Message from @caykoh
Discord ID: 526024860774825995
is this true? after double down on their reason for banning sargon they re-invented another reason to justify their actions?
It is their fucking job, if you don't want to put yourself in dangerous situations don't be a cop. They don't get paid to sit on their asses and stare at Jail bait all day.
They are Antifa's preferred plattform...
i agree
an anyone clue me into the events of vidcon?
can*
Sargon went into Anita's panel
sat in the front row..
got called a "Garbage Human"
thats all?
Yarp.
so they're now saying they banned sargon because anita insulted him for sitting at a public event?
that looks worse then the previous reason
umm i dont know, are they?
erad the article and watch teh video, looks that way
link me?
scroll up dude
that one?
well thats what i was replying to yes
read the newbuster article as well
Ah sorry I caught the one even further up
Yeah that one
but wouldn't adminitrative action like strikes/banning etc. from something like patreon be predicated on the individuals history? I jsut figure because if you get lets say a "strike", if another offense eventually rises, dont they see if theres already any 'strikes'?
sure, but when tht incident happened patreon said sargon did nothing wrong
My normie view: a panel person calls out an audience member (anita harass Sargon)
Intersectional view: Sargon by his mere presence is harassing Anita (victim stack order)
IIRC that's how anita framed the incident
I cant agree with the newsbusters chosen headline, and can't determine the article, other than one screencap, contains anything other than only hearsay. Did patreon issue updates to their terms since? It sounds like the guy Nuanced Bro on Twitter was given a reference to the vidcon event as an exhibit that was considered, which again, I would assume (maybe im wrong there) is a pracatice of any decision maker wether your giving out loan, firing an employee, or banning someone from your house....
idk, i haven't done any digging into it either, i was just replying to what others had posted here
Just got done reading quite a bit to gather up just whats going on with the Carl Benjamin episode, was rather uninformed about a lot of the history up until now. Is this guy honstly defendable for you guys? It seems like hes taken the career path of an aggitator, which is fine, but you have to do so expecting to take a few punches, sometimes deserved
However I would predict that he would respond that hes not an "agitator" , but maybe I am misjudging him on that.
Gonna go ahead and solicite some responses from anyone of different opinion on the matter here, lol, it sounds like Tim has a defensive position on the whole thing
he's not an aggitator, he's a commentator that lives on political drama.
and yes i'd say he's rather defendable since he doesn't normally do anything bad, all he does is sit infront of a computer and rant which i see no reason to be against honestly. i'm just more surprised at how big his following is considering is content quality really isn't there IMO (to much time ranting, taking 15mins to explain something that could take 5)
only bad thing i know of that he did was with his spat against mr metokur, and that was to do with creating alt twitter accounts to push a narrative.
the dude definitly has the marks of an agitator, ya know, rabble-rouser.