I fail to understand what's your issue with this. Are you questioning that the queer, trans, disabled, PoC are in a weaker (and often precarious) position than the cis white (male)? Or is it emotional blackmail to point out that a change (once again) hits hardest for the people that are in a weak position? Isn't it considered common decency to keep in mind the needs of the people that are weaker than us? That might just barely make a living and that don't have the time and energy to make their voice heard?
I consider that debate important preciously because it hits the marginalized people worst. I can make my living where I choose (and buy my adult content where I wish to and as a male, I'm probable considered a "proper male" if I do). Those people can't as easily as I.
You're using the same kind of 'emotional blackmail' speech, and it is annoying because it forces the discussion into a Manichean stereotype of good (poor, weak, discriminated) vs evil (big company full of white guys trying to stomp on the weak).
This is bad for the debate as it tries to shut down all opposition (and I'm not even opposing) and remove all possibility of nuance. This is taking the conversation hostage.
There's saying that this might greatly impact the (especially vulnerable) LGBT+ population, which is a very valid point and should be taken into account
And then, there's tearjerker speech like :
> the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives.
> We know people who would be homeless if it wasn’t for making porn on Patreon – and it’s not a small number.
Which just feels like strong-arming the reader into your opinion
Would you not be "literally scared" for your life when faced with the prospect of becoming homeless? I would be. Why is it a "tearjerker speech" if that is your situation and if you want that situation to be taken into account as they do? If you think they're lying say so. Calling this a "tearjerker speech" strikes me as dishonest.
> Why is it a "tearjerker speech" if that is your situation and if you want that situation to be taken into account as they do?
It's "tearjerker" because it conforms to the definition of tearjerker: "A highly sentimental story, drama, or performance, often intended to arouse heartache or sympathy." [1]
They blame Patreon for their vulnerability and use pity to win an argument. Fact is, they placed all their eggs in one risky basket, and now that basket is gone. They have themselves to blame. There are lots of LGBT people out there who aren't scared for their lives because Patreon discriminates against porn. This doesn't affect the LGBT community, it affects people who bet all their income on producing adult content on the Patreon. Arguing that LGBT are scared for their lives has nothing to do with the actual problem: "we can't make adult content on Patreon anymore, and we have no other income, but we don't want to find a job so please have pity [on the LGBT who are scared for their lives]".
>They blame Patreon for their vulnerability and use pity to win an argument. Fact is, they placed all their eggs in one risky basket, and now that basket is gone. They have themselves to blame.
What other basket is there? I thought that's the whole point of this letter, that patreon has become their lifeline but now even that is clipped.
People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent, hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes, and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods, because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter.
> People somehow seriously claim that the authors should hide what community they represent,
Starting the letter with "We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression." seems to show the community they represent is "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression".
> hide the unintended discriminatory effects of the policy changes,
They shouldn't hide it, but they should at least show some evidence for it.
> and not be so emotional about losing their livelihoods,
They can be emotional all they want, but it's maybe not the best argument to change a company's policy. If it's masquerading as an argument, then it's emotional blackmail.
> because it makes them feel uncomfortable to read an emotional appeal in an open letter.
I don't mind emotional appeals when they actually make sense.
> "Adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression"
on patreon are not whom this letter claims they are? If so you are accusing the letter of lying, without any evidence yourself.
What level of evidence would the adult content creators have to bring to the table to satisfy your demands? Representative scientific surveys?
Why will you not take their word for whom they are? Do you somehow know that community better?
Do you not think it prima facie plausible that LGBT, PoC, disabled, etc... are over represented among the most vulnerable of the content creators? (which is the only thing the letter claims)
Because by Jove, that's a damn plausible claim if I've ever heard one.
If it's important to include the bit, then why stop the list there? What about apostates? Autists? Fat people? People who are otherwise unemployed?
I agree with the other poster. This feels like not only emotional blackmail, but tired, overused emotional blackmail. You can very reasonably bring up the angle of people who depend on the platform for their income without dragging around the identity politics baggage with it.
Maybe it's just important to include that bit, because it actually reflects the experience of the authors? The community that signed the letter? Are those groups you mention actually disproportionately affected by this change?
Either way, this whole letter consisted of a few sentences that brought in the identity angle. These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities. Non discriminatory changes can have discriminatory effects. This is important.
The anti-PC crowd immediately latched onto these few sentences and now HN top upvoted thread is all about how the letter made the HN crowd feel uncomfortable.
When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story? When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail? Because I sure as heck don't remember any discussion threads on HN going: I agree that he shouldn't be fired over this, but why do they have to drag this tired, overused emotional blackmail into it?
> When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story?
If they'd start their complaint with "we as white men" I'd get tired of reading it pretty early too.
> When these stories feature the fact that that man has three children to feed, do you complain about the emotional blackmail?
I'll admit I'm less tired of this particular brand of emotional blackmail. Having children is holding responsibility for other people's lives.
> These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities.
The letter didn't say anything about what makes the LGBT "disproportionately" affected by this change. What I read was
> We’re writing you today both as adult creators and concerned individuals about free, legal, expression. We’re deeply disappointed in your handling of clarity with regards to adult content on your platform, and the mixed messages we have been receiving.
Which seems like a reasonable concern. Followed non sequitur by:
> Not only that, the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English – are literally scared for our lives.
Why is Patreon having a fuzzy stand against pornography disproportionately affecting the LGBT community?
> Why is Patreon having a fuzzy stand against pornography disproportionately affecting the LGBT community?
First of all, they say the vulnerable among them are disproportionately LGBT. They do not say that it affects an LGBT creator differently from a straight creator all else being equal.
Given that there are massive mainstream porn companies that cover most of the non-queer market, it stands to reason that the creators on Patreon are disproportionately queer. Thus any change on Patreon, postivie or negative, will affect queer performers disproportionately by that fact alone.
Changes that are not intrinsically discriminating, can have discriminatory effects.
If you will further grant that LGBT people suffer discrimination outside of Patreon, they will be over represented among the most vulnerable creators by that fact. Thus they will be disproportionately represented amongst the vulnerable content creators on patreon, affected by this change.
Let's take this to another area. Homeless youth shelters. Let's say a politician somewhere campaigns on closing down local homeless youth shelters.
You could say: Closing down these shelters would hit the most vulnerable among us – disproportionately queer, trans, disabled, people of color and those whose first language is not English - hardest.
Because, in fact, all these groups are strongly over represented among American homeless. Drastically in some cases:
> The anti-PC crowd immediately latched onto these few sentences and now HN top upvoted thread is all about how the letter made the HN crowd feel uncomfortable.
I'm pro-PC and have routinely come out in defence of the concept here on HN. Last year there was a rash of MRA crap on HN, and I was arguing against it regularly. I also have no problem with porn itself, and view it myself. Now, all this being said, the opening paragraph in the article is ridiculously overwrought and childish. It reeks of tribal politics - if you can't understand why "the other side" never accepts what you have to say, it's because of hyperbole like this. It's the left-wing's version of "Won't somebody think of the children" that gets stuck everywhere it can, regardless of veracity[1]?
Keep in mind that this is what the letter is basically implying: "Patreon has to support pornography because blacks/queers/disabled people will die if they don't". As someone else pointed out, it's positioning Patreon to be painted as a bigot if they don't back down. Patreon can't put in a rule saying "pornography is okay, but only if you're PoC/disabled/homosexual", so what the letter is actually demanding in real terms is full support of pornography. Did you notice that just like Patreon and the Supreme Court, the letter author did not provide a clear definition of pornography versus adult content, to perhaps guide Patreon? Since it's a fuzzy line no matter where it's drawn, the only way to satisfy the author is to allow porn outright.
The author is free to make those claims - business is business, and stretching the truth is pretty normal when your business is under siege - but we shouldn't be taking the comments on face value and defending them. They should be scrutinised like any other business missive.
> These sentences correctly show that this change disproportionately affects some (minority) communities.
The sentences claim it. They don't show it, correctly or otherwise.
> When cis white men get threatened with losing their livelihoods by over-active PC campaigners, do you complain that the fact that they are cis white men features in the story?
How often do those stories come up? Which livelihoods are being lost by over-active PC campaigners? But yes, here on HN if an article does lead off with a sob story, usually someone will complain, particularly if it's long-form journalism. Hell, people routinely complain about sensationalism in article titles here, often without even visiting the link.
--
[1] Possibly the most remotely-detached of these arguments I've seen so far: in my home state, the right-wing party argued against a new public holiday with "won't somebody think of the children". One more public holiday than the next state over > businesses will go there instead > your children won't have jobs. Seriously. "Won't somebody think of the children" used against a public holiday...
You are correct that the article doesn't show it, but claims it.
So your point is that you think the claim is wrong? Because, as I've said elsewhere, I think it's prima facie extremely plausible. The idea that minorities are overrepresented amongst the most vulnerable populations, especially when several dimensions of marginalization intersect (in this case adult content creation) is not at all far fetched. Instead it seems fairly obvious.
As such I would put the burden of prove on you when you claim the authors misrepresent their community in order to advance their point.
Now I agree with your point that the fuzzy line is problematic. And patreon can't solve this on their own. I think regulation could, but which politician will stand up for that? The issue the authors have can't be completely resolved in this context, but patreon shifted their policy contrary to how they were marketing themselves to creators before (and what they got good press for). I think that's a good reason to be publicly upset and push back.
It's a bit rich that you require me to provide proof to back up my claims, but are happy to settle for 'plausible' in the article. Why am I held to the stricter standard? How can I disprove something where no solid claims are made in the first place? The article claims that Patreon cutting out that section of their business has made people afraid they're literally going to die as a result, and you think that's extremely plausible?
Only 3 days ago I mentioned I was getting tired of this current fad to dismiss commentary by demanding proof
> So your point is that you think the claim is wrong?
In any case, I think there's some truth to what they say, but it's ridiculously overblown (hence "stretching the truth" above). They played the 'social duty to society's vulnerables' pretty hard, and yet plenty of those content creators are not vulnerable. Nor disabled. Nor are PoC. Nor are LGBT. Why do we assume PoC and LGBT are more vulnerable by default here? Where should the line of social responsibility be drawn? Should Patreon be shamed into a business model they don't want because of a single person who fits the 'vulnerable' description? 10 people? 100?
I have given arguments [1] why I think their claim is plausible. You haven't given any why you think it's wrong (other than a generic "why should it be true?", which is nothing if not demanding proof from them).
[1] The mentioned communities are overrepresented in any risk category, from drug addiction, to HIV, to homelessness (the sole exception I know of would be suicide). They tend to be more overrepresented when marginalisation dimensioons intersect, as they do here.
"scared for our lives" sounds like the same line police officers trot out and repeat over and over when they kill someone they ought not have. I think that sort of claim evokes a negative reaction when it seems like the sentiment is unfounded based on the circumstances because it feels like the person saying it isn't being genuine but just trying to manipulate people.
A disproportionate number of homeless youth identify as LGBT+. LGBT+ youth are overrepresented in the populations of youth who are at risk of arrest. Is it unfounded to assume that those same people are maybe dependent on precarious work, like creating porn to sell on a third-party platform, to make a living?
> A disproportionate number of homeless youth identify as LGBT+. LGBT+ youth are overrepresented in the populations of youth who are at risk of arrest.
I haven't heard that before. Is there any data to support this?
The ability to leverage performative victimhood invalidates any claim that you are weak.
If you are actually weak, you will do anything not to draw attention to your self, as you will not be able to control the perceptions or actions of others.
I guess the key phrase there is "leverage". Does your performace succeed? In the case of trans people on US coasts, this seems to be changing. For a short time, their identity had leverage, but the fact that this discussion is criticizing the authors of the letter for trying to leverage trans victim-hood, suggests that this leverage is waning.
As an example of a group without victim-hood leverage, see NAMBLA [1], which represents another sexual orientation, but one which bears no leverage. Another victimized group with seemingly no leverage are those victims of child abuse who are suffering from multiple personality disorder. I know, in the abstract one would say that a victim of child abuse certainly has leverage, but if you read the appeals by those who suffer from severe psychological disorders as a result, you will immediately feel yourself recoil in disgust and grant them no audience. People tend to not see "monsters" as victims, and if we find people too weird or frightening we don't see them as victims. What other groups have no leverage? Perhaps some drug users, we tend to blame them for their problems.
I would argue, that leverage is sometimes directly related to power. For example, the Jews were rich before WWII, and are still rich today. Since the holocaust, their victim-hood has born unparalleled leverage. However, in the same holocaust, the Roma people of the Czech Republic were treated just as badly as the Jews, and being poor, far fewer of them escaped. Yet the Roma have almost no leverage from their holocaust victim-hood.
In this particular case this identity is instrumentalised in order to modify the behaviour of Patreon.
This simply wouldn't be done so readily unless the identity within this context carried power.
I do not think that trans people in general have power. However, a lack of power in one context, can sometimes be an arbitrage opportunity in contexts where an oppressed identity is currency.
I'm not against this but the underlying power dynamics are too interesting to be ignored.
That said, I dislike the usage of the phrase "literally scared for their lives". This phrase is meant to be used to call on others to defend lives and here it is being used to call on other's to defend an ability to make money selling porn. Crying wolf undermines the ability for truly endangered people to ask for help. It is ethically repulsive to me that people that consider themselves good dilute the meaning of cries for help for base political expediency. By doing this, they may well deprive the most desperately helpless people of their only means for help.
It seems obvious to me that they're conflating economic opportunity with safety, as it is the only viable political position left to them. As has been established elsewhere, companies do not owe workers a means to make money. I do not personally agree with deplatforming, but there is currently no right to a job, and, if such a right was to exist, it would not be possible to administer it fairly depending on the relative oppression/privilege of a person. On the other hand, I guess accrued wealth and number of potential income sources could be seen as reducing the likelihood of homelessness and perhaps we should use this to determine whether a loss of income could affect somebody's safety. (In this case I think that's unlikely: there are so many other online social networks that are supportive.)
Being rational, and without arguing either way, we can certainly ask about the logic here: let's agree that the stated groups are more "vulnerable" than other people. Is the enrichment for vulnerability among the NSFW content creators a necessary part of the appeal to Patreon? Would the appeal not be reasonable, or be less compelling, if the creators were not enriched for vulnerable individuals?
Why are demographics not defined by their sexuality (disabled, PoC, english-second-language) more likely to make sexual/nudity content, and hence be more affected by this issue?
I'm big on egalitarianism, but I'm not keen on co-opting unrelated groups in order to make your case sound more important.
The letter doesn't say they are more likely to make such content, but that the negative effects are more harmful to people who are already more vulnerable.
The whole first paragraph is completely overbearing. "Quick, pull in every non-mainstream group we can think of, and then describe them all as literally in fear of death from an ambiguous policy about fringe content. Oh, and of course all these people rent off landlords so nasty that they won't accept a single delayed rental payment and they'll end up homeless if that happens". It's completely indefensible hyperbole.
Because personal identity becomes more important to people in sexual content, and so sexual content is a disproportionate market for people in those demographics?
I consider that debate important preciously because it hits the marginalized people worst. I can make my living where I choose (and buy my adult content where I wish to and as a male, I'm probable considered a "proper male" if I do). Those people can't as easily as I.