This is obscuring what was said. Specifically, he said:

"You’re acting like a bunch of n * * * * * s, just so you know. You act like white n * * * * * s."

and

"Look, you carry on, but don’t expect me to then have a debate with one of your f * * gots.…Like why would I bother?…Maybe you’re just acting like a n * * * * r, mate? Have you considered that? Do you think white people act like this?"

It's not even the words themselves, it's the deeper implication ("Do you think white people act like this?").

I see this as no different from a TV network firing a host who said a whole bunch of racist stuff that didn't happen to be said on the TV network. Why should they continue to give this person money if they don't want to?

He's using the white supremacist's own racism against themselves. "Reading the deeper implication" has many likely interpretations of Sargon's internal mental state that are both non-racist and racist. That's quite far from "manifest observable behavior" Patreon claims in their TOS. They just have to cut off a father's income just before Christmas for a counter-troll on an obscure fringe live-stream from 10 months back? An organization making that much of a stretch is showing its hand. (Again, I don't approve of Sargon's language. It was definitely a mistake for him to say such a thing.)

I see this as no different from a TV network firing a host

Then how is it that someone did a search of Patreon's site and turned up tons of n-word occurrences? How is it that Patreon continues to fund groups that seem to encourage violence? If Patreon is reaching that far in Sargon's case to "protect their brand" yet have so many skeletons like that, so easily found, I highly doubt that "protecting their brand" is their actual underlying motivation.

In any case, Patreon is a conduit for payment, not a network. Perhaps they're pivoting, but from where I stand, it's completely the wrong move. They've severely damaged their standing as a means of paying creators.

Because these people don't matter to Patreon.

>How is it that Patreon continues to fund groups that seem to encourage violence?

Because these people don't matter to Patreon.

>If Patreon is reaching that far in Sargon's case to "protect their brand" yet have so many skeletons like that, so easily found, I highly doubt that "protecting their brand" is their actual underlying motivation.

It likely IS their motivation (or the more general motivation of making money anyway).

Someone did some math and realized that continuing to give this person money will, on balance, be more harmful than not giving this person money. That really is the extent of it all. No one at Patreon likely gives a shit about the guy except that he is too controversial compared to the amount of money he makes them.

Let's say Patreon makes 10% of the revenue this guy brings in. $15,000 is such an irrelevant amount compared to the amount of harm that continuing to support this guy monetarily could potentially cause that it would be insane to continue to bother sending him any money.

Then this is an even more disturbing thing. If "protecting their brand" means they have to act as if Sargon of Akkad is something -- contrary to the facts -- because activists and media have pushed a narrative, but they don't have to do anything about actual incidences of the n-word and groups possibly funding actual violence, then the narrative means all and facts mean nothing.

There is some group of people who has been corrupted by power and is abusing power. Nothing to do with identity here, but everything to do with socioeconomic power controlling information.

Few things are as binary as this.

But yes, narrative matters, as well as facts. Narrative built on a complete lack of facts is more difficult to sustain that that which is based on some facts.

Still, the $15,000 or so this dude makes for Patreon (at most!) is likely not worth the hassle of keeping him around.

They're just managing contributions, and taking a cut. So it's not like they're paying a salary or whatever.

Personal choice. I really hate those two particular words.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/9/16627900/ta-nehisi-...

What would be a better reason? Or, do you think white people should feel free to use that word?

Because there was a time when white people felt free to use that word, and there are still pockets of white society where people feel free to use that word, and if you think those times or those people are good ones to emulate, I'd be quite interested to know why you think that.

I think all people should feel free to use whatever words they want to use as long as they are speaking truth.

Because it seems like "don't say hurtful things" covers a lot of stuff, but you miss out on the specific empathy this specific situation gives you by reflecting on why this one word should be taken off the table for white people.

Now, what's condescending or insulting?

https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/360001977868-...

No service that's subject to any nation's jurisdiction could be considered truly "censorship-free". Because, you know, said nation could censor it.

I'd have a terms of service not too different from the one Patreon had published at the time of Jack Conte's interview. Such a site would also be "protecting a brand," but the political facet of the brand would be one of enabling the funding of civil and reasoned (though perhaps controversial) discourse. Granted, that's going to be a real can of worms.

Operating solely under US jurisdiction, it would be virtually immune to government censorship. Given strong protection of free speech in the US Constitution. And so it could be as censorship-free as its operators desired, without interference from private third parties.

But all bets are off if other nations have jurisdiction. Consider the pressure that Google is facing to apply "The Right to be Forgotten" to all searches globally. Or pressure from the UK and Australia to censor mention of legal stuff under protective order. Or China, seeking to block coverage of its Muslim "reeducation efforts".