When a conventional army starts using that channel's videos for training, does that mean they magically stop receiving funding?

As long as there's a plausibly non-military use of such projects (ie. entertainment), it's fine. It's not any different than funding some open source project, even though the open source project can theoretically be used for weaponry.

The difference is that the former is pointless frivolity, and the latter is, in this case, defending against a literal invasion.

Exactly. My point is that they are materially different.

A person may disagree with Patreon’s policy, but you have to agree that it is not in fact hypocritical (or “schizophrenic”) to allow funding to one but not the other.

And you, my dear pister, are waffling on the freedom to self-organize, and falling into the Kissinger trap.

Soft power; Sickening thing. Once you have it you're responsible for everything. In this case, the U.S. trying to once again get entangled in another spat.

Once you start binning which transactions are really appropriate to happen, you're de-facto making policy.

Now you’re just stringing random words together. What is the “Kissinger trap”?

The topic was the freedom of an American corporation to not finance warfare. There is no moral or legal imperative for them to permit their users to finance a foreign country’s military, whether that country is an ally or adversary.

The Kissinger Trap. As good a name as I can think of. Rule through soft power as enacted top down from a Global power. Basically "sensible defaults" as applied to foreign policy, as interpreted by diplomats.

It leads to delegatory attitudes wherein people should cede agency to "the authorities" to broker things out and any type of personal agency being disencouraged or quashed.

Works great when people aren't interconnected to the degree we are now, but at the cost of the action potentials being much more strongly gated and open to the idiosyncracies of Heads of State, rather than genuine support across the populace.

Now you're faced with reality where funds can potentially be transfered somewhere they can do good. The reliance on a centralized facilitator is technically lower.

It'll be interesting to see if the "Game of Kings" plays out the same way when the pawns can signal betwixt themselves more easily.

Of course they are free to do so. Nobody has said they are not.

What people are saying is that they are cowards for doing so, and that they will from now on refuse to do business with them. As I am sure you can agree, they are free to do.