SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Will Spotify Dump Rogan?

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Will Spotify Dump Rogan? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=251764)

Quote:

Originally Posted by u crank (Post 2791077)

That is one way of spinning it. Another spin is that he attempted to use a corporation to limit the free speech of someone else. And obviously Spotify wasn't going to do that. Good for them.

I agree. It was his choice, his free speech, and his consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2791047)

^ Ok so [I]"the Holocaust was a lie

Is that you Whoopi? :har:

I liken it too getting ready for debate club. Just before anything is said, make an accusation and demand the audience choose between you or your opponent. Afterwards everyone gauges their next career move based on how many likes they get from the audience who bothered to hear the actual conversation

Let freedom ring! :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2791085)

I liken it too getting ready for debate club. Then before anything is said make an accusation and demand the audience choose between you or your opponent. Afterwards everyone gauges their next career move based on how many likes you get who bothered to hear the actual conversation

Let freedom ring! :haha:

Ah, but isn't that sort of what Trump did even before the election results were in?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2791086)

Ah, but isn't that sort of what Trump did even before the election results were in?

I don’t know, was it?

I fear they will succumb to the pressure and close his show.

NO I did not until now know that he had this show on Spotify AND I'm not interested in listerning to it either.

Markus

I think the information age has reached those awkward teenage years with social problems it can't ignore any longer and is contemplating running away......

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2791014)

As a person who love free speech I do not like when some are restricted in what they are allowed to say.

Let them speak freely - Let it be up to the listerne to believe or reject what has been said to the audience.

Markus

I agree 100%. I was reading an article earlier which bemoaned Spotify's decision, saying something to the effect of potential damage caused by misinformation. I get that ... really, I do. But when faced with the alternative: potentially setting a precedent which could damage our right to free speech, I think Spotify's choice was the correct one.

Having written that, I also feel that a privately owned company should be allowed to make its own choices without outside interference when it comes to how they run their business. (Illegal activity excluded, of course.) Let's be real: we're talking about a music service, not global political policy.

It saddens me to see here in these forums the now common practice of taking everything to extremes. I mean ... comparing someone's skepticism of the 'official' narrative concerning this virus to holocaust deniers? REALLY?! Apparently Godwin's Law must be a fact.

OTOH, I am heartened to see an equal amount of posts from a different point of view. I especially like the comments from u crank and Buddahaid concerning coexistence and Neil's own right to free speech.

Cheers, friends!

With all the caterwauling about free speech from some, I thought I'd add:

https://i.imgur.com/ANzejih.jpg

https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.town...ze=1200%2C1615

The rise of adolescent banned book clubs proving the banning simply highlights interest in a free society.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2791110)

The rise of adolescent banned book clubs proving the banning simply highlights interest in a free society.

The concept of banned books in a 'free society' is interesting in itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean C (Post 2791106)

[...] I was reading an article earlier which bemoaned Spotify's decision, saying something to the effect of potential damage caused by misinformation. I get that ... really, I do. But when faced with the alternative: potentially setting a precedent which could damage our right to free speech, I think Spotify's choice was the correct one. [...]

Quote:

It saddens me to see here in these forums the now common practice of taking everything to extremes. I mean ... comparing someone's skepticism of the 'official' narrative concerning this virus to holocaust deniers? REALLY?! Apparently Godwin's Law must be a fact.

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.

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? Can we imply that everyone has enough common sense?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2791128)

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.

Exactly. That is true and played out every day.:up:

re Rogan and about his claims, BBC reality check:
https://www.bbc.com/news/60199614

I remember seeing this video some years ago because of a primate research meeting in Goettingen, i did not remember this had been this Rogan though
edit changed the link, new one:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/co...ist_tells_him/

"After spending roughly five minutes going off about a now-debunked pseudoscientific theory of the “Bondo ape” — a purported Congolese super-ape that supposedly could walk upright like a human and was hyper-aggressive — Rogan took a call from a Floridian primatologist who identified herself only as “Allison.”
She countered that “there’s no such thing as a Bondo ape” — but before she could even finish her sentence, the host was jumping down her throat, calling her a “****ing idiot” and telling the PhD scientist that she should go “online” and look it up."

As far as i know there is no "Bondo ape". Though some may look like it on the 'net :03:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2791128)

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?
B.t.w. https://open.spotify.com/search/Neil%20Young :haha:
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.

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? Can we imply that everyone has enough common sense?

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.

Extreme like making people submit to unwanted medical procedure? I don’t think I’m extreme. I know you are. I got vaxxed, I recommend you do get vaxxed. What I do not agree with are mandate Nazis carrying out experiments on people who don’t want too be injected with something they know nothing about. Worse yet were the loudest of all the mandate Nazis, hypocrites, and political class not abiding in their own rules.

You have been wrong and are still wrong in every way imaginable if you STILL believe that vaccine could eradicate that virus, prevent you from catching it or prevent you from spreading it. Wake up it’s not like the plague, it’s not a seat belt, it’s not like the measles and it’s not like polio, It’s over, the virus, the pandemic, the fear and panic was all for nought it has all mutated into a big nothing burger. And not one of the mandate Nazis had anything to do with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish (Post 2791128)

I once read an excellent article on Confirmation Bias. It was well thought out, but it did not tell me anything I did not already know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar (Post 2791162)

[...]
You have been wrong and are still wrong in every way imaginable if you STILL believe that vaccine could eradicate that virus, prevent you from catching it or prevent you from spreading it.

Where did i say this?
I said it can probably be subdued like other viruses before, but never eradicated.
You can still be infected after being vaccinated, but the risk of heavy complications and dying of Covid are less, statistically. There is always this one case being (ab)used and disproportionally blown up to deny the (major) rest.
You can still spread it, with or without vaccination. I take it that the time of being infectious may be a bit shorter if you overcome it faster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus (Post 2791166)

I once read an excellent article on Confirmation Bias. It was well thought out, but it did not tell me anything I did not already know.

:rotfl2:

:yep:

Quote:

The Real Reason They Want to Cancel Joe Rogan

By Alexandra DeSanctis
January 31, 2022 11:51 AM

Progressives hate free speech because they want to control what you think.

Last week, musician Neil Young issued an ultimatum: Spotify could either remove Joe Rogan’s immensely popular podcast or it could remove Young’s catalogue of music. “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both,” Young explained. The musician’s complaint came in response to what he deemed Covid-19 “misinformation” on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, including the host’s skeptical comments about the vaccines. After giving it some thought, Spotify took down Young’s music, explaining that the supposedly objectionable content on Rogan’s podcast did not meet the threshold for removal.

Young’s lonely lament might not have succeeded in silencing Rogan, but he did manage to win himself more attention than he’s had in decades. (I can say in all sincerity that I can’t remember having heard of him until this incident.) A staff writer at the Atlantic proclaimed, “In choosing Joe Rogan over Neil Young, [Spotify] has made its new priorities clear to listeners.” Spoiler alert: The new priorities are Very Bad. A CNN op-ed, meanwhile, hailed the singer for taking “a stand against Covid-19 vaccine misinformation,” saying he had “put his finger on America’s big divide.” Young also got a bit of support from fellow C-list celebrities Joni Mitchell and Brené Brown, who joined him in Spotify self-exile.
Their virtue-signaling departures from the streaming platform were more than a little amusing. Only a truly enormous ego could conceive of the idea to withhold one’s work and effectively silence oneself until the nation’s most popular podcast host is de-platformed. But, more concerning, the incident has demonstrated the Left’s insidious view of speech.

To be sure, Joe Rogan has no absolute right to share his thoughts in a podcast on Spotify or anywhere else — though it would be silly and spineless for the platform to silence him over “misinformation.” The worst thing about left-wing demands for his removal isn’t what it would do to him; it’s what it says about how the people demanding his cancellation view his listeners.

Calls for silencing someone’s “dangerous” speech are far less about the speaker than they are about those who hear him. The impulse to cancel Rogan on the basis that he makes people feel unsafe stems from the insulting premise that his listeners are too foolish to think for themselves and must uncritically adopt whatever beliefs the podcast host tells them to. The people pushing to cancel Rogan are operating from the premise that most Americans are stupid sheep, dimwitted blank canvases onto which the intelligentsia — be it Rogan or Anthony Fauci — can project their own opinions. And the purveyors of cancel culture want their opinions to be the ones proclaimed as absolute truth.
The impulse to shut down Rogan isn’t ultimately about making him go away; it’s about controlling what his listeners believe and what they do as a result. It seems not to occur to Neil Young and his admirers that half of Rogan’s listeners might well be tuning in because they want to mock him, or because he’s entertaining, or because they want to understand how their opponents think. The assumption appears to be that every Rogan listener will necessarily adopt his every opinion and adapt their behavior accordingly, even if it means marching to their untimely death.
Thanks to this insultingly low opinion of the average American, leftists want to silence Rogan not because his views are unquestionably wrong or objectively dangerous but because they want their ideas to reign supreme, and the easiest way to do that is to silence competing claims. If the stupid masses have access to the heterodox ideas available on Rogan’s podcast, public-health officials and Covid-crazy pundits will have less power over his listeners’ beliefs and less influence over their behavior. That’s what progressives can’t stand about free speech: They want to control what Rogan can say because they want to control what we think.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...tm_term=second

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2791258)

:yep:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/...tm_term=second

Well, look at that. An underwhelming NR right-wing puddle. :shucks: