Joe Rogan should sell NFTs of all the attempts to cancel him.
Joe Rogan should sell NFTs of all the attempts to cancel him.
runnerboy70 wrote:
gfghjb wrote:
I think you’re getting the word “censor” mixed up wit the phrase “I don’t agree with.” Removing music isn’t censoring anything.
Yes it is...Young told Spotify to censor Rogan or he was going to pull his music...
Private entities negotiating with other private entities is not 'censorship.'
Conservatives forgot to read the Constitution in all their pearl clutching
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
birdbeard wrote:
Misinformation is not an “opinion.” That would be saying that “I don’t believe gravity exists” is an opinion: it’s not.
The liberals label truth contrary to their agenda as "misinformation." You've clearly been groomed and indoctrinated into drinking the kool-aid. Hope you feel all warm and fuzzy inside with your delusional sense of self righteousness.
Agenda....Groomed...Indoctrinated...Kool-Aid...Damn! If only you'd said "sheeple". I wouldve had Conspiracy Theory Bingo. So close...
The white house is now pressuring Spotify to remove Rogan. This is no longer a debate about a private company. This is the Whote House telling a private company to police content. Why would they care unless an agenda was at stake? THIS IS ILLEGAL VIA THE FIRST AMMENDMENT. But obviously the left likes to bend the rules and change the definitions (of vaccine). Time to wake up. Time to hold the elites accountable for once and stand up to their attempts to move the goalposts/change the rules to fit their agenda.
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Just One Problem. wrote:
Too bad 95% of all talented musical artists are liberal.
Liberalism caters to the lazy. Talent and hard work don't always go hand in hand. In music, talent is all you need.
Put the dogwhistle away.
I think I have the CSNY album "Deja Vu" in my attic. I should throw it out because I have not listened to it in over 40 years.
Harambe wrote:
runnerboy70 wrote:
Yes it is...Young told Spotify to censor Rogan or he was going to pull his music...
Private entities negotiating with other private entities is not 'censorship.'
Conservatives forgot to read the Constitution in all their pearl clutching
Censorship does not have to be done by the government for it to be censorship. All censorship is is the suppression or prohibition of speech, no matter who it's done by.
Why on earth would anyone care if some artists decide they don't want to do business with a particular platform anymore?
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
The white house is now pressuring Spotify to remove Rogan. This is no longer a debate about a private company. This is the Whote House telling a private company to police content. Why would they care unless an agenda was at stake? THIS IS ILLEGAL VIA THE FIRST AMMENDMENT. But obviously the left likes to bend the rules and change the definitions (of vaccine). Time to wake up. Time to hold the elites accountable for once and stand up to their attempts to move the goalposts/change the rules to fit their agenda.
Source please
stan the corgi wrote:
Neil Young is such a hypocrite, yeah "keep rockin in the FREE world..."
He is worth $200 million. 99% of the young people don't even who the hell this Canadian hobo is. Amazing marketing by a cunning hippie businessman.
just a guy being a dude wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Private entities negotiating with other private entities is not 'censorship.'
Conservatives forgot to read the Constitution in all their pearl clutching
Censorship does not have to be done by the government for it to be censorship. All censorship is is the suppression or prohibition of speech, no matter who it's done by.
So who is it doing the censoring in this case?
Why is asking for the removal of your own music, censorship? If you don't get on with a colleague and request to no longer work with them, does that constitute shutting down your colleague's free speech?
Harambe wrote:
runnerboy70 wrote:
Yes it is...Young told Spotify to censor Rogan or he was going to pull his music...
Private entities negotiating with other private entities is not 'censorship.'
Conservatives forgot to read the Constitution in all their pearl clutching
But when Little Red Lyinghood (aka Peppermint Patty) advocates from the White House for them to do so, it does become an actionable issue.
If you work at the CDC you don't have to get the shot...
If you work at the White House you don't have to get the shot...
If you're a congressman or senator on Capitol Hill (or you work for one) you don't have to get the shot...
carmine9 wrote:
If you work at the CDC you don't have to get the shot...
If you work at the White House you don't have to get the shot...
If you're a congressman or senator on Capitol Hill (or you work for one) you don't have to get the shot...
Weirdo alert
Weirdo alert
Weirdo alert
just a guy being a dude wrote:
Harambe wrote:
Private entities negotiating with other private entities is not 'censorship.'
Conservatives forgot to read the Constitution in all their pearl clutching
Censorship does not have to be done by the government for it to be censorship. All censorship is is the suppression or prohibition of speech, no matter who it's done by.
No this is wrong. E.g. if I own a billboard it is not censorship if I refuse to put your message up there.
Suppression of speech on private platforms is obviously not censorship.
Or, alternatively, you can be pedantic and say 'it's censorship but there's nothing wrong with it' -- that's fine too.
Tatar... wrote:
just a guy being a dude wrote:
Censorship does not have to be done by the government for it to be censorship. All censorship is is the suppression or prohibition of speech, no matter who it's done by.
So who is it doing the censoring in this case?
Why is asking for the removal of your own music, censorship? If you don't get on with a colleague and request to no longer work with them, does that constitute shutting down your colleague's free speech?
Quitting your job is now censorship.
squatter wrote:
Dr Yuengling wrote:
1. There’s millennia of evidence that gravity is real. Comparing the opinions of a doctor who did widely respected work on MRNA vaccines on that same technology to denying gravity seems extreme and disingenuous.
2. So objectively false viewpoints should be banned? Who decides whats objectively false? If it’s so obviously false, why does anyone believe it? Oh right, I’m sure it’s because half the world are morons and you just happen to be in the intelligent half.
3. It might interest you to know that scientists’ understanding of gravity has changed and evolved significantly throughout the years. None of that evolution would have been possible if nobody questioned the mainstream viewpoint.
4. The fact that 95% of ‘alternative thinkers’ are full of sh!t doesn’t mean that you silence them. Deplatforming people in this day and age is akin to policing free thought. Let people hear truth, untruth, and everything in between and let them decide for themselves.
Ok, sure. Let's let not put any restrictions on any alternate viewpoints. If Al Qaeda or some other group hostile to the West wants to promulgate its worldview to use as a recruiting tool, no problem. The same with the KKK or other racists groups. After all, the views of these organizations are just different opinions and beliefs, right?
Yes. I agree with that. I don’t agree with the KKK’s viewpoint, but I think they should have every right to promote their platform. I think the vast majority of people would listen and disagree with them. If for whatever reason, those opinions proved more popular than I presume, then who am I to say that they are wrong. Right and wrong are just standards agreed to by society.
Policing speech and thought is a bad road to go down. We should strive to educate people as best as we can and then let them decide what they believe for themselves. Suppressing access to information and opinions because you dont trust the populace to interpret it in the way you deem correct is incredibly elitist and patronizing.
Tatar... wrote:
just a guy being a dude wrote:
Censorship does not have to be done by the government for it to be censorship. All censorship is is the suppression or prohibition of speech, no matter who it's done by.
So who is it doing the censoring in this case?
Why is asking for the removal of your own music, censorship? If you don't get on with a colleague and request to no longer work with them, does that constitute shutting down your colleague's free speech?
He thinks they will fall for his bluff and censor Rogan because he has leverage in that he provides them a lot of revenue. That's what he's betting on. And it's not exclusively calling for his own music to be banned because he's tying in another producer. This is bribery.
Former Never Trumper wrote:
The only way this censorship of free speech and cancel culture ends if those who are not woke hold these corporations to the fire too. If the threats of boycott and financial harm start coming from those in favor of freedom and free speech then it will force corporations to tell the woke to grow up. If people show the woke they are not intimidated they'll realize that financial harm from not accomodating these morons is minimal. The problem is once you've shown them blood is in the water they will never go away.
Yes. They should cancel themselves like Neil Young. That will go great.
Spotify is doing fine so far. And if there is to be a protest, it should be from listeners.
Steve The Addict OFFICIAL -----^^^^^ wrote:
Tatar... wrote:
So who is it doing the censoring in this case?
Why is asking for the removal of your own music, censorship? If you don't get on with a colleague and request to no longer work with them, does that constitute shutting down your colleague's free speech?
He thinks they will fall for his bluff and censor Rogan because he has leverage in that he provides them a lot of revenue. That's what he's betting on. And it's not exclusively calling for his own music to be banned because he's tying in another producer. This is bribery.
You're using the word censor but have nothing to back it up.
Say you don't get on with a colleague and you ask your boss to move one of you. It's me or him. If nothing changes, you're going to quit (and maybe go work for one of their rivals). The company has to make a decision what to do. Are you using your "leverage" to "censor" your colleague? Or do you just have a right to quit and if that influences your boss to resolve the issue to keep you, so be it?
It's not any different. Young doesn't want to work with antivaxxers. He has a right to quit and Spotify have a right to choose who they want. Rogan is hardly a small fish.