Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[Blagher]

Everyone with a brain is aware that all these instances aren't "police not doing their job." It was intentional sabotage of political enemies while enforcing laws against one group and letting the other get away with whatever it wants.

I think your analogy is bad since clothing largely has value due to brand name while payment processors are far far behind the scenes, but the answer is simple - the clothing company just tells people they didn't have a choice and not to blame them

That's an interesting theory but the fact still stands that unite the right 2 still happened because the government cannot legally stop it. I personally don't buy the "it was intentional" angle, especially because I doubt the city of Charlottesville for example wants to deal with that kind of shit storm.

I think you're naive if you don't believe brand equity matters to stuff like the payment processors, especially if businesses are worried they'll be guilty by association. The left has weaponized this to an incredible degree but if businesses are threatened with boycotts for using a certain processor, that will in turn flow down and hurt the processor. That's the world we live in now.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

That's cool but Sargon also proud associations with people like Tommy Robinson and other people who sprout the anti Islam, anti immigration line of rhetoric and sprouts them too in his videos.

Pewdiepie on the other hand didn't have a history of antisemitism so it was one event that was stretched out. The equivalent would be if pewdiepie was putting those exceptional parenthesis around shit and joked about gassing jews a lot in his videos before this.

This. Pewdiepie is still kicking because there was little meat to his story. Carl on the other hand is exceptional. You don't have to lie much (if at all) in order to make him look bad/evil.

Pewdiepie paid people to hold up a sign that said "death to the jews." It was spun around by the media successfully enough where J.K. Rowling linked to the news story and called him a fascist. Pewdie lost a lot of money from Disney cutting ties with him. He is still around right now because he's not actually politically active and he's cut back on those sort of hijinks.

Sargon and Tommy are political figures, and the killstream has more overt" "alt-right "associations" (you know what I mean).

Regardless, who is untouched and why isn't relevant. I'm talking about how journalists are trying to ruin people's lives under the guise of "just reporting facts." The media went to Pewdiepie's sponsors "for comment" to freak them out. Their intent is clear and they're not just reporting stuff in the public interest. Journalists want to damage your life if they're in your crosshairs.

Carl attacked them first. He also attacked Jim, Ralph and their sphere first too. It's perfectly acceptable to get back at him for acting like a huge faggot towards them for months on end.

Journalists didn't go after Carl because he's a faggot. They went after him because he's not a progressive and opposes a lot of their agenda.

 

[Blagher]

Pewdiepie paid people to hold up a sign that said "death to the jews." It was spun around by the media successfully enough where J.K. Rowling linked to the news story and called him a fascist. Pewdie lost a lot of money from Disney cutting ties with him. He is still around right now because he's not actually politically active and he's cut back on those sort of hijinks.

Sargon and Tommy are political figures, and the killstream has more overt" "alt-right "associations" (you know what I mean).

Regardless, who is untouched and why isn't relevant. I'm talking about how journalists are trying to ruin people's lives under the guise of "just reporting facts." The media went to Pewdiepie's sponsors "for comment" to freak them out. Their intent is clear and they're not just reporting stuff in the public interest. Journalists want to damage your life if they're in your crosshairs.

No context really matter here man. Part of way there was so much outrage on YouTube over pdp was because it was one isolated event. You had ultra liberal people like nostalgia chick saying that it was just a fuck up on pdp's side but that he's not actually a nazi.

In Carl's case here, he's getting kicked off because his entire business model to milking money from Alt right basement dwellers. There's a much more established history of him being xenophobic and racist, and sexist. Not only does he say this shit, he actively supports people who say that shit too. I don't think anyone who's not his butt buddy are going to contend the those charges.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

His livestream channel is trailing far behind his other channels, and has only gotten worse amidst all the self-inflicted drama.
Not even his fans can suffer to watch this talentless hack's farthuffing throughout an entire livestream.

Little Carlito's poor decisions and shitty personality are catching up to him...

Carlito is no more.

Which raises an interesting question actually. If Carl is kicked off Youtube and Stream.me provides some sort of payment processing, will Carl move there?

But oh no! He can't do that because Ralph and co hate him and he hates them and if they're all on the same platform they'll be like Siamese fighting fish in the same tank. Guess he'll have to make his own Stream.me.

 

[Lysol]

This is a weird analogy but the only thing I can think of at the time. Imagine if you have a big name youtube celebrity who's extremely hated on the internet. Whenever he is seen with a brand name in his vids, it leads to mass boycotts and lost sales for those companies. You are the owner of a small clothing line and he walks in wanting to buy your clothes to wear on the new video. Are you obligated to sell him thwt clothing knowing full well the shit storm that will ensue with your business?

The problem here is that this isn't a clothing line we're talking about, this is a business of handling other peoples' money. There's a very real argument to be made that by denying someone the ability to move their money, you're essentially telling them that they can't do with their own private property what they wish - especially seeing as there's no way to avoid interacting with some form of payment processor to pay for anything online.

Also, lmao at the idea of a boycott. How the hell would you even begin to boycott a payment processor when they're all in on this shit?

 

[Blagher]

But they should be forced to for basic transaction stuff. In this age of electronic purchasing, payment processing should be treated as a public utility. You pay for your water or electricity, and they don't get to tell you what to do with it.

With so many people getting paid by direct deposit these days and the centralized power of visa and mastercard, it's just a small step to literally holding people's income hostage over opinions

The rub is that I agree with you, but I'm also liberal on a lot of stances involving government regulation. That involves setting a precedent for the government to intervene on many more things. Who is to decide what is an essential right? Shit, we still debate over if reasonable access to health care should be an essential right for example.

But the vast majority of the people whining about this stuff also whine about how government overreach is too much these days. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

There's a very real argument to be made that by denying someone the ability to move their money, you're essentially telling them that they can't do with their own private property what they wish - especially seeing as there's no way to avoid interacting with some form of payment processor to pay for anything online.

Which is not a theoretical risk - it's happened to Null. Tommy Robinson in the UK reckoned it would happen to him. It still could.

It reminds me of on the Killstream when they were discussing deplatforming and someone said 'What would happen if all the supermarkets decided not to sell you food?'.

I.e. there is a clear danger that a cartel of companies have a joint monopoly in some area, get taken over by one side of the political spectrum and then deny service.

Ironically enough it's actually quite close to what happened in the South before civil rights where cartels of companies, all run by Democrats, decided to enforce segregation or to not allow black people entirely. That led to civil rights and it is also used as a justification, by Democrats, or forcing cake bakers to bake gay wedding cakes. Even though in that case there is no monopoly - lots of wedding cake bakers are owned by gay people who'd be happy to bake that cake but the Democrats want to use it to drive conservatives out of the business.

Of course when it comes to Internet companies which are all run by Bay Area leftists, and work as a cartel the Democrats say 'It's a private company, they've got the right to refuse service according to libertarian principles. Don't like it, start your own company'. But if you're on the right you're an idiot if you take that at face value. Hell if you're on the left you're either an idiot or really intellectually dishonest if you do too.

And of course now we see if you do start your own company, the payment processors will just deplatform that. As they did with gab and bitchute. Voat had people post CP and then report it. Kiwi Farms had people donate with stolen credit cards and get its ability to take payments nuked. So you don't just need to start the internet company, you need to start a parallel banking system too. And you need to be on the lookout for fraudulent donations or CP posting, because either of those will be used to get your payments or hosting pulled.

 

[Blagher]

The problem here is that this isn't a clothing line we're talking about, this is a business of handling other peoples' money. There's a very real argument to be made that by denying someone the ability to move their money, you're essentially telling them that they can't do with their own private property what they wish - especially seeing as there's no way to avoid interacting with some form of payment processor to pay for anything online.

Also, lmao at the idea of a boycott. How the hell would you even begin to boycott a payment processor when they're all in on this shit?

The same way you fuck up iPhone parts suppliers. You tweet are major businesses and go "I'm not using your business because you use processor x's services. And they support racism" Get enough steam and you have business applying pressure on the processors.

And unfortunately that's the beauty of our capitalistic society man. Sargon can go crypto like null did

 

[Spooky]

I think you're naive if you don't believe brand equity matters to stuff like the payment processors, especially if businesses are worried they'll be guilty by association. The left has weaponized this to an incredible degree but if businesses are threatened with boycotts for using a certain processor, that will in turn flow down and hurt the processor. That's the world we live in now.

I don't think you understand the concept of being forced to. They payment processor could even come out against it in a press release if they wanted. I'm not talking about voluntary associations. I'm talking about mandstory service, and everyone would have their hands "dirty"

Shit, we still debate over if reasonable access to health care should be an essential right

How you spend your own money on legal goods and services is not the same as being able to spend someone else's money on what some consider a human right or demanding someone's service at a set price or for free. These aren't comparable for that and other reasons including economic effects

 

[instythot]

The rub is that I agree with you, but I'm also liberal on a lot of stances involving government regulation. That involves setting a precedent for the government to intervene on many more things. Who is to decide what is an essential right? Shit, we still debate over if reasonable access to health care should be an essential right for example.

But the vast majority of the people whining about this stuff also whine about how government overreach is too much these days. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's really just Americans debating over reasonable health care access for some reason

I don't really see "if people have money stored electronically, they should have the same access to it and it should have the same usability and spendability as if they were holding paper bills" as a slippery slope issue

 

[MediocreMilt]

Or you could invest in things that will keep value no matter what happen?

Exceptional as Null's Bitcoin shilling can be, if you think commodities of any sort exist where the value doesn't fluctuate over time, then you completely don't understand investing. Try again when you graduate high school, and have fun on winter break.

 

[Rand /pol/]

in the South before civil rights where cartels of companies, all run by Democrats, decided to enforce segregation or to not allow black people entirely

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, it's a company's right.

 

[Lysol]

The same way you fuck up iPhone parts suppliers. You tweet are major businesses and go "I'm not using your business because you use processor x's services. And they support racism" Get enough steam and you have business applying pressure on the processors.

And unfortunately that's the beauty of our capitalistic society man. Sargon can go crypto like null did

Now I wonder what would happen if these payment processor companies decided to "boycott" the people who were boycotting against them by denying service to websites and groups dedicated to or associated with the aforementioned boycott?

Because the way things are looking right now I'd bet that's exactly what would happen were such an attempt made, because there's no way you would be able to boycott anything without publicly gathering to do it. Which in turn would make it obvious who your group's alliances lie with.

 

[Washington Post]

The rub is that I agree with you, but I'm also liberal on a lot of stances involving government regulation. That involves setting a precedent for the government to intervene on many more things. Who is to decide what is an essential right? Shit, we still debate over if reasonable access to health care should be an essential right for example.

But the vast majority of the people whining about this stuff also whine about how government overreach is too much these days. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You really need to get some perspective. Right now, we have unaccountable, monopolistic private companies that are able to ruin someone's life based on having the wrong political opinion. You could easily be shut off from a large segment of the modern economy and the job market for disagreeing with some power-crazed CEO.

The argument could be made that financial deplatforming of wrong-thinkers is akin to election meddling because one side of the political spectrum is able to raise billions of dollars to hire full-time political activists, engage in lobbying efforts and fund issue advocacy ads while the other side struggles to even pay the bills because they are incapable of raising funds from willing contributors. Get a job, right? Well, how are you going to do that when political activists will harass your employers until they fire you for being a Nazi, pedophile or anything else they might slander you as. And even if you were able to get a job, if your political opposition is able to finance full-time political activists, why should you be unable to do the same?

Meanwhile, you're worried about hypothetical government regulatory overreach. If that ever does happen, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. But I have a hard time seeing that as being any worse than the current status quo. But if you disagree, walk me through your worst case scenario if the government does overreach when regulating Visa and Mastercard.

Also, you can complain about government regulatory overreach in one area while asking for more regulations in another. I understand maybe those who have a negative knee-jerk reaction to the thought of any regulations at all might look silly now that they want regulations put in place, but maybe this is just the hard life lesson they needed to learn.

 

[Douglas Reynholm]

What would he even spend all this money on? Coke?

He chats enough breeze to draw that conclusion but I reckon not, he might actually have an inch of charisma and slimmer waistline if he was on the fish scale.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

Absolutely nothing wrong with this, it's a company's right.

If it were an individual company and other companies in the same town will serve you, I'd agree. If there's a cartel or a local monopoly I disagree.

 

[Blagher]

It's really just Americans debating over reasonable health care access for some reason

I don't really see "if people have money stored electronically, they should have the same access to it and it should have the same usability and spendability as if they were holding paper bills" as a slippery slope issue

You're essentially saying having access to the banking system is an essential right that the government has a responsibility to ensure, alongside stuff like utilities.

Do you want to explain how something like access to the banking system should be allowed but stuff like reasonable access to health care or living wages etc shouldn't? Thats the slippery slope I'm taking about.

 

[Lysol]

You're essentially saying having access to the banking system is an essential right that the government has a responsibility to ensure, alongside stuff like utilities.

Do you want to explain how something like access to the banking system should be allowed but stuff like reasonable access to health care or living wages etc shouldn't? Thats the slippery slope I'm taking about.

One is making sure nobody is fucking with your money.

The other is people trying to fuck with your money.

 

[Spooky]

forcing cake bakers to bake gay wedding cakes

Even this isn't comparable since gays can buy non super special custom cakes. It would be more like paypal refusing to make some kind of special plug-in or whatever

 

[Captain Ahab]

Well at least he has his college degree too fall back on...
Uhh never mind. I guess there's always applebees

Like Applepiss would ever hire a middle-aged douchebag associated with the alt-right in 2018. The media backlash would be brutal. No company would ever hire him. Ever.