Sargon's Peterson is Rubin me the wrong way...

Ok...
Dave Rubin and Jordan B. Peterson announced in early to mid-December that they were leaving Patreon (one of the largest, most ubiquitous crowdfunding enterprises on the internet today) over Patreon's decision to remove their support for the popular YouTube personality Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin). They take the position of "pro-freedom of speech" and "anti-censorship" as the primary reason for leaving the platform.

What we really have to ask here is...
Is this an actual effort to censor somebody who espouses unpopular ideas?
If yes, then they made an ethical and moral decision to support and protect freedom of expression for others.
And, if not...
Was Patreon's decision to remove their support for Sargon appropriate?

I'm not going into details as to who these three men are, that's beyond the scope of this one little opinion piece. If you want to know more about them, I'd suggest Googling them.
I'm going to assume if you're reading this you have some idea as to who they are and what their positions are.

First, let's start with WHY Sargon was removed from Patreon and what that actually means.

"How NOT to argue with Nazis"

(Disclaimer: I'm not going to watch or listen to a two-hour long interview between these two people. If you want to, click here.)

Transcript of the interview that got him banned...

“I just can’t be bothered with people who chose to treat me like this. It’s really annoying. Like, I — . You’re acting like a bunch of n*****s, just so you know. You act like white n*****s. Exactly how you describe black people acting is the impression I get dealing with the Alt Right. I’m really, I’m just not in the mood to deal with this kind of disrespect.”
 “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? White people are meant to be polite and respectful to one another, and you guys can’t even act like white people, it’s really amazing to me.”

So what was actually going on here?
He was in an interview with a Nazi-sympathizing alt-right personality on YouTube when he went on this short little tirade.
Now, can we give Carl a little credit for making jabs at Nazi sympathizers? Sure.
Can we excuse how he decided to do it? Nope.
Especially when it can be done so much better and without using the exact same racially divisive and derogatory language they do.

If you have a fundamental disagreement with others on the issues of racial equality, you can't use the same language they use even if it's intended to insult. To do that is to grant their definitions and terms legitimacy.
That's literally the biggest point they're wrong about, sweeping generalizations about entire ethnic groups.

So, according to Patreon's guidelines on hate speech ("Is the creator using racial slurs or negative depictions of a protected class?), Sargon was in the wrong no matter what.
So no, Carl Benjamin was not censored because of his unpopular ideas, he was violating his agreement with Patreon to adhere to their community guidelines.

"HELP! HELP! I'M BEING REPRESSED!"

What's important to remember, though, is that Carl(Sargon) isn't being silenced or censored.
Censorship implies that a person or group is being prohibited from expressing their thoughts or ideas by removing their content or through litigation.
Has he been prohibited from making and sharing his content in any way?
No, he still has every right and privilege he ever had to make and distribute his content to those who want it.
He just doesn't get to use Patreon to make money off of it anymore.

Could he use other crowdfunding methods to do so?
Yes, he's free to explore other avenues of generating revenue with his content.

So Patreon ending their contract with Sargon doesn't qualify as censorship even in the broadest interpretation.

"Now, for something completely... the same?"

I think I've made a pretty good case as to why what happened to Sargon isn't censorship.
And if it isn't, that makes any argument supported by the assertion that it IS disingenuous.

So why are others (JBP, Rubin, Harris) using censorship as the crux of their justification for leaving Patreon?

Peterson, Rubin, and Harris know the anti-censorship argument appeals to a vast number of their subscribers, regardless of how bereft it is of integrity. They know that the same kind of people who like them like Sargon, and a significant portion of those people have opted to stop using Patreon altogether.
If those people leave, their bottom line takes a hit too.
By virtue signaling their solidarity with Sargon, they're ensuring that those patrons who stop donating have somewhere else to put their cash.
It isn't about the intellectual integrity of honest dialogue.

There's also the sentiment that there's a concerted effort by the "liberal owned media" to censor and de-platform conservative voices and ideas.
There isn't, there are just standards of discourse that some people are not willing to follow. It just so happens that the majority of transgressors of these standards (that most of us agree are good) tend to be more conservative minded, or just straight up fascists.
One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Ralph Waldo Emerson says it best:

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

Conservative ideas are NOT under attack, it's just difficult for some people who promote conservative ideas to express them without attacking others with them.
Which, from my point of view, speaks volumes about both those ideas AND those who hold them.

My opinion?

It's the new definition of "freedom of speech" that some of the more "conservative-leaning" content creators have adopted to mean "I can say whatever I want, even if it's untrue or inflammatory, and suffer no social consequence".

You're not a pioneer of dialog if your ideas are the same old ramblings of bigots the rest of us have decided were devoid of useful content a long time ago. Anything that WAS of any value has been distilled down without the hate and already discussed.
You're just ethically wrong and don't want to be talked out of it.

If you want to dislike Patreon for removing Sargon, that's perfectly ok. I don't expect everyone to agree with my personal opinion of anything.
But don't base your opinion on something demonstrably false or misleading. That just makes you a liar and a fraud.

Sometimes a costume is just a cigar...

A quote often attributed to Sigmund Freud (which he never said, but is beyond the scope of this entry), "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar",  is the perfect way to open this post up. It encapsulates the idea I'm trying to get across here.

There's a bit of a buzz around the introduction of "Sexy Handmaid's" costumes for Halloween this year. A lot of people are up in arms about how this is endorsing or advocating the future it depicts.

Now, is it absolutely justified to be outraged by the story told by Handmaid's Tale? Yes.
Is it justified to be outraged by politicians that seem to be actively working towards making that fiction into a reality? Absolutely yes.
Is it justified to be outraged at a satirical costume? Well...

I don't think so. I think it's a little too simplistic and misses the purpose of satire and irony.
I even saw someone make the comment to a woman (who didn't see the problem with it), quote:
"I hope no one takes you wearing it seriously. Don't get raped..."
As if there wear any danger of that in the first place.

Could it come across as insensitive to some? I'm sure it does. Many things do. I'm not sympathetic to that interpretation. I just don't think it carries much weight when scrutiny is applied. It certainly doesn't when that interpretation is carried to anything else.

Nobody thinks someone wearing a pirate costume promotes the idea of rape, pillage, and murder on the high seas.
Nobody thinks someone dressed as Al Capone is actually promoting organized crime.
Nobody thinks someone dressed as a witch can actually cast spells or hexes.

Wearing this costume is promoting rape no more than wearing any other costume is endorsing what it originally meant. It's meant to remove the power it stood for.

If anything, it flies in the face of those who are actively working for those ideals because it symbolizes that are not falling for their subterfuge and it isn't working. We are aware of what they are trying to do.

A group of women dressed up as Handmaids (not the sexy kind, the subservient slave kind, pointing precisely to the original context of the story) while attending the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. They used their outfits to draw attention to what they though Kavanaugh represented for the future of women.

Now, there is a significant difference between dressing up in a protest for a serious purpose and dressing up as a character for Halloween. There's a lot of contextual difference between them and I fully recognize that. To make the leap of endorsement, however, is ludicrous.

If you apply the original context to anything you satirize, you're missing the point of satire.
This costume isn't an endorsement, it's a mockery.