*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.
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.
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.
How often has this occurred in recent history? Is this a pervasive problem today or are you living in the past?
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?
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.