• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

axlsalinger said:
Being against censorship doesn't mean you get to pick and choose, as long as you agree with it.
Click to expand...

This is a pretty fundamentally flawed point. It makes the argument that nothing that anyone says on any platform should be punishable in any way whether by the public (including government intervention) or privately.

That view of freedom of speech (censorship is just the other side of the coin, it's the same argument) is more than a bit loony. It allows for incitement, blackmail, libel, slander, perjury, false medical claims, solicitation to commit crime, etc to all be within the bounds of protected speech (as in, free from any level of censorship).

We absolutely have to pick and choose what to censor. This is a really odd, fundamentalist version of what free speech/censorship is and the role it plays in a functioning society.
 
worm said:
it is helping neil young fans realize rogan is shit - and his fans are probably in that vulnerable category
plus it is drawing a lot of attention to the misinformation to non fans

i cannot think of a better way for neil to make his point
Click to expand...

your optimism is admirable
 
He felt the need to protest in some way. He believed this was a way to do it. He has the right to it, unless we want to... Censor a peaceful protest???????

But no, he needs to go on the Rogan show to debate the fear factor host about shit way beyond anything they're capable of comprehending. Or something.
 
axlsalinger said:
Obviously we aren't talking about actual books, just used that as a metaphor to troll a little and it's based on the fact that those people want to literally ban books. And if they get their way eventually they will start burning books.

I have never said anything about people cancelling Spotify.
Click to expand...
so far, so good.
axlsalinger said:
Some people want Spotify to censor and cancel Joe Rogan's podcast because of one man's opinion. And you don't care because he's on the right side. I'm saying that this is a slippery slope and it's the same for those cretins in the South.
Click to expand...
a couple points in response to this.

one, spotify is a corporation, not government. like twitter, facebook, etc., they are free to come up with their own rules regarding what content is and is not acceptable. them refusing to carry, "Tales of the Hitler Youth" is entirely their prerogative and does not amount to censorship. I won't pretend to know what their rules are, but I am sure they exist and they are entitled to have (and enforce) them.

just like Twitter decided to ban Trump for violating their rules, spotify can do the same to Rogan (I assume him peddling vaccine misinformation breaks some of their rules but do not pretend to know).

how is allowing harmful misinformation to be deliberately spread on a daily basis to a massive (11 milly) audience on a daily basis not an equally slippery slope? let's not pretend there are not harms and impacts to allowing the free for all of bullshit to exist, because there are.

and spotify has not pulled Rogan anyways. so the slippery slope is a hypothetical one only, while in the meantime how many folks are discouraged/prevented from getting their vaccines as a result of what they hear on his show? bullshit has consequences.
axlsalinger said:
If you let things slip it will continue to get worse and eventually you won't be on the right team. Being against censorship doesn't mean you get to pick and choose, as long as you agree with it. That's the whole point. There are also very clear reasons why we say "innocent until proven guilty" and not the other way around.
Click to expand...
please explain how spotify removing content that violates their terms of use amounts to censorship. that is the huge disconnect here.

governments censor. the Chinese government censors any mention of Tiananmen Square. that is real life censorship. twitter banning the dotard is not censorship, it is them enforcing their rules. just like if some dickhead who at the start of the movie yells out the ending in the theatre and gets kicked out - that is not censorship. the term has been coopted by the lunatic right to mean, "I dislike consequences to my actions".

so unless you either admit that you have redefined censorship, or change the argument to be about whether private corporations can enforce rules on their platforms, I think we have hit an impasse.
axlsalinger said:
Also on a smaller scale, if this continues it will destroy streaming services. What if a pro-vaccine podcast gets 11 million views and Eric Clapton says it's me or them. Eventually they will give in. Then Marvel will say you must remove Greedo shooting first from Star Wars or we pull our movies, and of course that's okay because I agree with that one.
Click to expand...
but don't streaming services continually need to adapt to appeal to their customers? isn't that just competition in an open marketplace? consumers speak with their wallets. they are allowed to.
 
MindzEye said:
This is a pretty fundamentally flawed point. It makes the argument that nothing that anyone says on any platform should be punishable in any way whether by the public (including government intervention) or privately.

That view of freedom of speech (censorship is just the other side of the coin, it's the same argument) is more than a bit loony. It allows for incitement, blackmail, libel, slander, perjury, false medical claims, solicitation to commit crime, etc to all be within the bounds of protected speech (as in, free from any level of censorship).

We absolutely have to pick and choose what to censor. This is a really odd, fundamentalist version of what free speech/censorship is and the role it plays in a functioning society.
Click to expand...
folks are pretending like we have never had limits on free speech when the reality is very much the opposite. rights are not absolute and subject to reasonable limits.
 
CH1 said:
people eventually get fired for that type of talk….
Click to expand...
you dont remember when neil young got fired

dude made a rockabilly album so his label would fire him



“I almost vindictively gave Geffen Everybody’s Rockin'," he later said. "Geffen wanted more rock ‘n’ roll. That was the key phrase: ‘Well, you want some fuckin’ rock ‘n’ roll, do ya? Okay, fine. I can do that. As a matter of fact, my uncle was a rocker, and I’ll be him.’"

ultimateclassicrock.com

How Neil Young's 'Everybody's Rockin" Pushed Geffen Too Far

Neil Young released 'Everybody's Rockin'' on July 27, 1983, sparking to a lawsuit by his record company.
ultimateclassicrock.com ultimateclassicrock.com
 
That's almost as good as the time Marvin made a shit album on purpose because his ex wife had won the judgement in divorce court and she was to get a huge cut of the proceeds of his next album. He named the album "Here, my dear" and by Marvin standards it was turrible.

Now, Marvin standards are different. But still.
 
I just realized that between this and the News thread we have ~10 pages of Neil Young talk on a hockey message board in 2022. Maybe he'll end up with even more streams on Apple this week than Spotify + Apple last week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top