What's with all these awful Youtubers being popular?


The individual people who did that and were in favor of it are/were nazis. Labeling an organization as nazi/not nazi is different than labeling an individual.

It’s impossible to know a person’s mind. We can’t possibly hope to define people based on their beliefs, because they are impossible to verify. We can only judge and identify people based on their actions alone.

If an individual person inwardly truly believes that we should kill all jews, but their entire life they never say so. They never do anything to further that goal. Somehow they manage to continue holding that belief while also acting contrary to it. That person is not a nazi.

Opposite is the same. A person who deep down inside believes all people are created equal and murder is wrong. Yet during their life they take actions to further the cause of white supremacy. That person is a white supremacist. A person who votes Republican even though in their mind they hold no racist beliefs, doesn’t matter. They’re a racist because they have used their power to further the cause of racism, among other things.

Actions define who or what you are. What you are can change over time. This rule applies to individuals, if you want to label an entire organization that is more difficult.


It’s mostly based on things such as Twitter donating to various conservative PACs as well as following various conservatives on his own Twitter account.


Do you have a link to Twitter and Dorsey’s donations? The only information I’ve been able to find is that Twitter and Dorsey donate to Liberals, and Nazi organizations like the ACLU. Granted, most of this information comes from Right-leaning websites accusing Dorsey and Twitter of Liberal bias, but I haven’t been able to find a nonpartisan listing of Twitter’s donations, let alone donations to conservative PACs.

Not that I necessarily distrust you, but I’d just like to see the information for myself. Is this something you can cite or just repeated information that you just “know?”


Sadly, I do not have a link. I saw a scan of a PAC donation form that had Twitter donating to some Republican PAC at one point, but that’s about it.


Granted, this is from a Conservative business website, so take that for what it’s worth, but they don’t mention any donations to Conservative PACs. On the contrary:

" Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey isn’t much of a campaign contributor, at least not monetarily. His last campaign donations were in 2012, when he gave $5,000 to Democrat Richard Carmona in his run against Sen. Jeff Flake.

But Dorsey has been described as “an ardent leftist who has campaigned with radicals like DeRay Mckesson.” And he recently raised a stir after tweeting a link to an article published in Medium, which basically calls for an end to the Republican party and a California-style one-party state nationwide. “America finally needs to take the Republican Party down for a generation or two,” the authors write.

" Great read ," Dorsey said of the article."



Here is the one thing I could find, so admittedly, it may not be enough to determine a pattern.


As I understand it from a couple of SV friends, Jack Dorsey is basically just your standard Tech-oriented center-right Libertarian - obsessively dedicated to some nebulous concept of “Free Speech”, pro drug legalization, pro gay marriage, and pretty conservative about everything else.


That IS something, but like you said, I wouldn’t consider one donation to be a pattern. I’m just curious where he supposedly got a reputation for being “right-leaning” and donating to Conservative PACs, when so far, only one donation has been found.

Again, not that I necessarily distrust you, but I’m wondering if Jack Dorsey being a conservative is another example of a narrative that really isn’t based on hard evidence.


Whatever Jack Dorsey’s political affiliation is; I would still call him a coward and an enabler of shitty behaviors both in terms of Alex Jones and Donald Trump.


This is part of what forms the “Jack is a right-winger” narrative. Twitter has the capability to ban problematic users, but by and large does not. There appears to be uneven enforcement of community standards, and the agenda seems to largely be one of widespread permissiveness.

That’s also where the “Jack is a Nazi” thing comes from; Twitter hypothetically bans people for threats or flagrantly racist behavior, but in practice it’s very hard to get that to happen. So the perception is that Jack is giving a platform to neo-Nazis by not aggressively banning them.

And yes, there really are outright actual honest-to-gods Nazis on Twitter, pushing out honest-to-gods actual threats on people, and Twitter does not ban them, despite their community standards saying directly that doing that is a bannable offense. I’ve seen it.

My general assessment is that Jack cares about money, and sees this era of extreme political divide as an opportunity to maintain his platform’s profitability. Why silence anyone when you can have a platform that gives them all a voice and ensures continued arguing/conflict/engagement?

He enables shitty behavior because it makes money.


Meanwhile, I’ve seen LGBT and POC accounts banned for reacting appropriately to said threats. The bar to banning these accounts is demonstrably far lower than the bar for actually banning actual Nazis.


Yes, this is the key. I’ve seen non-nazi good people accounts banned or suspended for extremely minor infractions. They technically broke the rules, but basically just insulted someone or something like that. Meanwhile, crazy dangerous conspiracy nuts get away with extreme violations.

It’s suspiciously like the real world where a POC goes to jail for having some weed, while an old white man steals billions or causes enormous damage, yet faces no consequences.


In trying to find Jack Dorsey’s political donation history, what I find so interesting, is that the right wing websites all think he’s a progressive left-winger because of all the Twitter purges on conservative celebrities and whatnot.

I find it really interesting that each side seems to think that Jack is biased against them, when in reality, I think you’re right in that all he really cares about is money.


i.e: A conservative.


Know, I looked at my like… site stats the other day and noticed I have liked more of Scotts posts than anyone else, it’s not even close. I’m wondering if this is just me doing like… oh Scott has a podcast I like and therefore I just am being a fanboy, or if he genuinely says things I find myself just liking more often than anyone else.

The above example and it’s succinctness lead me to think it’s the latter.


You just have the unfortunate taste to like something said by a Scott.


Jeff Bezos cares a lot about money. You can even buy Infowars and Alt-Right merchandise on Amazon.

Does that make him a conservative as well or just greedy?


There are no good rich people.


No one needs money on the level Jeff Bezos has it. Plus no amount of money he could lose from Alex Jones and the Infowars fanbase could ever chip into his massive fortune.

Also if any tech figurehead identifies as a libertarian, then he/she is the same level as bad as a conservative because he/she is all about free capitalism/enterprise ruining people for personal gain.


I’m not saying that I think Jeff Bezos is a good person or not. What I’m saying is that people are complex and can hold conflicting ideological ideas. Not everyone is 100% consistent.

The same guy who sells Infowars merchandise on his website donated $33 million in college scholarships for Dreamers.

Apparently, he plans to donate even more money in the future:

My point is that saying that someone is “conservative” or “evil” just because they happen to like earning money is overly simplistic. The real world doesn’t work like that.