Will Spotify Dump Rogan?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by mapuc

One thing is what he says another thing is to believe what he has said.

As mentioned before I know who he is-but I do not believe what he says.

And that is the thing here Markus. We are not required to believe anything that anyone says.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by u crank

And that is the thing here Markus. We are not required to believe anything that anyone says.

And I do not have the right to tell you what you may say or believe.

Markus

[u crank]

Originally Posted by mapuc

And I do not have the right to tell you what you may say or believe.

Markus

[Buddahaid]

The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to be heard, only that Congress shall pass no law restricting your speaking. Other citizens can shout you down and otherwise try to prevent your speech being heard.

[Arlo]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

The 1st amendment doesn't guarantee you the right to be heard, only that Congress shall pass no law restricting your speaking. Other citizens can shout you down and otherwise try to prevent your speech being heard.

Not all speech is constitutionally protected (as illustrated by the age old example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater).

[Sean C]

Originally Posted by Catfish

I guess Spotify's decision was based on with whom they make more money, but it was their free private company decision, as it was Young's. Has an artist the right not to let his works be published by someone he does not like?

Yes, I do think an artist should have absolute control over their work, where and when it is publicly exhibited and by whom. (As a former amateur musician, this is a topic near and dear to me.) Unfortunately for some artists, they relinquished that control when they signed the record company contract or sold their rights to the highest bidder. But no one forced them to do that.

Originally Posted by Catfish

But this is exactly the thing, those extremes, not only since 2016. Rockstar calls people who are pro-mandate (when it comes to vaccines) "mandate nazis". I guess the real Nazis would be a bit underwhelmed to see this being compared.
I personally think that comparing a temporary(!) law to get rid of a plague as somehow rational, while comparing this to wear a yellow star patch (as Taylor Greene does) is idiotic.

I agree ... mostly. The only part I disagree with is the rationality of the need for a law [or mandate, etc.] in this particular case.

Originally Posted by Catfish

But seriously: do you stop tolerating others expressing their opinion when this harms others, or do you never do this because 'free speech'? Do you take action? What if someone calls for harming others because of 'his opinion', if he has an influential media presence? Thus my intentional exagerration with dictators expressing their opinion, before they become dictators.
Rogan has the media presence of a statesman, should he show some responsibility or does the number of clicks justify anything?

I agree with the current accepted interpretation of "free speech": as long as it is not a direct threat or inciting others to do harm, anything is fair game. As much as I'd personally like to silence "flat-earthers", etc. - I think the right to express one's opinion, no matter how stupid others may perceive it to be, is paramount.

Originally Posted by Catfish

Can we imply that everyone has enough common sense?

Although my experience tells me no, I do not grant myself the authority to decide for others what they can or cannot intelligibly process.

Originally Posted by Catfish

But one thing is true: People have their opinions before they watch shows and reports, they choose their information sources based on their filter bubble, and no accidentally seen other opinion piece or even scientific proof will ever change their mind.

I can't argue with that.

[u crank]

The Dangerous Appeal of Neil Young’s Righteous Censorship

The good news about Young’s move to marginalize Rogan is that it won’t work. That’s magical thinking. Even in our times, when tolerance for speech that’s considered misinformation or offensive is reaching a new dipping point, censorious blow-ups like Young’s accomplish little.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...rship-00003923

By trying to mute Rogan, Young and his ilk seem to be saying that some ideas — even the stupid ones about vaccines and Covid that Rogan has endorsed — are so powerful that they will displace “good” public health ideas and that Rogan is guilty of inspiring Covid deaths. This, of course, is preposterous. About 85 percent of adult Americans have taken at least one dose of the vaccine, since it became available just a year ago.

The standard human appetite for convenient, reductionist theories tends to soar during times of crisis as people seek easy explanations for the hard problems. Why anybody at this late date would still reject the vaccine is beyond me, but vaccine resistance would persist even if Rogan vanished. How much of the blame can be assigned to Rogan is unknowable, but given that the average age of his largely white and male audience is 24, and younger people tend to resist the ravages of Covid, it can’t be that significant. How many people base their health priorities entirely on a podcast that occasionally discusses Covid?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

[Buddahaid]

I lost my coffee with the Tucker Carlson having a confusion enema look. Now I have to finish watching.

[Onkel Neal]

Why worry about some flippant remark Joe Rogan makes? It's nothing compared to the constant barrage of brainwashing we get daily from CNN, Sean Hannity, NPR, John Oliver, MSNBC, Fox News, the BBC, and a million others....

[Rockstar]

[Rockstar]

This is for all you emotional types. Step back for a moment, think, man up, grow a pair and fer chrissakes stop whining like little girls.

[Rockstar]

What happened to Mr. I’m so sad?

[Rockstar]

[Threadfin]

I don't even think he owns his own music anymore. This is virtue signal performance art. Look at how principled I am while I risk absolutely nothing.