That's just how censorious they are. The anti-"woke" group has, indeed, tried repeatedly and every single time the "woke" crowd is right on top of them to slander them and try to shut down every single avenue they have.

Seriously, the only reason you can even say this stuff is if you don't even pay attention at all to the things that have already happened. You honestly have no clue at all what you are talking about.

EDIT: Also, not that you'll believe me, but those sites in question did not ban anyone except people who outright broke the law. I can say this with confidence because the crowd they were marketing to would immediately jump ship if they banned for a contrived reason. That's what it means to have principles, and if your principle is free speech then that's what you do. Honestly, who do you think is more likely to ban someone, the person who says "free speech absolutely" and would only begrudgingly ban child porn due to the moral issues involved necessity but would be conflicted in doing so, or someone who says "free speech except when you say something I don't like?" The choice is clear.

I would like to bring up the fact that the Jewish community of Skokie Illonois advocated for the free speech of the KKK. They did so BECAUSE they experienced the Hollocaust and knew the steps that lead to it involved the suppression of speech. Allowing the KKK to speak freely was part of the actual steps you have to take for preventing another actual Hitler from rising to power. That's how important free speech is.

 

[Jemini]

So here is the issue I take with like everyone crying about their nonPC stuff getting taken down.
Listen they are NOT infringing on your freedom of speech. You agree to their TOS and COmmunity policies when you make an account.
The freedom of speech amendment is specifically written to protect citizens from government censoring. It is not there to keep you from getting kicked off patreon. Just don't break TOS??? In fact, it is within the company's right to ban you from the platform.

Once again, the issue with Patreon is that they banned without notice, which went driectly against their own TOS, and they also banned for activities off the platform when the TOS said that they will only ban for activities on platform. Fairly innocuous activities at that, such as calling a white supremicist a "white N-word" (actually using the word) in order to make a point about their hypocrisy.

Watch the video in the OP, this is all covered there. Plus, the fact the judge shot Patreon's motion down because they changed their TOS specifically in response and after the fact that the lawsuits were filed in such a way to make it look like there was nothing to complain about, and then arguing they can apply their new TOS retroactively. The people filing those lawsuits never agreed to the TOS in question, so you are frankly talking out your ass right now without knowing the actual situation.

 

[thorbjorn42gbf]

Carl Benjamin

Ah yes, Carl Benjamin I wonder why businesses wouldn't want to be associated with the "I wouldn't even rape you" guy. And I wonder why people would be angry with him, its so weird and vindictive, vindictive is something Carl Benjamin and his crowd have never been.

 

[LilithFairen]

Also, when Carl Benjamin tried going to SubscribeStar, which was previously existing and didn't have any political affiliation at all, the "woke" crowd brigaded Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal and got them to break ties with SubscribeStar.

I just tried searching for anything about this, and I could not find a single news article supporting your claim about Visa and Mastercard—not even right-wing news outlets. All I found was some Reddit post on an alt-right subreddit of someone saying this was the case.

The great thing about claiming censorship is when you can claim there would be evidence to support you...if it hadn't been censored. ?

 

[Jemini]

I just tried searching for anything about this, and I could not find a single news article supporting your claim about Visa and Mastercard—not even right-wing news outlets. All I found was some Reddit post on an alt-right subreddit of someone saying this was the case.

The great thing about claiming censorship is when you can claim there would be evidence to support you...if it hadn't been censored. ?

Try actually getting an account on SubscribeStar. You will notice none of those payment services are options for receiving pay-outs, despite it being a fairly well trafficked payment service. That's your evidence despite the lack of news articles, which I'm certain you'll find such articles if you do more digging than a quick google search.

 

[Jemini]

Ah yes, Carl Benjamin I wonder why businesses wouldn't want to be associated with the "I wouldn't even rape you" guy. And I wonder why people would be angry with him, its so weird and vindictive, vindictive is something Carl Benjamin and his crowd have never been.

Context matters. That quote was made toward a woman (who happened to be a politician) who was using the excuse of rape threats against her to shut down discussion on male rape victims. A pretty vendictive and cencorious woman if you ask me, trying to shut out a discussion on actual rape survivors because someone said mean words a politician. I think we can see who the real vendictive person is in this exchange, and who was just the guy who wanted to take said person down a peg.

(Basically, the context was a dismissive notion with the context of "if it makes you feel better, I would not rape you. So, great. Now can we talk about actual rape victims here rather than politicians who are uncomfortable? Because this is a really important discussion, and I want to see it solved.")

 

[Ace_Arriande]

Hmmm.... how about... 1. They tried making their own chat site, it got smeared by the woke crowd and then banned by google and other such sites. They tried making their own video hosting site, same thing happened.

Also, when Carl Benjamin tried going to SubscribeStar, which was previously existing and didn't have any political affiliation at all, the "woke" crowd brigaded Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal and got them to break ties with SubscribeStar.

You know, I agree. It really sucks when a minority is discriminated against and shut down at every opportunity. It also really sucks that our current economic model has allowed such monopolies to form to the point where, if you're not available through Google or allowed on platforms like Patreon, then good fucking luck. Such massive organizations, which are entirely within their right to censor whatever they want, shouldn't be allowed to exert so much control over the market. But alas, so much of the "anti-woke" side of things is madly in love with the very system that continues to fuck them over, waving the "please tread on me" flag for every moment of it while posting endless paragraphs of rage on the internet about how it's all SJW's and "leftist"'s faults instead of addressing the actual issues. It's easier to blame it all on the spooky boogeyman instead of acknowledging that the only thing any of these companies give even the slightest fuck about is what's going to get them the most profit from the most people, sadly.

Try actually getting an account on SubscribeStar. You will notice none of those payment services are options, despite it being a fairly well trafficked payment service. That's your evidence despite the lack of news articles, which I'm certain you'll find such articles if you do more digging than a quick google search.

From the bottom of their website. Screenshot taken just a couple of minutes ago. So, yes, they do allow Visa and MasterCard, and they always have iirc. However, because I do care about the actual truth here, I will admit that the (from what people can gather) primary reason for not being partnered with PayPal is due to targeted harassment from "activists," as the articles like to call them.

EDIT: Also, I say "from what people can gather" because there was never an official explanation and SubscribeStar themselves said as much.

"These payment processors nebulously claim that we have not complied with their policies. PayPal has not given us any further explanation whatsoever."

 

[Opmjc]

What's a Patreon?

 

[Jemini]

You know, I agree. It really sucks when a minority is discriminated against and shut down at every opportunity. It also really sucks that our current economic model has allowed such monopolies to form to the point where, if you're not available through Google or allowed on platforms like Patreon, then good fucking luck. Such massive organizations, which are entirely within their right to censor whatever they want, shouldn't be allowed to exert so much control over the market. But alas, so much of the "anti-woke" side of things is madly in love with the very system that continues to fuck them over, waving the "please tread on me" flag for every moment of it while posting endless paragraphs of rage on the internet about how it's all SJW's and "leftist"'s faults instead of addressing the actual issues. It's easier to blame it all on the spooky boogeyman instead of acknowledging that the only thing any of these companies give even the slightest fuck about is what's going to get them the most profit from the most people, sadly.


View attachment 3392

From the bottom of their website. Screenshot taken just a couple of minutes ago. So, yes, they do allow Visa and MasterCard, and they always have iirc. However, because I do care about the actual truth here, I will admit that the (from what people can gather) primary reason for not being partnered with PayPal is due to targeted harassment from "activists," as the articles like to call them.

EDIT: Also, I say "from what people can gather" because there was never an official explanation and SubscribeStar themselves said as much.

"These payment processors nebulously claim that we have not complied with their policies. PayPal has not given us any further explanation whatsoever."

I did mention as a pay-out method. Yes, I am aware that payment can currently be received from them. The issue is that those companies are the intermediaries for the banking institutions which mediate the payments to other smaller banks and credit unions. So, refusing to partner in this manner will severely hamper your ability to get a smooth pay-out. SubscribeStar has had to take quite a few work-arounds in order to actually get people their money at all, and currently handles pay-outs through a company that also handles porn. (This, BTW, is also why they are able to RECIEVE payments off of those major credit card companies while they are not partnered for pay-outs.)

Also, to add to your whole kick on monopolies, most of those later 5 credit card companies are in-turn owned by Visa and MasterCard. I don't know about Skrill or those ones that are just symbols, but if they are US companies then they are owned by one of those two as a parent company.

Anyway, as for the points on anti-capitalism, there ARE anti-trust laws on the books in the US. These anti-trust laws are the same ones that were used to break up Bell South back in the day. Most people these days haven't heard of Bell South. They were the company that literally owned the entire telephone industry. They got broken up and eventually re-consolodated into Sprint, Verison, and AT&T. Sprint and AT&T have later merged as well, so it's looking like the corpse of Bell South is slowly knitting itself back together, but several other phone services have sprung up as well as competitors in the time where Bell South's monopoly was broken.

So, both the laws and the precident exist. The problem is that nobody's actually taking the proper initiatives to use the tools that exist in the system, and the reason those tools aren't being used is because these big money interests are literally buying off politicians.

Yes, it is the system that's the problem, but you're thinking about the wrong part of the system. It is incorrect to say that this is the system working as intended. This is the result of the system that's gummed up by corrupt politicians, and it's going to stay that way until we can get money out of politics and elect some leaders with the back-bone to use the tools allocated to them to break up these powerful monopolies. (And it is WAY past time to see them broken up.)

 

[Discount_Blade]

Boy, you most certainly haven't been paying attention these days. And, by the sounds of it, you also didn't watch the video. Let's take the points in order.



This is the simplest point. Track record shows that the act of getting woke alienates half the potential market these days. Therefore, when they make the decision to do some woke messaging it is either the case that they are not aware of this track record because they are not getting the full picture, or they are taking a gamble that the woke messaging will appeal to the crowd this message appeals to more than it will alienate the crowd it will alienate. The gamble here would be that the alienated crowd would still buy the product while they get more customers from the crowd it appeals to, or possibly they believe their customer base has very few members of the crowd this would alienate.

There is a term, "get woke, go broke," and it applies to the companies that loose on this gamble. So far, I have heard of cases like Nike where their woke messaging caused them to break even on the result, loosing about an equal amount of business to the business they gained for their woke messaging with Collin Capernic. And, I have also heard cases where "get woke, go broke" very much applies in that they lost a huge chunk of revenue after "getting woke." However, these cases often also have other mitigating factors such as these companies that started to "get woke" already loosing money for other reasons.

Overall, it is a nebulous subject as to whether or not this kind of woke messaging is something that will kill a company, but I have also seen no actual sign of this woke messaging stuff being beneficial for a company either and there are a lot of people who make noise and stir up negative word-of-mouth across the internet on companies that "get woke." That kind of negative messaging is not the kind of headache I would want as a company CEO.



This is a fairly serious case of not quite knowing what you're talking about as well. Most of the anti-woke criticisms toward Marvel revolve around them changing already existing characters, such as turning Thor female or having Gene Grey brainwash Ice Man into becoming gay in X-men. That's the kind of stuff that distracted from the product and SERIOUSLY upset fans. And, yes, it lost a LOT of money when they made those moves.

Black representation, so far, has been done in the form of just creating entirely new black characters to add to the roster. And, no, I am not aware of anyone who has been really upset about it aside from Miles Meralis as an alternate-universe Spiderman. That's the only case, but they largely did it right due to the fact that 1. They strongly emphisized the point he was an alternate universe version to the extent where every single last one of the Spiderman rogues gallery has an alternate version for the Miles Meralis universe, and 2. He was a new character, not a perversion on an already existing one. As such, the audience only needed a little bit of time to get used to the idea of Miles Meralis and they didn't just warm up to him, but he became a beloved part of the Spiderman multiverse to the point that these days just about every rendition of Spiderman needs to at some point hit a point in the plot where inter-dimensional travel becomes a thing so Peter Parker can meet Miles Meralis.



Yeah, no. Just no. If this is what you think political correctness translates to, then you REALLY have not been paying any attention at all to the cases of blatant censorship that has been going on under the guise of "political correctness."

The accurate characterization of "political correctness" is "don't criticize this politically-oriented ideology."

"Political correctness," FYI, is a term that originally came out of the Soviet Union, and was called out in the works of George Orwell. It means, "words and opinions that are not correct politically." AKA, against the party. And, in the Soviet Union, being politically incorrect, or rather, speaking out against Stallin, got you either killed or thrown into a Gulague (but I repeat myself.)

"Political correctness" these days has been used as an excuse to shut down things like questioning the idea of a wage gap, pointing out that the best research on the subject has only 2% of the wage difference between men and women unaccountable by explanations such as working longer hours, more education, traveling for work, or otherwise just working a different job entirely. The 72 cents on the dollar statistic comes from comparing all women's wages to all men's wages without accounting for even the fact men and women often choose different careers.

Pointing out the rate of so-called "trans kids" who regret their decision to change genders and realize they made a mistake because they were just confused kids getting bad messaging (It's over 50%, FYI. In individuals under 18, this rate is FAR higher than the 5% or so of people over 18 who transition who regret it.)

And, most disturbingly, pointing out that some women lie about being raped.

All of these are very serious issues that warrant serious discussion, but these are the kinds of subjects that get shut down under the banner "politically incorrect" these days. The only reason you would ever characterize it the way you did would be if you have simply not been paying attention at all.

And now, finally.



Again, watch the attached video at the top. Just like my point with the politically incorrect stuff, that's not what's going on at all and it's a LOT more complicated than that. I'm not so certain about the current rash of mass banning, but the first 3 famous cases at least did not fit that bill at all.

Furthermore, the issue has never been the banning, it was the "Without notice" insta-ban part. Especially considering the fact Patreon is a money-handling service, that sort of thing is the kind of thing that should be reserved only for actual criminal activities such as child pornography or the funding of violent criminal activity. These people they banned were more along the lines of just people who said the kinds of things I referenced in the "politically incorrectness" portion.

The real issue though is that the bans were all explicitly in disagreement with Patreon's terms of service. When they banned Lauren Southern, the terms of service explicitly stated that you would get a warning first and yet she was banned without notice. Then, they explicitly promised they would never do it again. Yet, they then went and did the exact same thing to Carl Benjamin.

In Carl Benjamin's case, it was even worse, because they banned him for a word he said 2 years previous on a live-stream that was not and never was on Patreon. Patreon's terms of service at the time also stated they would not ban you for things said off platform. And, as stated above, it also STILL said they would give appropriate 3 strikes worth of warning first, and this was after they had stated they would never ban without notice again after the Lauren Southern case.

You can state your case for whether or not Nazi-ish stuff ought to be allowed anywhere, but the one thing we want around even less than Nazi-ish stuff is a company that's able to just snap it's fingers and take away your income without warning. That's even worse than someone talking some offensive BS.

I am ashamed to say it, but I just couldn't muster up the energy to explain how ignorant @AlexaTiresias was in her response, and how dismissive @LilithFairen and @thorbjorn42gbf are so I just didn't bother. They've already shut down and accepted it but they'll argue to the death that they haven't XD. Also because most people who respond in the way they do, have already been either brainwashed to supporting it, or are willfully ignorant and can't be bothered to care one way or the other. I'm glad you took the step to do what I was just too mentally exhausted with people like them to do. I bow to you my friend. I've actually done this sort of explanations to the harming effects of woke/PC culture and all this other BLM shit going on, but there will ALWAYS be people like them who are blind. They follow trends and what "sounds and looks nice". I also just didn't think it worth my time either. I'm sure they are too far gone and nothing you said meant anything to them. Or I'm cynical.

 

[Ace_Arriande]

Yes, it is the system that's the problem, but you're thinking about the wrong part of the system. It is incorrect to say that this is the system working as intended. This is the result of the system that's gummed up by corrupt politicians, and it's going to stay that way until we can get money out of politics and elect some leaders with the back-bone to use the tools allocated to them to break up these powerful monopolies.

This is a feature, not a bug. Of course, every single economic system there is, in the real world, is full of just as many "features." I don't think a single economic system exists that, when put into practice, wouldn't result in this exact same thing happening albeit with different paint slapped onto it. In the same way that "real communism" has never been tried, it could be argued that "real capitalism" has never been tried simply because humans are too greedy to not exploit and corrupt the system they're given. In an absolutely perfect world free of ill intent and greed, either system would work pretty damn well in their most faithful forms. But, unfortunately, we're not in a perfect world.

That aside -- well, I had 3 times the amount typed below this, but it got a bit too political and would probably cause way more replies than I'd care about replying to. So I'll just cut it down to the main stuff.

I'm all for actually making use of our anti-trust laws. I'm 100% for taking money out of politics. I'm also completely for making sure that everybody has equal opportunity, even if I disagree with what they say/believe in. What I'm not for, however, is constantly putting all the blame on SJWS, leftists, commies, woke Twitter users, brain washing, political correctness, or whatever else the internet likes to call them instead of addressing the actual issues. If it was more profitable for companies to go anti-PC then they 100% would be. Companies are just herding people like they're a bunch of sheep. These giant "woke" companies don't give even the tiniest little shit about the stances they might seem to be pushing. It's like how companies all switch to having rainbow logos for Pride month and then completely forget LGBT people exist the very next day after the month ends. And yes, sometimes there are failed "woke" projects, but there are just as many failed "anti-woke" projects. Companies might only care about profit, but that doesn't mean they're flawless and that they never misjudge the market. Also, are these companies actually doing anything to create positive change? Of-fucking-course not. They're just pocketing all the money from the gullible people who are happy to line their pockets. They're probably laughing at the woke crowd even more than the haters of it in this thread. If these companies were really "woke" then they'd be trying to create actual change in society instead of buying more yachts and private jets while most likely paying the bulk of their workers under the living wage.

You used Nike as an example earlier. Well, for one, their stocks are currently matching their all-time high, and two, for as "woke" as they might be... they're fucking using slave labor in China. Yeah, super woke there. This is what I mean. Pretending to be woke is profitable and none of these companies actually give a shit about truly being progressive. They care about money, not social politics. Their interest in social politics begins and ends at what's more profitable at the moment.

Anyways, even an absolutely shit "woke" movie is going to make more money at the box office than a good movie that tries to be as anti-PC as possible, and will probably do so with 95% less controversy. There's a reason why major Hollywood studios aren't trying to push anti-PC movies onto people, and it's not because of an agenda. It's because they know it's more profitable to pretend to be woke. If somebody actually believes they're trying to push an agenda, then they have more faith in humanity than I do.

So, again, it's all working as intended. Unless you'd like to agree that no economic system aside from simple bartering at the beginning of civilization has ever been truthfully tried, at which point I'll agree that no other economic system has ever nor is currently working as intended.

Anyways, let's put blame on the corrupted system actually pitting us against each other for their profit instead of dancing around like sheep constantly blaming everything on the other side while acting like ours is the more rational one. Let's not act like the anti-PC/woke/whatever crowd isn't just as guilty of being manipulated or "brain washed", either. For every example you gave of topics being shut down because they're not "politically correct," I could just as easily give you more examples of topics having conversation around them shut down due to belonging to the opposite side of things. I put in an active effort to lurk in communities for every single side of politics that there is. They all use the exact same tactics, just with different flavors.

And on one final note, now that I'm thinking about it - you know what? Going woke - and I mean, actually woke, will probably make you go broke. Because then you're making people uncomfortable by pointing out the actual issues and trying to promote real action. But you know what doesn't go broke? "Woke" don't go broke, and most of what people complain about is "woke" like Nike.

tl;dr: going "woke" is profitable, being "woke" doesn't equal actual change or actually being progressive, both sides are just as easily manipulated to hate the other side while no actual change happens aside from the pockets of those in power getting fuller, and I sound like a fucking enlightened centrist and need another shower now.

 

[thorbjorn42gbf]

Context matters

Ah yes context, what a fun ride this was, spent a ton of time figuring out what the exact context was, which was made infinitely harder by the fact that it was based on a video that have basically been deleted from the internet, because instead of you know answering to a tweet or something it was attached to a video "essay" about what he think is stupid things feminists have said throughout the week, hey would you look at that the man who makes a business out of taking qoutes out of context as much as he can was taken out of context, the irony.

Other than that I learned among other things: He joked he could be convinced to rape her, which is totally haha funny threatening rape of people is totally funny am i right guys? Damn woke people not finding rape funny. Also you know his followers followed his example and bombarded said woman with more "You are too ugly/feminist to be raped" comments because thats the nature of having a following, interestingly enough bombarding people with rape joke, threats and death threats is apparently not as big a problem as asking bullies being removed from a platform. Oh wait I forgot its only the woke people who are in charge of their following when the anti-woke crowd does anything its always individuals.

"if it makes you feel better, I would not rape you. So, great. Now can we talk about actual rape victims here rather than politicians who are uncomfortable? Because this is a really important discussion, and I want to see it solved."

This is just pure nonsense, he said it in a youtube video and then on twitter without any ongoing conversation, there where no ongoing debate there was no accusations towards him about sending rape threats, until he started joking about doing it anyway.

EDIT: Hey actually looking at the politic she was dealing with at the time most of her stuff was interestingly enough dedicated to talking about how harassment of women on the interent hurt the idea of free speech because it silenced speech, which is also what most people I have found claims what he was reacting to its hard to say again because hey the video is gone. That does paint a bit of a different picture doesn't it? It especially doesn't help that he deffends it as a "Joke" instead of actually saying that it was what you claim it was supposed to do.

Hey other fun stuff Benjamin have been you know just a couple of qoute about what a wonderful person he is and why everyone would totally want him on his platform: (About Weinstein pressuring women into sex) "...but you can't just sit there and go "I was afraid I wouldn't get very far in the movie business if I wasn't a sleazy, corrupt whore.""

If this is the best person you have of the reactive woke culture I say good riddance for that the fact that people are surprised that giant assholes are thrown off the platforms they use shouldn't surprise people, it isn't some big "woke" conspiracy, if being pusnished for being a sleazy asshole is woke and half the population dislike that, half the population got big fucking issues.

---

You can talk all you want about there being a problem with corps having too much power and punishing people as they see fit without warning, but stop defending the guy like he is just some innocent baby who said the wrong words a single time because he was upset.

Guy literally said 4 years ago that there is a demonstrable link between women in politics and a decline in society, guy got issues man.

--

Pointing out the rate of so-called "trans kids" who regret their decision to change genders and realize they made a mistake because they were just confused kids getting bad messaging (It's over 50%, FYI. In individuals under 18, this rate is FAR higher than the 5% or so of people over 18 who transition who regret it.)

Hey just noticed this, thats funny where do you find the stats for that claim because GenderHQ why o is explicitly against the idea of transitioning youth unless its a last resort doesn't present stats like that because the don't believe that enough studies have been conducted on the subject.

WILL REGRET RATES & DETRANSITION INCREASE WITH INCREASING NUMBERS OF TRANSGENDER YOUTH? — Gender Health Query

Recorded regret rates post-surgery in the trans population is historically very low. But now child, teens, & young adults are transitioning. Transgender regret appears to be increasing.

www.genderhq.org

This is a fairly serious case of not quite knowing what you're talking about as well. Most of the anti-woke criticisms toward Marvel revolve around them changing already existing characters, such as turning Thor female or having Gene Grey brainwash Ice Man into becoming gay in X-men. That's the kind of stuff that distracted from the product and SERIOUSLY upset fans. And, yes, it lost a LOT of money when they made those moves.

Also this which is just stupid, comic books have a long history of passing the mantle, to allow for new characters to step in so the stories can get varied characters, the fact that its suddenly a problem when the gender change during these is just stupid.

 

[Jemini]

Anyways, even an absolutely shit "woke" movie is going to make more money at the box office than a good movie that tries to be as anti-PC as possible, and will probably do so with 95% less controversy. There's a reason why major Hollywood studios aren't trying to push anti-PC movies onto people, and it's not because of an agenda. It's because they know it's more profitable to pretend to be woke. If somebody actually believes they're trying to push an agenda, then they have more faith in humanity than I do.

I clipped out the rest of your comment because I essentially am in 80% alignment with everything you said, and the 20% off is not so much a disagreement as it is a difference in perspective on the "why" of the whole thing. So, if we are only going to wind up patting each other on the back on these subjects anyway, might as well do it in PMs or something.

On this point though, I don't only have something to disagree on but it's also on topic.

I do agree that Hollywood studios might not be trying to push an agenda. However, I do not agree the same about individual movies. The reason for this is that individual movies are directed by individual directors, and it is very easy for a director to have an agenda. And, it is also very easy to become part of a "stand alone complex," a strange social phenomenon popularized into the vernacular by Ghost in the Shell. A stand alone complex is a phenomenon where a whole bunch of different individuals all make the individual decision, unmotivated by one another's actions but perhaps all motivated by a common cause, to do the exact same thing (with different flavors and methods of approach depending on the individual.)

So, yes, no kind of company policy and no kind of common goal being worked for or conspiracy behind it. It is just individuals who have some hair-brained idea to take this action.

Yes, companies are motivated by money, but individuals can be idealists and do things in order to accomplish a goal other than money. Directors are a group of people that tend to get motivated by "vision" pretty frequently, to the point that some 90s portrayals of film directors started actually making fun of this trait of theirs. (Yes, mostly by other directors. Likely a calling out of what some directors felt was funny about others in their same industry.)

This is also EXACTLY the thing that ruined the 3rd Star Wars trilogy. People like to bash on the whole "woke" thing for that one, but it was just an eye-roll deserving thing at best. The thing is, the 3rd trilogy could have at least been a sub-par set of films instead of the dumpster fire it turned into were it not for the director behind the 2nd movie having a "vision" of subverting all expectations and basically intentionally ruining every single character from the original franchise. (Oh yeah, plus deciding he wanted to kill off the big bad with no plan of what to replace him with in the 3rd film.) So, yeah, Star Wars didn't die to wokeness. It died to something MUCH worse. It died to just plain bad directing from the machinations of some stupid director who had a "vision." If this guy was genuinely in it for the pure money, he would not have burned the trilogy the way he did.

 

[Ace_Arriande]

I clipped out the rest of your comment

Fair enough. I think at this point then, it really just comes down to whether we want to think individual directors actually are idealists believe in the message(s) that they might be putting into their movies, or if they're just doing it for money and acting like they care. It's not like we can know 100% for certain either way without getting into their heads ourselves. I'm sure some are idealists and some are just pretending to be.

Now for one final hot take since I really need to get back to writing: the prequel trilogy is the only good SW trilogy. Original trilogy and new trilogy are both bad. The prequel movies are unironically better.

And now I shall go. Thanks for the discussion. Was fun. Extremely distracting, but I did enjoy it.