Neil Young vs. Joe Rogan

#276
#276
volinbham said:
no one has argued it isn't his prerogative.
Click to expand...
Its a little different, but I view it as similar to an employer/employee relationship like you suggested. An employee has the right to tell an employer they won't be associated with another employee because they can't abide the other's beliefs. That employer has the right to tell them to f off. It isn't censorship. Nobody (especially the government) is forcing anybody to do anything. It's just the nature of private business. Neil Young threw out an ultimatum he knew he wouldn't win. Spotify called his bluff. He had the cajones to follow through with it. End of story.

You may not like it, but nobody was censored. Neil Young and Spotify both picked their poison and Joe Rogan probably doesn't GAF.
 
#278
#278
luthervol said:
I'm reposting my first post...... intentional and harmful misinformation
Click to expand...
Like what?

And who is the judge for this censorship you seek? If you aren't calling for Fauci to be shut down then you're a complete hypocrite. Heck even Biden said the vaccine would prevent you from ever getting covid and you helped put him in the wh
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, 615vols and txbo
#280
#280
luthervol said:
You know far more about him than I do. I've listened to very little of what he said. I've never been able to figure out what you guys' obsession is with him.

I'm reposting my first post...... intentional and harmful misinformation



. But if Spotify feels his information does not belong on it's platform - so be it.
Click to expand...

you don't think telling people not to wear masks when you know they should isn't harmful?

you think trying to deter discussion that Covid was a lab leak; potentially engineered isn't harmful?

My original LOL is that the "harmful" designation is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure the CCP considers Hong Kong freedom fighter information as "harmful" and "intentional".

the intentional and harmful puts the suppression power into the hands of the powerful and out of the hands of the powerless.
 
#281
#281
utvolpj said:
Like what?

And who is the judge for this censorship you seek? If you aren't calling for Fauci to be shut down then your a complete hypocrite. Heck even Biden said the vaccine would prevent you from ever getting covid and you helped put him in the wh
Click to expand...

You’re a mod. His posts are misinformation. Please delete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeeohdeeWood
#283
#283
clarksvol00 said:
Its a little different, but I view it as similar to an employer/employee relationship like you suggested. An employee has the right to tell an employer they won't be associated with another employee because they can't abide the other's beliefs. That employer has the right to tell them to f off. It isn't censorship. Nobody (especially the government) is forcing anybody to do anything. It's just the nature of private business. Neil Young threw out an ultimatum he knew he wouldn't win. Spotify called his bluff. He had the cajones to follow through with it. End of story.

You may not like it, but nobody was censored. Neil Young and Spotify both picked their poison and Joe Rogan probably doesn't GAF.
Click to expand...

Nobody was censored (yet) but Young demanded censorship as a bargaining chip.

As I stated earlier - adding the request for harm to a 3rd party changes the equation. I personally think it's the ultimate selfishness and I try to live my life in a way where I never request harm to another as a condition of some relationship.

Would you demand someone be fired in order for you to stay at a job?
 
#286
#286
volinbham said:
Nobody was censored (yet) but Young demanded censorship as a bargaining chip.

As I stated earlier - adding the request for harm to a 3rd party changes the equation. I personally think it's the ultimate selfishness and I try to live my life in a way where I never request harm to another as a condition of some relationship.

Would you demand someone be fired in order for you to stay at a job?
Click to expand...
I don't know. That would depend on the circumstances. There are thousands of scenarios anyone could come up with.

Young has a right not to participate in generating profit for a company profiting from things he doesn't believe in. He can say, "it's him or me." It's not censorship. It's business. You may think it's a jerk move, but it's not censorship. He voluntarily put a condition on his continuing with the company and accepted the consequences when it was denied.
 
#287
#287
Here's another hypothetical: You work at some company. There's another person there who's just become aware of you and thinks you are so bad that he tells the company: "You either need to fire that cretin or I quit". They don't fire you and he quits.

Do you think:

1). Wow, I really admire that guy for standing up for his values. Bravo.

or

2). WTF is the problem with that a-hole? Why is he trying to f with me?
 
#288
#288
volinbham said:
Here's another hypothetical: You work at some company. There's another person there who's just become aware of you and thinks you are so bad that he tells the company: "You either need to fire that cretin or I quit". They don't fire you and he quits.

Do you think:

1). Wow, I really admire that guy for standing up for his values. Bravo.

or

2). WTF is the problem with that a-hole? Why is he trying to f with me?
Click to expand...
Depends on why he's trying to f with you.
 
#289
#289
clarksvol00 said:
Young has a right not to participate in generating profit for a company promoting things he doesn't believe in. He can say, "it's him or me." It's not censorship. It's business. You may think it's a jerk move, but it's not censorship. He voluntarily pit a condition on his continuing with the company and accepted the consequences when it was denied.
Click to expand...


Yes he has a right to not participate.

He can say "it's him or me"

It is both business and a request for someone to be censored or deplatformed. I can be both. His request was specifically to have Rogan removed from the platform. How that's not a request for Spotify to censor I cannot fathom.

Agree with the last.

To recap - his right to do all these things. However, the request was a request for Rogan to be censored. Spotify at this time has refused the request.
 
#291
#291
clarksvol00 said:
I don't know. That would depend on the circumstances. There are thousands of scenarios anyone could come up with.

Young has a right not to participate in generating profit for a company profiting from things he doesn't believe in. He can say, "it's him or me." It's not censorship. It's business. You may think it's a jerk move, but it's not censorship. He voluntarily put a condition on his continuing with the company and accepted the consequences when it was denied.
Click to expand...

He certainly has the right…It is business….but it damn sure is censorship if he’s trying to silence a voice.
 
#292
#292
volinbham said:
Yes he has a right to not participate.

He can say "it's him or me"

It is both business and a request for someone to be censored or deplatformed. I can be both. His request was specifically to have Rogan removed from the platform. How that's not a request for Spotify to censor I cannot fathom.

Agree with the last.

To recap - his right to do all these things. However, the request was a request for Rogan to be censored. Spotify at this time has refused the request.
Click to expand...

I tend to view censorship as more of a forced suppression of speech. If the government had said, "remove Joe Rogan or we'll shut you down," or Neil Young had walked up to the CEO and said, "remove Joe Rogan or I'll beat you dead with my harmonica," I'd consider that censorship. "Him or me" is not the type of coercive behavior I think about when I think about censorship. This just seems more like a viewpoint colliding with a business.
 
#297
#297
clarksvol00 said:
I tend to view censorship as more of a forced suppression of speech. If the government had said, "remove Joe Rogan or we'll shut you down," or Neil Young had walked up to the CEO and said, "remove Joe Rogan or I'll beat you dead with my harmonica," I'd consider that censorship. "Him or me" is not the type of coercive behavior I think about when I think about censorship. This just seems more like a viewpoint colliding with a business.
Click to expand...
The following is not quite the same thing but dangerously close.

This administration asked social media to censor dissenting voices.

I don't watch news, I get my information from Fauci, not through any third party. I now cannot trust him because he's lied to me more than once already. Who do I believe? I can't believe his science or I'm a fool since his science lied to me more than once already. Right? So here I am having to rely on common sense and what I know from my firsthand experience with covid (both strains).

Now we have competing liers, Lord knows the government can't stand competition.
 
#298
#298
luthervol said:
No one wants to limit discussion, only intentional and harmful misinformation.
Click to expand...
Like saying it takes 8-12 years for safe and effective vaccines. Biden said that. It was intentional and harmful during “warp speed” which happened to be during and election year. Biden should walk it back and apologize for the misinformation and creating doubt.
 
#299
#299
clarksvol00 said:
I tend to view censorship as more of a forced suppression of speech. If the government had said, "remove Joe Rogan or we'll shut you down," or Neil Young had walked up to the CEO and said, "remove Joe Rogan or I'll beat you dead with my harmonica," I'd consider that censorship. "Him or me" is not the type of coercive behavior I think about when I think about censorship. This just seems more like a viewpoint colliding with a business.
Click to expand...

there is attempted coersion.

again viewpoint colliding doesn't require demands for negative consequences to a third party. that's where this moves from differences to attempted coercion to take action against a 3rd party. Rogan is not in a business relationship with Neil Young obviously.

even a demand - give me a bigger cut or I'll leave doesn't include a demand that actions be taken against someone who is not party to our relationship.
 
#300
#300
volinbham said:
you don't think telling people not to wear masks when you know they should isn't harmful?
Not if it would have lead to a shortage for medical workers and others at even more risk.
you think trying to deter discussion that Covid was a lab leak; potentially engineered isn't harmful?
Our government and every company has classified information. Information that they know could be harmful in the wrong hands at the wrong time.

My original LOL is that the "harmful" designation is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure the CCP considers Hong Kong freedom fighter information as "harmful" and "intentional".
Of course it's in the eye of the beholder. How else could it be?

the intentional and harmful puts the suppression power into the hands of the powerful and out of the hands of the powerless.
Not true. It works in all directions. There are things you choose not to tell the government, corporations, your employer, your spouse. You make the determination that they do not need to know, it is none of their business, it would only hurt them or you, etc..
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top