The Morality and Ethics of Demonetization - When is demonetization justified, if ever?

Iwasamwillbe

Iwasamwillbe

Austro-Bohemian-Flemish-Cretan-Japanese Mischling
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 14, 2018
Let us start with this tweet:

twitter.com

Evul on Twitter

“#Nessa #pokemon I know I know, color isnt right. Will retouch later. NSFW version coming later.”
twitter.com twitter.com

This guy drew the noticeably dark-skinned Pokemon Gym Leader Nessa as a monkey-like creature.

This caused much asspain and autistic reeing on Twitter (because something something comparing POCs to monkeys), with many people trying to get him banned from Twitter, trying to get him banned from Patreon, trying to get the company who makes Pokemon to sue him for copyright infringement, and generally trying to ruin his life and livelihood.

Nothing worked, and he is still making art on Twitter for Patreon money to this day, without any legal scuffles from Pokemon's creators.

Normally, this would be a perfect example of Cancel Culture amounting to nothing, but I want to use it to ask a simple question:

When is it justified to try to remove a source of income from a person over their expressions of thought? When they "go too far"? How far is "too far", in such an instance?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: ConfederateIrishman
I don't think it's ever justified, in the way they do it.

If what they've done is illegal, then it should be handled by law enforcement and the legal system. If they're offering a product for sale, you're allowed to boycott it. But trying to convince a neutral third party to take action and deny someone service on your behalf is never justified, no matter how shitty the other person is. (And neither is getting mad at the third party for offering them service in the first place.)
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Feels
Reactions: Unog, Pontiff Sulyvahn, adorable bitch and 7 others
I think a person's income is sacred. Unless they're hurting other people to get their money, I have no say in it.
It's one of the things I hate most about socjus, they go after people's ability to feed their families.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Duncan Hills Coffee, Unog and 6 others
Demonitization is just a modern form of censorship, made possible by the fact that online we all depend on a handful of credit card companies and other payment processors. It's a near monopoly on deciding who gets to buy/sell/trade, which honestly should terrify you.

Censorship happens because people find something objectionable; it may be for moral reasons, it may be because they find it politically threatening (this can be either a tabacco company finding accurate health info threatening, or doctors finding tabacco ads threatening) and it may even be just because they're bored and like to start shit.

It's rarely ever justified, even the worst of people should be allowed to trade how they want to trade, considering it's legal.

There are so many professions, like paparazzi, that wouldn't exist if we demonitized all types of douchebaggery, but they don't depend on online payment.
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: George Geef, Unog, Pontiff Sulyvahn and 3 others
I think "too far" is fucking with a man's livelihood. Because let's take it to its logical conclusion - what does it mean for a man to lose his job, or be sued into the dirt? To leave him penniless and wish for death?
Did you know unemployed men are at a higher risk of suicide? What if they have a family? Children? These people would rather see you kill yourself and your children starve than accept disagreement.
That is the sentiment at the basis of their actions, even if they don't give it words. In a just world, "cancelling" someone would get a person justifiably shot.
Sam Hyde said:
Do not forget that these people want you broke, dead, your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think it's funny.
Click to expand...
It is never justified and should be recognized as the act of aggression which it is.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Unog and (deleted member)
Lemmingwise said:
Demonitization is just a modern form of censorship, made possible by the fact that online we all depend on a handful of credit card companies and other payment processors. It's a near monopoly on deciding who gets to buy/sell/trade, which honestly should terrify you.

Censorship happens because people find something objectionable; it may be for moral reasons, it may be because they find it politically threatening (this can be either a tabacco company finding accurate health info threatening, or doctors finding tabacco ads threatening) and it may even be just because they're bored and like to start shit.

It's rarely ever justified, even the worst of people should be allowed to trade how they want to trade, considering it's legal.

There are so many professions, like paparazzi, that wouldn't exist if we demonitized all types of douchebaggery, but they don't depend on online payment.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. I don't support demonetization at all. If you have a view you should be able to express it; if your view is any good it will gain clout, if it's not you will be discredited with contrary evidence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Unog and Lemmingwise
Most every position is defensible in the right context, except for pedophilia. There's no circumstance where subjecting a child to something that they're not physically, mentally, or emotionally mature enough to engage in or process is defensible. So, I would draw the line at any speech that attempted to legitimize or legalize it.

While that excludes me from being a free speech absolutist, it does piss me off when people say that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. That's literally what it means. Having the freedom to do something means that you can do it without consequence.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: 1 person
Demonetization is never okay. Doesn't matter if it's the KKK, Al Qaeda, or you mom, unless you're outright doing some kind of illegal thing with the money (like laundering or illegal wiring or whatever). It's a vile practice that should never happen as it's clearly easy to manipulate just to mess with your political enemies. By stealing someone's income you're basically taking their food, water and whatever other necessities they require to live which is worse than first world prisons.
The government or IRS or whatever should have access to the paper trail to see what's going on and in the case of the ebul whites and terrorists and whoever they can track where the money is coming and going as well as any unrest or political movements that spur on the dumping of money into the cause.
 
Nothing Personal said:
Most every position is defensible in the right context, except for pedophilia. There's no circumstance where subjecting a child to something that they're not physically, mentally, or emotionally mature enough to engage in or process is defensible. So, I would draw the line at any speech that attempted to legitimize or legalize it.

While that excludes me from being a free speech absolutist, it does piss me off when people say that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. That's literally what it means. Having the freedom to do something means that you can do it without consequence.
Click to expand...
Well, freedom from legal consequence. If people decide they can’t stand to be around you because you’re constantly sperging about Trump or the Jews or whatever that’s still a consequence.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 3 people
ProgKing of the North said:
Well, freedom from legal consequence. If people decide they can’t stand to be around you because you’re constantly sperging about Trump or the Jews or whatever that’s still a consequence.
Click to expand...
I would agree if you were free to live off the land and be left alone, but even the amish pay taxes. Or if you were free to segregate and be with your own, but civil rights laws fuck us on that front. If I have no choice but to interact with a bunch of people that I hate in order to get by, then they should damn well have to put up with my shit too.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Balaam and (deleted member)
There were and always will be angry tards that want to mess with your business for stupid reasons.

The real problem is that so many people completely rely on a big external service that they have zero control over like YouTube, Patreon, etc. And that these companies are stupid enough to listen to those idiots.

It's a weird time. These platforms have the same attitude, internet platforms had twenty years ago: we'll ban you whenever we feel like it. But all you lost back then were a few dollars to lowtax. Now whole livelihoods are at stake.
 
I'm kinda conflicted and confused on this whole issue. First off how do we even define 'demonetization'? Is boycotting a business or a country the same as demonetization? Let's use Chick Fil A as an example here. Let's say you don't like Chic Fil A, because they are anti-gay so you boycott them and encourage others to do the same. Let's go a step further and say that it's effective and Chick Fil As close down because of this. If CFA workers get laid off and become unable to feed their families then isn't that basically the same the same thing as an online content creator getting demonetized (1. Some fag gets upset at someone trying to run a business 2. They bitch about it 3. The business gets shut down)?

Another issue: Right now, the majority of online content creators that get demonetized are people that we find sympathetic. We all love Jersh and we hate what the media and payment processors are doing to him, but would any of you lift a finger if the person getting demonetized was some sort of globalist open-borders activist? What if it was someone that said that all white people should die? What if it was an Islamist like Anjem Choudary? What if it was some nu-media lefty journalist that earned his living calling people like you or me white supremacists? If people who agreed with my politics had the power in society and were going after these sorts of people would any of you lift a finger?

TL;DR:
ConfederateIrishman said:
Demonetization is justified when I do it, duh
Click to expand...
 
tsundereaddict said:
I'm kinda conflicted and confused on this whole issue. First off how do we even define 'demonetization'? Is boycotting a business or a country the same as demonetization? Let's use Chick Fil A as an example here. Let's say you don't like Chic Fil A, because they are anti-gay so you boycott them and encourage others to do the same. Let's go a step further and say that it's effective and Chick Fil As close down because of this. If CFA workers get laid off and become unable to feed their families then isn't that basically the same the same thing as an online content creator getting demonetized (1. Some fag gets upset at someone trying to run a business 2. They bitch about it 3. The business gets shut down)?
Click to expand...
Rather you think it’s justified or not, there’s literally nothing you can do to stop boycotts though. You can’t force people to buy Chick-fil-A or Gillette or whatever.

The difference is this isn’t stopping others from buying what they like. I don’t want MY money going to conservative Christian groups so I very rarely go to Chick-fil-A even though there’s one next to my work, but I’m not trying to make it impossible for others to go there. Vote with your wallet and all that.
 
ProgKing of the North said:
Rather you think it’s justified or not, there’s literally nothing you can do to stop boycotts though. You can’t force people to buy Chick-fil-A or Gillette or whatever.

The difference is this isn’t stopping others from buying what they like. I don’t want MY money going to conservative Christian groups so I very rarely go to Chick-fil-A even though there’s one next to my work, but I’m not trying to make it impossible for others to go there. Vote with your wallet and all that.
Click to expand...
Well isn't that just a matter of how powerful you are? I don't want to sound like I'm belittling you or anything (everyone here, myself included is like this), but you are doing something that hurts CFA's business for political reasons, it's just that it's not very effective, because you're just one guy. If you had enough power and influence in society then things would be different. If tomorrow everyone in America woke up and said "You know what? ProgKing of the North is our guy; we're going to listen to him now. He says CFA is bad and so we're going to stop eating there." then CFA would be done for.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that you're not consciously or actively trying to destroy CFA or make them bend to your will, but you're still doing small actions that could help bring about the destruction or political capitulation of CFA.
 
The only time it's justified is if they are actively causing harm to people who are doing no harm themselves or are clearly stealing work from other people without giving them credit. And I mean actually stealing, putting a 5-10 clip of someones video in yours doesn't count. Sadly, with how things are now, people have to tread carefully, we can only hope that, after a while, the ill-will builds up and finally forces a change. But until then, support niche creators you like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back