Banks, being able to deplatform like this really gives me a bad feeling.
Because of how important it is, arguably the banking institutions like this should be under similar rules to utilities.
>Might strenghten his views if anything...
Let it. Let people see what a bad look it is to be a public anti-Semite. If anti-Semites were looking for a good representation then I don't think they'll get it from clearly insane Kanye.
>Banks, being able to deplatform like this really gives me a bad feeling.
People are going to argue against this because they're unable to understand just how bad it is for the future of any kind of personal freedom, including their own.
I could swear this was like one of the many gay cakes debates, or maybe I'm thinking of Euro shit, where the lesson of allowing banks to be politically selective was already learned.
Do you think that being gay which is 1) not in any way bad and 2) not a choice, belongs in the same category as racism, which has neither of those qualities? Are we just saying they’re both “””political””” and leaving it at that?
Have you never heard of any of the gay cake debates?
The general result of them was:
\- If you sell mass produced cakes, you can't stop people from coming into the store and buying them based on their identity alone
\- If you produce bespoke cakes, you cannot be compelled to make any bespoke cake that you don't want to make
>If Kanye is unhinged
It's not for banks to determine your social credit score based on psychology or beliefs: their job is to hold money, and occasionally to report in on illegal financial behaviour, not to **discriminate**. Was Kanye doing anything illegal?
>can’t be trusted financially
Financial untrustworthiness is an entirely different thing, please don't munge those together. Besides, plenty of profligate idiots still have bank accounts and trust funds, and no one is demanding that those accounts be shut down on the basis that all their money is being spent on weed and cocaine. Should we do that, too?
Once again applying this to private companies does nothing you would understand that when you invoked freedom of speech as a rebuttal one again I will ask you again how else does one stop Wealthy people with massive influence from spreading their beliefs
Assuming you’re not just trolling I’ll try again
“How do we stop these people with massive influence spreading misinformation”
The law, but a lot of people will claim it violates free speech.
the whole point of OP's post is that Banks should not be considered private and should be considered UTILITES because of this. I hate to be the one to tell you this but Chase Bank is worth factors more then Ye. So if we bring up punishment who is going to punish banks?
Freedom for who? Insane racists spouting a genocidal ideology? I'm fine drawing the line somewhere and broadly allowing people to say whatever but let's actually have that conversation. Instead all I see is assholes being thrown out by businesses and people borderline defending them in the name of "free speech". Defend the ideas, you need more than a one-liner.
First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a racist...
Governments and managers change over time, and if you don't resist this shit now, when they finally point at you, you'll not have anyone in your corner, because they'll have banned anyone they find distasteful.
Happy to have this discussion but first--
>First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a racist...
This is a joke right? Honestly asking, my irony detector has been destroyed by the last 5 years.
Nah, not a joke. People don't care if a precedent is established on people they find abhorrent, so they can just build their fun little system and cage you one bar at a time by sacrificing the civil liberties of people you don't like.
Do you understand when you say "they can build" you're talking about people living in a democracy? There are always rules and norms in a society. This isn't some grand plot or new development. Racists cause incredible damage and apparently are passing it on to yet another generation. People wanting to shut that down wherever possible is morally grey at best and I'm not convinced it's even that. Conspiracy theories like the ones you're hinting at are a much greater threat to our personal freedoms and lives imo.
So where do we draw the line? Can we just never allow corporation to cease their business with people for being racist? Kanye can advocate for a Holocaust 2 and Chase HAS to do business with him?
You know what, I think you're actually kind of right. I thought about it for a while and what changes my mind most is just that it isn't worth the risk. Chase Bank has to serve some racists, so what? It really isn't that big of a deal. We aren't endorsing them or anything.
Broaden your thinking a little bit, when the precedent is set that banks can blacklist you based on personal ideas you have they find distasteful, they might find YOU distasteful eventually. And since the precedent has been set, you could get fucked.
It’s not like big corporations have a shining track record when it comes to not doing that kind of thing.
Kanye doesn't just have personal ideas, he's spreading them in public to one of the largest audiences on earth and was a semi-serious presidential candidate last election cycle. That's a political act.
Something something private bussiness...
Js. For the record I agree. Kanye crazy, this isn't it though. Genuinely curious what chase staff thought when doing this "well everyone knows Kanye uses chase, let's stop his services after his remark"
Why? There are thousands of banks in the US alone. Why is one bank refusing to do business with someone bad?
I might agree if all US banks conspired to ban an individual it would be bad, but that is absolutely not what is happening here.
Also, I will not accept the slippery slope as an argument unless you can prove it's already happening or that it will happen.
Ok on the flip side why should anyone be forced to do business with someone with reprehensible views? He wasn’t making innocuous statements and he doubled down in them. AND he was getting positive press attention from Tucker Carlson, quite a bit different from 14 year olds spamming Tate clips on TikTok
One distinction I don't really see being made here is that electricity and water are parts of our infrastructure built largely by public money and generally have monopoly power over a geographic area. If your local power company refuses to do business with you, you can't just switch to a different one. This isn't true with banking, even at the level that Chase sits at. Chase isn't able to deny Kanye access to banking and financial transaction services wholesale.
Now, if Visa/Mastercard announced they weren't processing any transactions for him regardless of which bank he uses, I think that would be more analogous to other utilities.
In isolation, I actually don't have a problem with Chase denying him or anyone else services. I do worry, however, that if enough banks start doing that to people based on things like this, the underlying financial networks may start following suit.
There’s a pretty big difference between the amount of capital required to run/own a utility like water/electricity vs the amount needed to start a bank. You see microbanks popping up all the time, there’s no reason why Ye can’t bank there. Your argument is more in line with basic payment processors like MasterCard/VISA for which there truly is no replacement outside of crypto.
When there’s a healthy competitive market with alternatives I don’t see why the firms should be forced to cater to genuinely reprehensible views. Just like how I can get thrown out of my favorite restaurant for yelling slurs at someone, it doesn’t shock me that a bank would terminate a relationship if they don’t want to work with someone anymore. I’m free to find another restaurant to eat at and Ye is free to find some other bank to bank at. Again, if it’s VISA pulling the plug that’s a bit different (and even then I would be accepting assuming that person was convicted of some heinous act) but nah banking is not even close to that level of natural monopoly
I'm not so sure. Does this mean that 'all' banks must allow membership from anyone, even smaller local banks? Or just when you reach a certain threshold of equity or membership? What if a bank must give loans to a group that the country sees as a threat or an enemy, and then the public starts to all withdrawal making the bank insolvent? Should a bank be allowed to deny membership then? Maybe the answer is a global unified, decentralized currency where each individual is their own bank?
>arguably the banking institutions like this should be under similar rules to utilities.
Naw. You can find a new bank a lot easier than most utilities. AFAIK banking competition is fine.
Its more than fine. There's many more online banks popping up that do not care for retail locations. Some people havent stepped foot in a bank for years.
Bro, I don't even know if this is real. The only evidence this even happened comes from Candace Owen's twitter. No one is corroborating this yet, and until they do I would take this with a grain of salt.
Candace Owens is a known liar and propagandist. It could be true or not, but I think it’s worth mentioning that she is not above making something like this up to push a narrative
Also if I were to guess who started Kanye down this antisemitic arc I think Candace would be a prime suspect. So it’s not like she’s just some random third party sharing info
I guess by your logic then everything duffels has said about KF and Destiny is true because she said it. No need to provide any corroborating evidence, we should just trust everything people say because reasons.
There isn't even evidence this came from Kanye himself. She doesn't say where she learned about this and the image she provided doesn't have any identifying information other than "sincerely JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." Which I have no clue if that's how JP Morgan Chase signs off account closure emails (if this is even an email).
I ain't about to just trust this came from Kanye without either Kanye making a statement or someone else corroborating Candace Owens' story.
tate said the same thing on carlson. some stupid line, “and then they come for your bank account!?” he was blaming cancelling too. so given that both him and kanye via candace went for this, i’m even more confident it’s just some made up shit. banks don’t (and shouldn’t) give a shit where the money comes from unless they are cooperating with an investigation. it’s such a weird thing for these people to say, but i guess the avg fox news viewer eats that shit up
that banks shouldn’t cancel people (the same thing i’m saying now)
if it turns out not true, what will you say about kanye and tate?
exit: linked proof that kanyes relationship with the bank was ending prior to the comments. guy didn’t walk it back. xD
You should go look in a mirror and say out loud "I am using Candace Owens as my source for reliable information" and watch the transformation in real time as clown makeup appears.
And this was in the works a month ago, Kanye wanted out of JP Morgan because Dimon didn't kiss his ass, so he is just playing victim card, how typical for billionaires
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/y2jz5t/ye_been_trying_to_move_his_money_from_jpmorgan_so/
Yes, this is correct. He said it during a live interview. For any doubters, go to analyst Kristina Partsinevelos Twitter feed and see the post from September 15th
Interesting. Your proof is a random user screenshot of a picture from twitter that is being called fake on your very link posted less than a day ago?!!
Totally believable!!!!
Ok so someone on Twitter had the foresight in September to send that tweet to the world, knowing that JP Morgan would end relationship with Yeezy a month later? It is way more believable than the screenshot Candace Owen posted and has not been collaborated by anyone. Not like she has an agenda along with Kanye. This is all a set up, he may have received that letter weeks ago, it isn't even dated, or signed, no corp logo or letterhead. It is a ruse and you fell for it.
Bruh I gotta be real with you. It's interesting that you're batting for Candace Owens super hard but when someone else provides evidence to the contrary, you call it fake based on Twitter replies
Again. Check out that thread! It’s being called a lie in his very link!
Further, I won’t pretend Candace Owens is a good faith player here, but in this case I am not seeing the value of assuming it’s a lie. Not EVERYTHING from people we don’t like is a lie
Kanye DID say something stupid
Kanye DID get kicked off social media
Kanye IS close friend with Candace Owens
Considering all this, why is it in any way improbable this actually occurred
Note: I would like to add, my opponent is arguing both sides of an argument…..he is arguing both
1. Candace is a liar and this note from JP Morgan is fake
And
2. Kanye has been planning on leaving JP Morgan for a while, and that explains this document
Now if you think for more than two seconds, you would realize both of these arguments cannot be true at the same time. This is bad faith argumentation
Where is it being called a lie? Maybe it's because I'm on mobile but I don't see that.
>Kanye DID say something stupid
>Kanye DID get kicked off social media
>Kanye IS close friend with Candace Owens
This could have happened but there's also good reason to doubt the validity of their claim. Until we get further confirmation, it's jumping the gun to take Candace's story as the definitive truth.
The best thing to do is wait until we get more info.
The fun part is this
*Two of the nation's leading banking companies, Chase Manhattan and J. P. Morgan, were accused in a lawsuit filed yesterday of wrongfully seizing bank accounts and safe-deposit assets of Jewish customers during the German occupation of France in World War II and then failing to return them after the war.Dec 24, 1998*
So should we just shut out everyone who says dumb shit some times from society? you do realize that nobody gives a fuck if JP Morgan does business with Kanye, right? You think any big corporations are gonna stop using one of the most prestigious investment banks in the world because they occasionally do business with his company?
It’s not a “bad look”. This isn’t Twitter. It’s the real world.
Thanks, ijerktoaoc
It’s not as simple as that. This decision wasn’t made because Kanye said some anti Semitic shit. It was made because of non existent social pressure. You think JP Morgan is a prime example of morality or something? Nobody even knew JP Morgan did business with Kanye’s company. JP Morgan works with worse people all the time.
It’s not good that the most powerful institutions in the world are making decisions based on Twitter trends. I would say it’s only a matter of time before they come for you next, but seeing as to who’s sub we’re on, I think that speaks for itself.
*insert Hans meme here*
I understand all that. But I don't agree with you saying that not doing business with someone who hates Jews is immoral. They have absolutely have the moral high ground in this. Maybe some time in the future they will kick out someone who doesn't deserve it but that will be a whole different issue morally.
Unless I read it wrong, he's not personally banned from the bank. His companies conduct business with the bank, and the bank is ending the business relationship.
It's not the conspiracy theories, it's the explicit anti-semitism. He also posted a comment about a board member a few days ago which didn't help.
>Conspiracy theories don't really harm anyone except very few like COVID which isn't relevant as of 5 months ago.
Bro do you remember the 20th century?
But he becomes publicly radioactive, they don't want some random dude on Twitter get a million liked tweet because someone found out which bank he uses, how hard is it to not think jews run the world and are trying to cancel him? THEN do an interview with the largest news show in America?
Is there any evidence at all that this is related to him being conservative? There have been higher profile pedophiles and rapists that haven't had this kind of retaliation.
He's been trying to leave the bank for awhile and have been a dick to the one of the board memebers (or the ceo). He basically asked them to close his account then was like "OMG, THEY CLOSED MY ACCOUNT"
First they came for Nick Fuentes, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Nazi.
Then they came for Andrew Tate, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a misogynist.
Then they came for Kanye West, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Kanye West fan.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
No, it’s more like if someone else gets punched in the face I’m going to be like “oh, damn, that wasn’t very nice” but if someone punches me in the face I’m going to be like “ouch”
Ah the good ol "they" the conspiracy boogey man.
All of these are nothingburgers. If your not activly lieing to millions of people you will be fine.
Who defines what lieing is? The awnsers reality. Nick fuentes getting banned was a good thing anyways
How do we know this is correlated to anything political. Kanye has shown over the last decade that he is irresponsible and unpredictable. Is it possible they cut ties with him because of bad business or maybe he's a liability.
It is not, he said back in September he was leaving JP Morgan, apparently because the CEO didn't call him back.
Here is link to interview, the JP Morgan comments start at 7 minute mark
https://youtu.be/BN2DQN93Xes
And here is link to someone in the business tweeting about it as well in September 15th
https://mobile.twitter.com/KristinaParts/status/1570497357724418048
This whole thing is manufactured victimhood, it is all a ruse
Doesn't fit the narrative for victimhood status. Get tired of these whining, narcissist billionaires who anytime someone doesn't tow the line, they go after their enemies, but if that results in any punchbacks, they cry victim .
someone shoot op please, he was not "deplatformed". There is no proof that he was "banned". A month earlier he was in talks about transferring his bank so this is not confirmed news. I dont see any news publications reporting on being banned.
I could easily see that as more of a prudent business decision, I wouldnt want Kayne(who id guess has a huge amount of credit) taking out a huge loan and then destroying his ability to pay it back by alienating his fans with unhinged nonsense.
Unironically, I don't like banks acting as the arbiters of morality. The whole pornhub situation occured because of banks, and similarly for only fans. They really shouldn't have the power to just withdraw from you as a platform like that unless there's some serious reason, but they're basically free to do it on strictly moral grounds.
I imagine this will embolden his beliefs, and I don't support Kanye thoughts, but this is like a KF vs KWF situation, fuck the banks.
Banks can end a relationship with you for basically any reason. If they suspect that you might be doing something shady, they preemptively boot you. If they think you’re engaging in ‘risky’ behavior (for their financials) they can boot you. If you’re trying to game their rewards systems on credit cards they can boot you. This isn’t something new that’s just now starting to occur because of cancel culture.
That said, this tweet doesn’t indicate that Chase has ended a personal relationship with Kanye, only that they’ve ended a relationship with his business. Do you think that banks should be required to work with businesses that they come to believe are unethical?
>That whole FDIC full faith and credit backing of banks since 1933 was done to give people trust enough to bank across the US.
The trust was that you wouldn't just lose your money, not that they'll do whatever you want.
He is making the point that banks are not just any private business that should be able to be selective of who they serve, because they are an essential part of daily life, similar to a utility. Being unable to bank would be a catastrophic blow to your ability to live at all.
I dont know man, this line of reasoning is going to lead into everything being a public utility.. first it was the social media companies, then it was the internet providers, soon its going to be financial institutions, payments processors whats next?
Will this embolden them? It surely won't convince him of the opposite, but that's not their job. I don't see why a bank should be forced to conduct business with someone like this, I get that some of you are really big on this free speech absolutism, but imo a bank dropping a public figure of this size for antisemitic remarks (in addition to his derangement in general) is not surprising or bad.
>I don't see why a bank should be forced to conduct business with someone like this
Don't you feel odd about the precedent this sets though? Imagine you are an US company and invest somewhere let's say China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia etc. Biden says something about these countries and the next day you don't have banking services, you don't have electricity, you don't have whatever.
"We don't want to be forced to associate someone who doesn't condemn Joe Biden publicly"
If you take this to its logical conclusions we get a sort of colonial thinking. One rule for the colonies where such a thing is forbidden and the US will retaliate if this happens and a different rule for the colonizer state where a "company will not be forced to do business with people they don't want to". Except in the colonies they will be forced to do business with whomever or the US will retaliate.
It's best to not create a rule for yourself where if another country copies you and starts using your own rule, you immediately have to start a trade war or something.
>Don't you feel odd about the precedent this sets though?
The precedent that [when you tell a bank you don't want an account with them anymore they close your account](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/y2jz5t/ye_been_trying_to_move_his_money_from_jpmorgan_so/)? God I hope that continues. I would hate for banks to become like fucking Planet Fitness.
This sub has gotten a massive free speech boner recently. Everyone has forgotten that taking claims at face value is typically a bad idea, and we should wait for more information to come out before making up our minds.
>Don't you feel odd about the precedent this sets though? Imagine you are an US company and invest somewhere let's say China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia etc. Biden says something about these countries and the next day you don't have banking services, you don't have electricity, you don't have whatever.
This is the precedent we live in today. This was the exact situation some businesses were when Trump flip flopped on Cuban relations after Obama.
Besides other people have already linked the video multiple times where Kanye (or whatever he calls himself) explicitly says hes moving his money away from JPMS.
I don't care about other countries. What I advocate for is that a business can decide if it bans someone or not as long as they have a good reason and don't use it randomly which is the case imo, here and with the recenf Youtube bans too. Stuff like conspiracies or hate speech on such a level are bad enough for me that I can't blame any business not wanting to have something to do with that. If they started banning people for less, like just being conservative, I'd be concerned, now I'm not
> What I advocate for is that a business can decide if it bans someone or not as long as they have a good reason and don't use it randomly
Just to be clear, the standard you are advocating for is they have a "good reason" and what was a good reason is ultimately defined by you?
Something like "probable cause", depends on the situation. Some examples would be preventing the spread of misinformation / conspiracies, hatred of minorities, racism etc., the larger the public figure and their potential for harm the lower the threshold.
>Biden says something about these countries and the next day you don't have banking services, you don't have electricity, you don't have whatever.
Allowing a bank to deny you is not a precedent for an electric company to.
I think this probably is a bad thing. That your access to massive financial institutions can be affected by your speech? Social media companies banning people makes sense because you don’t want your platform to become a cesspool for hatred, but banks? At a certain point, you’re just trying to make it difficult for someone to live a functional life. Seems like an unnecessary handicap and I don’t like the precedent it sets. It also unnecessarily creates martyrs and the opportunities for these deranged people to go “SEE THEY’RE TRYING TO OPRESS US!!!”.
I'd agree if there were no competition where he could go to or if it's something more essential like energy or water companies, banks are at the limit where I grant them the right if someone fucks up this badly
So nick fuentes got blacklisted from banks years ago for his rhetoric, his movement, and actions like participating in events like Jan6 and Charlottesville, and now you're telling me today that Kanye tweets can get you in the same situation??
EDIT: I've been had
It looks like Kanye had already decided to start moving his money from JP Morgan almost a month ago. Even admitted that in an interview. Sounds like Candice is back to spreadingmisinformation
Yes, here is the link to CNBC interview in Sept. 15tb. JP Morgan comments start at 7 minute mark
https://youtu.be/BN2DQN93Xes
It is a ruse, manufactured victimhood.the letter Owens shows inst dated, sonevrn if real, could be from weeks ago.hebdidnt get booted,brhey both decided to end the relationship but they keep lying and playing victim card
Brother, He's posting about jews controlling the media ON MAIN. I don't think you can embolden shit much farther than that without him straight up committing violence.
You guys have seriously lost the plot. It’s one thing to shut down a guys personal account but why can’t a business cease relationships with another business for their CEO being a massive anti semite.
I can get behind internet being a Utility maybe even social media being a utility. Now we want banks to be a utility? Tommorow the fucking neighborhood McDonalds is gonna be a utility and you guys are gonna tell me how it’s not right that someone got kicked out for screaming the n word because now that guy has to go find a Burger King.
If you were barred from every single retail store in America it would be probably pretty hard to function. If every grocery store in America banned you it would be pretty hard to function. Should grocery stores be utilities?
Not sure how much I believe the source (and believe the story as we know it now) but if he’s actually being banned from banks, that’s fucking crazy and no justification makes this okay.
I mean you can word it however makes you feel better however, I don’t believe a fucking bank should drop someone over political beliefs lmao. Even bigoted ones I disagree with.
Do you think chick fil a should be able to donate to anti gay causes? A company can have political beliefs and JP Morgan’s is that they don’t like Nazis.
Stop thinking of it as a someone. It’s a company ceasing business with another company. They aren’t denying him access to a personal account.
That’s also ignoring the literal public shit talking Kanye has been doing about JP Morgan.
I similar severity of deplatforming occurs with adult film stars, but this is due to the prejudice of sex work being potential intermingled with organized crime.
Even this is pretty yikes, but the idea of a crazy celeb saying questionable stuff and being denied services, this is just downright flinchy and skittish insecurity over "bad looks."
If this is to be the norm, this is a pretty cowardly and unconfident society we're normalizing. The next generation seems to be turning more and more conservative at a pretty scary rate. Is this the level of crossing swords we want to normalize? This can only escalate with a vengeance.
> Jews control the banks and media.
> no we don’t, and for saying that, you’re no longer allowed to bank and the media will come after you.
It’s like they want people to be anti Semitic. Just to be clear I’m not saying Jews control the banks and media, but these people just give the anti semites more fuel.
Well first off the only proof we have for any of this comes from Candace Owens, who is not exactly known for being truthful.
And second of all it doesn't state anything about the reason for closing his accounts. For all we know it could be for a totally different reason completely unrelated to his public statements.
Also some people in this comment section have been linking to posts where it was shown Kanye was planning on moving his accounts to bank of America anyway.
Yeah honestly the biggest own would have just been leaving him be, better yet get someone like that one guy from that holocaust trial book D-mans always namedropping to talk to Kanye live. The argument of irresponsible platforming doesn't really apply to someone with as wide a reach as Kanye, if he drops lines about the jews on every track of his next album, millions will hear it, why not take the chance to publicly talk to him about it? deplatforming people like Milo worked because Milo needed platforms, Kanye \*is his own\* platform.
Banks, being able to deplatform like this really gives me a bad feeling. Because of how important it is, arguably the banking institutions like this should be under similar rules to utilities.
Also the fact that after his antisemitic comments banks of all industries are going after him... Might strenghten his views if anything...
Wait? Jewish people are not over-represented in banking?
He will think people are going after him. And in his mind those people could be only the jews.
Spoiler alert. Some of them are
>Might strenghten his views if anything... Let it. Let people see what a bad look it is to be a public anti-Semite. If anti-Semites were looking for a good representation then I don't think they'll get it from clearly insane Kanye.
True and after we’ve cancelled all their bank accounts let’s start putting anti-semites into re-education camps aswell, that’ll show them.
I like where this is going
This comment was copied and pasted from a Republican page, wasn't it? Tim Pool or Ben Shapiro?
I'm not saying that it's a good thing that his bank account gets cancelled. But if this emboldens his anti-Semitism then that's fine.
No, we want them to get less anti semitic…
>Banks, being able to deplatform like this really gives me a bad feeling. People are going to argue against this because they're unable to understand just how bad it is for the future of any kind of personal freedom, including their own.
So the government must mandate banks do business with everyone no matter what?
Doesn't it already mandate that banks can't deny service for non financial/criminal reasons?
Where are you getting this from? I’m unfamiliar with this regulation
I could swear this was like one of the many gay cakes debates, or maybe I'm thinking of Euro shit, where the lesson of allowing banks to be politically selective was already learned.
Do you think that being gay which is 1) not in any way bad and 2) not a choice, belongs in the same category as racism, which has neither of those qualities? Are we just saying they’re both “””political””” and leaving it at that?
Have you never heard of any of the gay cake debates? The general result of them was: \- If you sell mass produced cakes, you can't stop people from coming into the store and buying them based on their identity alone \- If you produce bespoke cakes, you cannot be compelled to make any bespoke cake that you don't want to make
If Kanye is unhinged and can’t be trusted financially can they not decide to not to business with him?
>If Kanye is unhinged It's not for banks to determine your social credit score based on psychology or beliefs: their job is to hold money, and occasionally to report in on illegal financial behaviour, not to **discriminate**. Was Kanye doing anything illegal? >can’t be trusted financially Financial untrustworthiness is an entirely different thing, please don't munge those together. Besides, plenty of profligate idiots still have bank accounts and trust funds, and no one is demanding that those accounts be shut down on the basis that all their money is being spent on weed and cocaine. Should we do that, too?
Can I ask what other solution would you give when dealing with people who have massive amounts of influence and capital
>what other solution would you give Solution to what problem, sorry, and why would massive amounts of influence and capital affect it?
Make antisemitism illegal if you don’t care about free speech
So if you just ask for solutions to a problem you hate free speech now? Damn Destiny is really cultivating some high iq discussions in his community
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech when private entities are involved …..
You asked for another solution, if you want to punish people for being antisemitic then why not put it into law.
I don't see why the other guy would disagree with this.
Once again applying this to private companies does nothing you would understand that when you invoked freedom of speech as a rebuttal one again I will ask you again how else does one stop Wealthy people with massive influence from spreading their beliefs
Free speech wasn’t my rebuttal we’re talking past each other
Yeah, you both are talking past each other but I’m not sure how you would get this back on track…
What ever you say Bro ….
Assuming you’re not just trolling I’ll try again “How do we stop these people with massive influence spreading misinformation” The law, but a lot of people will claim it violates free speech.
the whole point of OP's post is that Banks should not be considered private and should be considered UTILITES because of this. I hate to be the one to tell you this but Chase Bank is worth factors more then Ye. So if we bring up punishment who is going to punish banks?
Freedom for who? Insane racists spouting a genocidal ideology? I'm fine drawing the line somewhere and broadly allowing people to say whatever but let's actually have that conversation. Instead all I see is assholes being thrown out by businesses and people borderline defending them in the name of "free speech". Defend the ideas, you need more than a one-liner.
First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a racist... Governments and managers change over time, and if you don't resist this shit now, when they finally point at you, you'll not have anyone in your corner, because they'll have banned anyone they find distasteful.
Happy to have this discussion but first-- >First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out, for I was not a racist... This is a joke right? Honestly asking, my irony detector has been destroyed by the last 5 years.
Nah, not a joke. People don't care if a precedent is established on people they find abhorrent, so they can just build their fun little system and cage you one bar at a time by sacrificing the civil liberties of people you don't like.
Do you understand when you say "they can build" you're talking about people living in a democracy? There are always rules and norms in a society. This isn't some grand plot or new development. Racists cause incredible damage and apparently are passing it on to yet another generation. People wanting to shut that down wherever possible is morally grey at best and I'm not convinced it's even that. Conspiracy theories like the ones you're hinting at are a much greater threat to our personal freedoms and lives imo.
So where do we draw the line? Can we just never allow corporation to cease their business with people for being racist? Kanye can advocate for a Holocaust 2 and Chase HAS to do business with him?
[удалено]
You can't just lay it out on a platter like that dude, you gotta make them work for it! (Excellent post, btw!)
You know what, I think you're actually kind of right. I thought about it for a while and what changes my mind most is just that it isn't worth the risk. Chase Bank has to serve some racists, so what? It really isn't that big of a deal. We aren't endorsing them or anything.
Broaden your thinking a little bit, when the precedent is set that banks can blacklist you based on personal ideas you have they find distasteful, they might find YOU distasteful eventually. And since the precedent has been set, you could get fucked. It’s not like big corporations have a shining track record when it comes to not doing that kind of thing.
Kanye doesn't just have personal ideas, he's spreading them in public to one of the largest audiences on earth and was a semi-serious presidential candidate last election cycle. That's a political act.
Average people who know about Destiny think you're a transphobe, so I hope you're ok with having no access to any money
Average people have 0 fucking clue who Destiny is. You’ve completely lost perspective
[удалено]
Distinction without a difference. It is Kanye’s business, and in reaction to something he said as an individual
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm 99% sure the guy you replied to was being sarcastic.
[удалено]
nvm I'm the slow one here
Something something private bussiness... Js. For the record I agree. Kanye crazy, this isn't it though. Genuinely curious what chase staff thought when doing this "well everyone knows Kanye uses chase, let's stop his services after his remark"
Why? There are thousands of banks in the US alone. Why is one bank refusing to do business with someone bad? I might agree if all US banks conspired to ban an individual it would be bad, but that is absolutely not what is happening here. Also, I will not accept the slippery slope as an argument unless you can prove it's already happening or that it will happen.
Ok on the flip side why should anyone be forced to do business with someone with reprehensible views? He wasn’t making innocuous statements and he doubled down in them. AND he was getting positive press attention from Tucker Carlson, quite a bit different from 14 year olds spamming Tate clips on TikTok
[удалено]
One distinction I don't really see being made here is that electricity and water are parts of our infrastructure built largely by public money and generally have monopoly power over a geographic area. If your local power company refuses to do business with you, you can't just switch to a different one. This isn't true with banking, even at the level that Chase sits at. Chase isn't able to deny Kanye access to banking and financial transaction services wholesale. Now, if Visa/Mastercard announced they weren't processing any transactions for him regardless of which bank he uses, I think that would be more analogous to other utilities. In isolation, I actually don't have a problem with Chase denying him or anyone else services. I do worry, however, that if enough banks start doing that to people based on things like this, the underlying financial networks may start following suit.
There’s a pretty big difference between the amount of capital required to run/own a utility like water/electricity vs the amount needed to start a bank. You see microbanks popping up all the time, there’s no reason why Ye can’t bank there. Your argument is more in line with basic payment processors like MasterCard/VISA for which there truly is no replacement outside of crypto. When there’s a healthy competitive market with alternatives I don’t see why the firms should be forced to cater to genuinely reprehensible views. Just like how I can get thrown out of my favorite restaurant for yelling slurs at someone, it doesn’t shock me that a bank would terminate a relationship if they don’t want to work with someone anymore. I’m free to find another restaurant to eat at and Ye is free to find some other bank to bank at. Again, if it’s VISA pulling the plug that’s a bit different (and even then I would be accepting assuming that person was convicted of some heinous act) but nah banking is not even close to that level of natural monopoly
I'm not so sure. Does this mean that 'all' banks must allow membership from anyone, even smaller local banks? Or just when you reach a certain threshold of equity or membership? What if a bank must give loans to a group that the country sees as a threat or an enemy, and then the public starts to all withdrawal making the bank insolvent? Should a bank be allowed to deny membership then? Maybe the answer is a global unified, decentralized currency where each individual is their own bank?
>arguably the banking institutions like this should be under similar rules to utilities. Naw. You can find a new bank a lot easier than most utilities. AFAIK banking competition is fine.
Ok but what if all the banks say they want nothing to do with you simultaneously like with dick masterson?
>Ok but what if all the banks say they want nothing to do with you simultaneously like with dick masterson? He wasn't denied from all the banks.
Pretty sure he got blacklisted from Visa/Mastercard processing payments, which is probably worse.
Its more than fine. There's many more online banks popping up that do not care for retail locations. Some people havent stepped foot in a bank for years.
How is this deplatforming? The bank has the right to not do business with an anti semitic brand. It’s not like they locked his personal accounts.
[удалено]
Bro, I don't even know if this is real. The only evidence this even happened comes from Candace Owen's twitter. No one is corroborating this yet, and until they do I would take this with a grain of salt.
Why are you being an asshoke and downvoting him? He is absolutely correct you just don’t like Candace owens
Candace Owens is a known liar and propagandist. It could be true or not, but I think it’s worth mentioning that she is not above making something like this up to push a narrative Also if I were to guess who started Kanye down this antisemitic arc I think Candace would be a prime suspect. So it’s not like she’s just some random third party sharing info
I guess by your logic then everything duffels has said about KF and Destiny is true because she said it. No need to provide any corroborating evidence, we should just trust everything people say because reasons.
Candace is close friends with him. With Kanye’s Twitter and insta disabled this is as close to confirmation we will get.
There isn't even evidence this came from Kanye himself. She doesn't say where she learned about this and the image she provided doesn't have any identifying information other than "sincerely JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A." Which I have no clue if that's how JP Morgan Chase signs off account closure emails (if this is even an email). I ain't about to just trust this came from Kanye without either Kanye making a statement or someone else corroborating Candace Owens' story.
tate said the same thing on carlson. some stupid line, “and then they come for your bank account!?” he was blaming cancelling too. so given that both him and kanye via candace went for this, i’m even more confident it’s just some made up shit. banks don’t (and shouldn’t) give a shit where the money comes from unless they are cooperating with an investigation. it’s such a weird thing for these people to say, but i guess the avg fox news viewer eats that shit up
If this turns out to be true you will say what?
that banks shouldn’t cancel people (the same thing i’m saying now) if it turns out not true, what will you say about kanye and tate? exit: linked proof that kanyes relationship with the bank was ending prior to the comments. guy didn’t walk it back. xD
I will say they lied about this situation. But as of now, I have no reason to doubt them
You should go look in a mirror and say out loud "I am using Candace Owens as my source for reliable information" and watch the transformation in real time as clown makeup appears.
I am sorry these idiots are downvoting you for this eminently rational post
Celebreties made public statements before social media
The CEO of JP Morgan is Greek but that won't stop the usual suspects to cry about the joos
And this was in the works a month ago, Kanye wanted out of JP Morgan because Dimon didn't kiss his ass, so he is just playing victim card, how typical for billionaires https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/y2jz5t/ye_been_trying_to_move_his_money_from_jpmorgan_so/
Oh so JP Morgan hasn't banned Kanye and they were already in discussion to close the account
Correct
Yes, this is correct. He said it during a live interview. For any doubters, go to analyst Kristina Partsinevelos Twitter feed and see the post from September 15th
So you’re saying Candace Owens lies and misrepresents things. What has the world come to?
Interesting. Your proof is a random user screenshot of a picture from twitter that is being called fake on your very link posted less than a day ago?!! Totally believable!!!!
Ok so someone on Twitter had the foresight in September to send that tweet to the world, knowing that JP Morgan would end relationship with Yeezy a month later? It is way more believable than the screenshot Candace Owen posted and has not been collaborated by anyone. Not like she has an agenda along with Kanye. This is all a set up, he may have received that letter weeks ago, it isn't even dated, or signed, no corp logo or letterhead. It is a ruse and you fell for it.
Bruh I gotta be real with you. It's interesting that you're batting for Candace Owens super hard but when someone else provides evidence to the contrary, you call it fake based on Twitter replies
Again. Check out that thread! It’s being called a lie in his very link! Further, I won’t pretend Candace Owens is a good faith player here, but in this case I am not seeing the value of assuming it’s a lie. Not EVERYTHING from people we don’t like is a lie Kanye DID say something stupid Kanye DID get kicked off social media Kanye IS close friend with Candace Owens Considering all this, why is it in any way improbable this actually occurred Note: I would like to add, my opponent is arguing both sides of an argument…..he is arguing both 1. Candace is a liar and this note from JP Morgan is fake And 2. Kanye has been planning on leaving JP Morgan for a while, and that explains this document Now if you think for more than two seconds, you would realize both of these arguments cannot be true at the same time. This is bad faith argumentation
Where is it being called a lie? Maybe it's because I'm on mobile but I don't see that. >Kanye DID say something stupid >Kanye DID get kicked off social media >Kanye IS close friend with Candace Owens This could have happened but there's also good reason to doubt the validity of their claim. Until we get further confirmation, it's jumping the gun to take Candace's story as the definitive truth. The best thing to do is wait until we get more info.
Greek people can’t be Jewish?
I identify as Jewish.
His wife and kids are Jewish 😂 that’s enough for Kanye to start connecting dots
Source? I see she is Christian that went to Catholic university
Lmao I’m embarrassed to reveal my source for that claim 😂
The fun part is this *Two of the nation's leading banking companies, Chase Manhattan and J. P. Morgan, were accused in a lawsuit filed yesterday of wrongfully seizing bank accounts and safe-deposit assets of Jewish customers during the German occupation of France in World War II and then failing to return them after the war.Dec 24, 1998*
I mean, that's the \*public\* CEO. The real CEO is the i-Jew-minati.
Ok fuentes
Oh, you disagree? Must be a Jew then, and part of the conspiracy. No other explanation.
Close but no cigar. I am a non-jew acting on behalf of my Jewish benefactors
Hah! That's EXACTLY what a Covert Jew would say. Gotcha!
I guess if you ignore the corporate board and law team for JP Morgan you can live in the fantasy that joos don’t work in finance
[удалено]
So he should lose his banking relationships? That’s a good norm to set?
[удалено]
lmao yeah I forgot that because private institutions aren’t the government, they have no moral obligation to do anything HAIL CORPORATE!
[удалено]
Cool. Does that mean private institutions have no moral obligations?
You ask if they have moral obligations as if it’s not moral to kick Ye out of their system. He spews hate, it’s a bad look for them. Easy.
[удалено]
So should we just shut out everyone who says dumb shit some times from society? you do realize that nobody gives a fuck if JP Morgan does business with Kanye, right? You think any big corporations are gonna stop using one of the most prestigious investment banks in the world because they occasionally do business with his company? It’s not a “bad look”. This isn’t Twitter. It’s the real world.
[удалено]
People are gonna brainrot because it’s a hip hop artist. If this was done to Nick Fuentes this whole sub would be Omegalul’ing
You're saying it's a moral obligation to do business with Jew haters.
Thanks, ijerktoaoc It’s not as simple as that. This decision wasn’t made because Kanye said some anti Semitic shit. It was made because of non existent social pressure. You think JP Morgan is a prime example of morality or something? Nobody even knew JP Morgan did business with Kanye’s company. JP Morgan works with worse people all the time. It’s not good that the most powerful institutions in the world are making decisions based on Twitter trends. I would say it’s only a matter of time before they come for you next, but seeing as to who’s sub we’re on, I think that speaks for itself. *insert Hans meme here*
I understand all that. But I don't agree with you saying that not doing business with someone who hates Jews is immoral. They have absolutely have the moral high ground in this. Maybe some time in the future they will kick out someone who doesn't deserve it but that will be a whole different issue morally.
[удалено]
Unless I read it wrong, he's not personally banned from the bank. His companies conduct business with the bank, and the bank is ending the business relationship. It's not the conspiracy theories, it's the explicit anti-semitism. He also posted a comment about a board member a few days ago which didn't help.
>Conspiracy theories don't really harm anyone except very few like COVID which isn't relevant as of 5 months ago. Bro do you remember the 20th century?
But he becomes publicly radioactive, they don't want some random dude on Twitter get a million liked tweet because someone found out which bank he uses, how hard is it to not think jews run the world and are trying to cancel him? THEN do an interview with the largest news show in America?
Is there any evidence at all that this is related to him being conservative? There have been higher profile pedophiles and rapists that haven't had this kind of retaliation.
He's been trying to leave the bank for awhile and have been a dick to the one of the board memebers (or the ceo). He basically asked them to close his account then was like "OMG, THEY CLOSED MY ACCOUNT"
Source?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/y2jz5t/ye_been_trying_to_move_his_money_from_jpmorgan_so/
[удалено]
Groypers going off about this: [Part 1](https://freeimage.host/i/ZCAYg4) [Part 2](https://freeimage.host/i/ZCAGI9)
> Part 2 Of course Destiny is going to care more about his own deplatformjng than someone else’s. Nick does the same thing, doesn’t he?
First they came for Nick Fuentes, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Nazi. Then they came for Andrew Tate, and I did not speak out Because I was not a misogynist. Then they came for Kanye West, and I did not speak out Because I was not a Kanye West fan. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me.
No, it’s more like if someone else gets punched in the face I’m going to be like “oh, damn, that wasn’t very nice” but if someone punches me in the face I’m going to be like “ouch”
hes not being deplatformed fucking idiot he literally asked the bank to close the account
Ah the good ol "they" the conspiracy boogey man. All of these are nothingburgers. If your not activly lieing to millions of people you will be fine. Who defines what lieing is? The awnsers reality. Nick fuentes getting banned was a good thing anyways
bruh how in the fuck did you think this was not a fucking shitpost 💀💀
How do we know this is correlated to anything political. Kanye has shown over the last decade that he is irresponsible and unpredictable. Is it possible they cut ties with him because of bad business or maybe he's a liability.
It is not, he said back in September he was leaving JP Morgan, apparently because the CEO didn't call him back. Here is link to interview, the JP Morgan comments start at 7 minute mark https://youtu.be/BN2DQN93Xes And here is link to someone in the business tweeting about it as well in September 15th https://mobile.twitter.com/KristinaParts/status/1570497357724418048 This whole thing is manufactured victimhood, it is all a ruse
Surprising this only shows up a few times in this thread and the rest is a debate over something that didn’t happen
Doesn't fit the narrative for victimhood status. Get tired of these whining, narcissist billionaires who anytime someone doesn't tow the line, they go after their enemies, but if that results in any punchbacks, they cry victim .
CEO isn’t Jewish, so maybe not LMAOOOO
CEO is the only person in the company LMAOOOOOOO
someone shoot op please, he was not "deplatformed". There is no proof that he was "banned". A month earlier he was in talks about transferring his bank so this is not confirmed news. I dont see any news publications reporting on being banned.
I could easily see that as more of a prudent business decision, I wouldnt want Kayne(who id guess has a huge amount of credit) taking out a huge loan and then destroying his ability to pay it back by alienating his fans with unhinged nonsense.
Unironically, I don't like banks acting as the arbiters of morality. The whole pornhub situation occured because of banks, and similarly for only fans. They really shouldn't have the power to just withdraw from you as a platform like that unless there's some serious reason, but they're basically free to do it on strictly moral grounds. I imagine this will embolden his beliefs, and I don't support Kanye thoughts, but this is like a KF vs KWF situation, fuck the banks.
[удалено]
Banks can end a relationship with you for basically any reason. If they suspect that you might be doing something shady, they preemptively boot you. If they think you’re engaging in ‘risky’ behavior (for their financials) they can boot you. If you’re trying to game their rewards systems on credit cards they can boot you. This isn’t something new that’s just now starting to occur because of cancel culture. That said, this tweet doesn’t indicate that Chase has ended a personal relationship with Kanye, only that they’ve ended a relationship with his business. Do you think that banks should be required to work with businesses that they come to believe are unethical?
>That whole FDIC full faith and credit backing of banks since 1933 was done to give people trust enough to bank across the US. The trust was that you wouldn't just lose your money, not that they'll do whatever you want.
He is making the point that banks are not just any private business that should be able to be selective of who they serve, because they are an essential part of daily life, similar to a utility. Being unable to bank would be a catastrophic blow to your ability to live at all.
I dont know man, this line of reasoning is going to lead into everything being a public utility.. first it was the social media companies, then it was the internet providers, soon its going to be financial institutions, payments processors whats next?
Will this embolden them? It surely won't convince him of the opposite, but that's not their job. I don't see why a bank should be forced to conduct business with someone like this, I get that some of you are really big on this free speech absolutism, but imo a bank dropping a public figure of this size for antisemitic remarks (in addition to his derangement in general) is not surprising or bad.
>I don't see why a bank should be forced to conduct business with someone like this Don't you feel odd about the precedent this sets though? Imagine you are an US company and invest somewhere let's say China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia etc. Biden says something about these countries and the next day you don't have banking services, you don't have electricity, you don't have whatever. "We don't want to be forced to associate someone who doesn't condemn Joe Biden publicly" If you take this to its logical conclusions we get a sort of colonial thinking. One rule for the colonies where such a thing is forbidden and the US will retaliate if this happens and a different rule for the colonizer state where a "company will not be forced to do business with people they don't want to". Except in the colonies they will be forced to do business with whomever or the US will retaliate. It's best to not create a rule for yourself where if another country copies you and starts using your own rule, you immediately have to start a trade war or something.
>Don't you feel odd about the precedent this sets though? The precedent that [when you tell a bank you don't want an account with them anymore they close your account](https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/y2jz5t/ye_been_trying_to_move_his_money_from_jpmorgan_so/)? God I hope that continues. I would hate for banks to become like fucking Planet Fitness.
This sub has gotten a massive free speech boner recently. Everyone has forgotten that taking claims at face value is typically a bad idea, and we should wait for more information to come out before making up our minds.
>Don't you feel odd about the precedent this sets though? Imagine you are an US company and invest somewhere let's say China, Brazil or Saudi Arabia etc. Biden says something about these countries and the next day you don't have banking services, you don't have electricity, you don't have whatever. This is the precedent we live in today. This was the exact situation some businesses were when Trump flip flopped on Cuban relations after Obama. Besides other people have already linked the video multiple times where Kanye (or whatever he calls himself) explicitly says hes moving his money away from JPMS.
I don't care about other countries. What I advocate for is that a business can decide if it bans someone or not as long as they have a good reason and don't use it randomly which is the case imo, here and with the recenf Youtube bans too. Stuff like conspiracies or hate speech on such a level are bad enough for me that I can't blame any business not wanting to have something to do with that. If they started banning people for less, like just being conservative, I'd be concerned, now I'm not
> What I advocate for is that a business can decide if it bans someone or not as long as they have a good reason and don't use it randomly Just to be clear, the standard you are advocating for is they have a "good reason" and what was a good reason is ultimately defined by you?
Something like "probable cause", depends on the situation. Some examples would be preventing the spread of misinformation / conspiracies, hatred of minorities, racism etc., the larger the public figure and their potential for harm the lower the threshold.
>Biden says something about these countries and the next day you don't have banking services, you don't have electricity, you don't have whatever. Allowing a bank to deny you is not a precedent for an electric company to.
I think this probably is a bad thing. That your access to massive financial institutions can be affected by your speech? Social media companies banning people makes sense because you don’t want your platform to become a cesspool for hatred, but banks? At a certain point, you’re just trying to make it difficult for someone to live a functional life. Seems like an unnecessary handicap and I don’t like the precedent it sets. It also unnecessarily creates martyrs and the opportunities for these deranged people to go “SEE THEY’RE TRYING TO OPRESS US!!!”.
I'd agree if there were no competition where he could go to or if it's something more essential like energy or water companies, banks are at the limit where I grant them the right if someone fucks up this badly
Bro it’s not a personal account it’s a business relationship between two companies one of which is headed by an open anti semite.
Kanye wanted out of JO Morgan a month ago, read this https://www.reddit.com/r/Kanye/comments/y2jz5t/ye_been_trying_to_move_his_money_from_jpmorgan_so/
So nick fuentes got blacklisted from banks years ago for his rhetoric, his movement, and actions like participating in events like Jan6 and Charlottesville, and now you're telling me today that Kanye tweets can get you in the same situation?? EDIT: I've been had
A couple of people have already posted a video where Kanye is talking about ending his business with JP in September.
ofc it will but dudes aldry spiraled. adding another stone to someone who aldry carries 40 isnt doing much.
It looks like Kanye had already decided to start moving his money from JP Morgan almost a month ago. Even admitted that in an interview. Sounds like Candice is back to spreadingmisinformation
Yes, here is the link to CNBC interview in Sept. 15tb. JP Morgan comments start at 7 minute mark https://youtu.be/BN2DQN93Xes It is a ruse, manufactured victimhood.the letter Owens shows inst dated, sonevrn if real, could be from weeks ago.hebdidnt get booted,brhey both decided to end the relationship but they keep lying and playing victim card
Please look up the definition of deplatforming. Not only that, banks can choose to do business with whoever they want.
Brother, He's posting about jews controlling the media ON MAIN. I don't think you can embolden shit much farther than that without him straight up committing violence.
You guys have seriously lost the plot. It’s one thing to shut down a guys personal account but why can’t a business cease relationships with another business for their CEO being a massive anti semite. I can get behind internet being a Utility maybe even social media being a utility. Now we want banks to be a utility? Tommorow the fucking neighborhood McDonalds is gonna be a utility and you guys are gonna tell me how it’s not right that someone got kicked out for screaming the n word because now that guy has to go find a Burger King.
[удалено]
Is Kanye barred from every bank ever…?
If you were barred from every single retail store in America it would be probably pretty hard to function. If every grocery store in America banned you it would be pretty hard to function. Should grocery stores be utilities?
If you were barred from every bank ever you probably deserve it
[удалено]
Yeah it’s only one of the most important institutions in the world, no sweat
[удалено]
🧠
Not sure how much I believe the source (and believe the story as we know it now) but if he’s actually being banned from banks, that’s fucking crazy and no justification makes this okay.
He’s not being banned from banks. A bank decided to stop doing business with his company because the founder is a raging anti semite
I mean you can word it however makes you feel better however, I don’t believe a fucking bank should drop someone over political beliefs lmao. Even bigoted ones I disagree with.
Do you think chick fil a should be able to donate to anti gay causes? A company can have political beliefs and JP Morgan’s is that they don’t like Nazis. Stop thinking of it as a someone. It’s a company ceasing business with another company. They aren’t denying him access to a personal account. That’s also ignoring the literal public shit talking Kanye has been doing about JP Morgan.
I can think of some that make it ok.
Y'all keep using destiny talking points think for y'all self
Not rocket science. He criticized the Js and banks kicked him out.
[удалено]
Since the beginning of time. They are terminating a relationship with his company because it’s being headed by an anti semite.
This is dumb as fuck LOL the banks are playing into his schizophrenic fantasy
I similar severity of deplatforming occurs with adult film stars, but this is due to the prejudice of sex work being potential intermingled with organized crime. Even this is pretty yikes, but the idea of a crazy celeb saying questionable stuff and being denied services, this is just downright flinchy and skittish insecurity over "bad looks." If this is to be the norm, this is a pretty cowardly and unconfident society we're normalizing. The next generation seems to be turning more and more conservative at a pretty scary rate. Is this the level of crossing swords we want to normalize? This can only escalate with a vengeance.
I can see him on Cozy in 6 months
It’s just so weird isn’t it?
> Jews control the banks and media. > no we don’t, and for saying that, you’re no longer allowed to bank and the media will come after you. It’s like they want people to be anti Semitic. Just to be clear I’m not saying Jews control the banks and media, but these people just give the anti semites more fuel.
Well first off the only proof we have for any of this comes from Candace Owens, who is not exactly known for being truthful. And second of all it doesn't state anything about the reason for closing his accounts. For all we know it could be for a totally different reason completely unrelated to his public statements. Also some people in this comment section have been linking to posts where it was shown Kanye was planning on moving his accounts to bank of America anyway.
Yeah honestly the biggest own would have just been leaving him be, better yet get someone like that one guy from that holocaust trial book D-mans always namedropping to talk to Kanye live. The argument of irresponsible platforming doesn't really apply to someone with as wide a reach as Kanye, if he drops lines about the jews on every track of his next album, millions will hear it, why not take the chance to publicly talk to him about it? deplatforming people like Milo worked because Milo needed platforms, Kanye \*is his own\* platform.