Community >> View Thread
1 2 3 4 5 6  >> All
Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.99 on Windows 10
Author
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


Pretty provocative set of events, huh? Seems like how to understand freedom of speech and "misinformation" intersecting with the digital platform and corporate power is like the issue of our time, huh?

cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.82 on Windows 10
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800


It's interesting that it seems like the political sides have taken on the opposite arguments. You've got the liberals basically saying a corporation should be able to deplatform anyone they don't agree with. Sort of the at-will employment model. A company can fire you at any time for any reason. Or no reason. And the free market will correct. If your work has value you can get a job somewhere else. The guys who fired you, if they made a mistake, will lose market share. A capitalist solution.

Then you've got the conservatives saying that the government should be controlling what the corporations can do. Either with strict regulation or turning social media into government run utilities. It's weird.

And it's so obvious that both sides are only taking these stances because it favors them at the moment. If it was favoring the other guy they would flip-flop.

Personally I believe in the right to protest. Neil Young can boycott Spotify, that's his right. He knew they would side with Rogan because Rogan brings in all the cash. So Young was walking away from money based on principle. That seems honorable. But let's be realistic, he's got plenty of money. He didn't jump on a grenade. Someone else will buy his catalogue.

Having said that, I have never picketed or protested or boycotted anything really because if you're going to make an effort, why not do something more concrete? Get into politics, try to craft some legislation. Or volunteer somewhere and help people that way.

Jon Stewart made a good point that Rogan is someone who is asking questions and you can reason with him. You should engage with him rather than take your ball and go home.

https://youtu.be/Ifp0VzSMeAs


Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
Ancient One 

Manager

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,924




    Quote:
    Jon Stewart made a good point that Rogan is someone who is asking questions and you can reason with him. You should engage with him rather than take your ball and go home.


Absolutely.

And Rogan's got form in that area (Conspiracy theories). He was once a moon landing denier, but changed his mind when enough evidence was presented to him.

That's a good thing.

What's needed here is for someone to go on the show and present clear and definitive evidence on the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to him.




Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.99 on Windows 10
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800


I've also seen him pick apart the Flat Earthers and some religious folks I guess that believe dinosaur fossils are a hoax? Because the Earth is only 6,000 years old or whatever.



Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


No, not provocative at all.

Seems like the same old thing, just in new packaging.

It is not uncommon for someone who produces something to remove that product if it is being associated with something which they do not approve.

The most common is advertising on TV, but that is hardly the only one.

It is a simple boycott, it is not so different from any other. The point is to cause economic pressure to change something, because he hopes others will follow suit.

Is it different than boycotting chick-fil-a because they gave money to anti-gay organizations? Or Nike for using Colin Kaepearnick as a spokesman? Anita Bryant in the 70s?

We keep acting like just because it is on the internet it is somehow different.

If he decided to leave a record label, or not go on a network because of the views of a talk show host would it be provocative?

This is not Twitter kicking people off violating vaguely-defined Terms of Service. That is an actual conversation. This is just something slightly newsworthy happening in a new medium.

The owner of spotify will make a decision, maybe based on principle, but more likely on money (but who knows, the Swedes are a rascally bunch). I have not seen the numbers, but my guess is that in 2022, Joe Rogan brings in more cash Neil Young.


For the record, while I think Rogan is saying some dangerous stuff... nothing about him screams expert. As far as I know he has never claimed to be either. If people choose him over others, that is their call.

Americans choosing what they want to hear over what comes from reliable sources is also not new. Hell, it is practically the American way.

Yes, I know other artists have left as well, but I still doubt it will be enough to rival one of the most popular podcasts in the nation. Podcasts now becoming one of the dominant forms of entertainment.

Like I said, Neil will probably be hurt far more than Spotify, and that is his call. He left on his own, and gave a reason... perhaps over estimating his value to the platform. He gave the owner a choice, seemingly the owner went in the other direction.



This should be the end of the story. It another, in a long list of boycotts that did nothing.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 96.0 on Windows 10
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


That democrat voters are censorship Nazis and this will be their downfall. Red wave coming.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


There is nothing honorable about Neil Young. He is human garbage, a drug addict, and if everyone had his thought process we’d go extinct very quickly. He brings nothing to the table with his small intellect. His music is okay, I guess, for passing the time, but he’s a dime a dozen.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


There's a way to say what you're trying to say without comparing people to nazis. Let that serve as a friendly warning. Don't let yourself get booted over something like this.

cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563




Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800


Aside from Neil Young, how do you feel about deplatforming? Do you think corporations should be allowed to deplatform an artist that doesn't represent their values? Or should the government have stronger regulations on what these companies can or can't do, to protect the workers?



Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.87 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


I don’t think these companies have any values to begin with and so to pretend that they’re anything more than product pushers is naive. And no, they can’t remove people or censor or restrict their product because some cokehead druggie has a walnut-sized brain and sooner belongs in the neanderthal exhibit than representing the free world. And if the left keeps pushing, I will join those who no longer fight for fairness but to win. That means that when the pendulum swings to our side, I will be among those who will fight to suppress democrats instead of fighting for their rights.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


It is your side that started these words. The least you can do is reap what your leaders and media have sewn.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnns-don-lemon-all-trump-voters-klansmen-nazis-capitol-rioters.amp


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563


Suffice to say I would tell people on either side of whatever divide your talking about not to compare other people on the board as nazis, nazi-loving, nazi adjacency, or what have you. So yeah.

And just generally speaking if outside this board you see something you think is wrong to do that your enemies or opponents have done, that doesn't somehow make it appropriate or justify your doing it here.

cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake



Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


If not, it is completely unrelated to anything.

"look at this thing that happened somewhere else, and not connected to this site at all. That makes you a hypocrite for reprimanding me here!"

It makes no sense.

The Late Great Donald Blake did not say that, he has no control over it, so in what way would he be reaping?

What a hilarious attempt to try and justify something, when you could just say "sure, it won't happen again."

I can tell you this, I have seem LGDB warn people on both sides about Nazi comparisons.




And before you do your "blah, blah, blah, Democrats are blah blah blah" routine...I am not a Democrat.









Posted with Mozilla Firefox 96.0 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 96.0 on Windows 10
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800



    Quote:
    I don’t think these companies have any values to begin with and so to pretend that they’re anything more than product pushers is naive.

That's usually my argument as well. So you don't believe corporations are deplatforming people for being Trump supporters, for example? Because that would be a value based choice. They're doing whatever makes the most financial sense.


    Quote:
    And no, they can’t remove people or censor or restrict their product

So corporations should have no control over their product, and instead cede that power to the federal government?


    Quote:
    That means that when the pendulum swings to our side, I will be among those who will fight to suppress democrats instead of fighting for their rights.

So you imagine a day where you won't fight for right or wrong but simply to suppress opinions you don't agree with?


Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.87 on Linux
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,483



    Quote:
    Pretty provocative set of events, huh? Seems like how to understand freedom of speech and "misinformation" intersecting with the digital platform and corporate power is like the issue of our time, huh?



    Quote:
    cheers,
    ---the late great Donald Blake


Forward: Outside of a handful of YouTube clips, I’ve never listened to Joe Rogan.

I broadly know that Rogan is a (Covid) vaccine skeptic, and that both Neil Young and Joni Mitchell pulled their music from Spotify as a result. Whether they did this as an act of protest, or because they simply don’t want to be associated with views they strongly disagree with I’m not sure, but given their personal experiences with polio, I can fully sympathize with either reason.

Rogan is free to run his podcast how he sees fit (under Spotify’s guidelines, of course); artists are free to pull their music from the service as they see fit; Spotify is free to choose who to side with. If there’s misinformed content on Rogan’s podcast and it’s deemed a public hazard, well … I think that’d be immaterial because the public is free to choose to disengage with Rogan’s podcast.

The past few years have shown that people are gonna believe whatever cockamamie bullshit they wanna believe, regardless of however much empirically-backed factual info you throw at them, and most attempts to remove misinformation just further entrenches people in their misinformed beliefs. In cases like Rogan’s podcasts, I think adding disclaimers is about the best we can do.

Someone below made the case that Rogan can be engaged with, but I’m not entirely convinced. If he were at all interested in having dialogue with guests who challenge his vaccine skepticism he would’ve already invited them to his show, yet afaik he hasn’t.





Posted with Apple iPhone
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800



    Quote:
    Rogan is free to run his podcast how he sees fit (under Spotify’s guidelines, of course); artists are free to pull their music from the service as they see fit; Spotify is free to choose who to side with.

They don't even have to pick a side in that case if Young can pull his music and Rogan can run his show as he sees fit.


    Quote:
    Someone below made the case that Rogan can be engaged with, but I’m not entirely convinced. If he were at all interested in having dialogue with guests who challenge his vaccine skepticism he would’ve already invited them to his show, yet afaik he hasn’t.

I don't know in general but the video I linked from Jon Stewart had him reference an episode where Rogan's guest was challenging Rogan on vaccine facts and that Rogan said "let's look it up" and they looked it up and Rogan concluded he was wrong (on that one issue). In the past I have seen guests challenge Joe on other topics and have him change his mind.



Posted with Google Chrome 98.0.4758.87 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:
    And before you do your "blah, blah, blah, Democrats are blah blah blah" routine...I am not a Democrat.


That’s why I’m starting to uncomplicate this for everyone: it’s democrat voters, not democrats anymore.

So back in you go.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021



    Quote:

    That's usually my argument as well. So you don't believe corporations are deplatforming people for being Trump supporters, for example? Because that would be a value based choice. They're doing whatever makes the most financial sense.


No, they’re deplatforming Trump supporters because they have no values and it doesn’t impact their finances to act like Nazis one way or the other. In Twitter’s case, they have a monopoly and so all it takes is crazy liberal cucks (who have no values) to censor everyone; with no resulting financial impact.

I cannot stress enough how liberals have no values and so it’s not possible to attribute values as somehow shaping anything they do.


    Quote:
    So corporations should have no control over their product, and instead cede that power to the federal government?


It’s called anti-discrimination laws. They have control, but not complete control. You can’t own a water bottle company and then during a draught refuse to sell to Trump supporters.


    Quote:
    So you imagine a day where you won't fight for right or wrong but simply to suppress opinions you don't agree with?


Democrats are already doing this. Pushes far enough, then yep.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,483



    Quote:
    Rogan is free to run his podcast how he sees fit (under Spotify’s guidelines, of course); artists are free to pull their music from the service as they see fit; Spotify is free to choose who to side with.

They don't even have to pick a side in that case if Young can pull his music and Rogan can run his show as he sees fit.
    Quote:


    Agreed. As far as I can tell no one’s freedoms are being violated. The controversy is only coming from those who either want to cancel Rogan, or those who don’t think Young should be free to associate (or not associate) with whomever he chooses.


      Quote:
      Someone below made the case that Rogan can be engaged with, but I’m not entirely convinced. If he were at all interested in having dialogue with guests who challenge his vaccine skepticism he would’ve already invited them to his show, yet afaik he hasn’t.

    I don't know in general but the video I linked from Jon Stewart had him reference an episode where Rogan's guest was challenging Rogan on vaccine facts and that Rogan said "let's look it up" and they looked it up and Rogan concluded he was wrong (on that one issue). In the past I have seen guests challenge Joe on other topics and have him change his mind.
      Quote:


      Yeah, the video was of Rogan making the claim that there’s a higher risk of myocarditis from the vaccine than from Covid itself. When his guest challenged his claim he looked it up, all well and good. However, once his guest was proven right, Rogan immediately pivoted to questioning the veracity of the information.

      https://youtu.be/_j-BJzVQy50

      Again, I’m no fan of cancelling the guy. I’ve seen vids of him dunking on flatearthers and taking Candace Owens to task; I’ve also seen vids of him giving Alex Jones and his warped-reality a platform. Now there’s a montage out there of him using the n-word which is horrible itself, but I'm willing to bet my last dollar that each use of the word is taken out of context.

      I agree that he probably can be engaged, but this instance of myocarditis isn’t a good example of that.

      edit:

      One of the comments in the video I linked says that later in the podcast, Rogan admits that he mixed things up, so perhaps he does ultimately become convinced.




Posted with Apple iPhone
Happy Hogan 

Manager

Location: Northern Virginia
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,472




    Quote:
    Pretty provocative set of events, huh? Seems like how to understand freedom of speech and "misinformation" intersecting with the digital platform and corporate power is like the issue of our time, huh?



    Quote:
    cheers,
    ---the late great Donald Blake



Saying it's a "war" seems a bit of a misnomer. In a war, everyone is looking for allies. As far as I can tell, neither Rogan or Young are acting like they want to recuit me.

All that said, Neil Young looks like someone trying to find a classy way to distance himself from Rogan, via the platform they were sharing. Joe Rogan on the other hand seems like someone who wants to use his celebrity status for a soapbox, saying "Your Honor, I had no idea it was dangerous to go that fast on that road."


Here's the movie quote that inspired my subject title.





atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,483


Oh please. Colin Kaepernick decided to kneel and rage made every conservative forget all about free speech. You even had Trump, as POTUS, saying players who kneeled should be fired. There’s your violation of the First Amendment.



Posted with Apple iPhone
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


The big difference is that Colin did it on company time, and there’s no place of employment other than sports where a person can repeatedly disrupt business functions by interrupting everyone and then kneeling while someone is speaking. If you’re stupid enough to constantly interrupt your immediate supervisor, or worse, the head honcho in front of everyone during business functions, you will be gone. That is not a free speech issue, it’s about doing your issue on your own time. Colin could have found other ways to voice his displeasure, and only a liar would deny that what really fueled his anger was that management sat his sorry talent on the bench and his playing opportunities were in jeopardy. He couldn’t stand that his talent was crap and then own up like a man.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800



    Quote:
    The big difference is that Colin did it on company time, and there’s no place of employment other than sports where a person can repeatedly disrupt business functions by interrupting everyone and then kneeling while someone is speaking.

Does kneeling during the anthem disrupt business functions? The game hasn't yet started during the anthem. Whether he stood or kneeled had no effect on the game, did it? It caused some people to talk which was the point.

A better question would be, if his team had fired him for his conduct, would you have supported that? Or would that have been a suppression of his free speech? What if he had done the same thing in support of Trump or some conservative movement? Would you be concerned about the deplatforming of a conservative voice?



Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.99 on MacOS X
Superman's Pal

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,800



    Quote:
    No, they’re deplatforming Trump supporters because they have no values and it doesn’t impact their finances to act like Nazis one way or the other. In Twitter’s case, they have a monopoly and so all it takes is crazy liberal cucks (who have no values) to censor everyone; with no resulting financial impact.

What does Twitter have a monopoly on? Certainly not social media. There are plenty of those. And traditional media as well. At what point does an entertainment company have to give their platform to everyone who asks rather than those that the company selects?


    Quote:
    I cannot stress enough how liberals have no values and so it’s not possible to attribute values as somehow shaping anything they do.

I know plenty of people that would say the same about conservatives. It's too much of a blanket statement. I know people on both sides who have good values and I assume there are people on both sides who don't.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      So corporations should have no control over their product, and instead cede that power to the federal government?



    Quote:
    It’s called anti-discrimination laws. They have control, but not complete control. You can’t own a water bottle company and then during a draught refuse to sell to Trump supporters.

But a Christian bakery can refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple on religious grounds, even though it discriminates against the customer. So discrimination is okay sometimes, right?

In that case, I would side with the baker. They can refuse service. If the public doesn't like it they will shop elsewhere and if enough of the public take their business elsewhere, the baker will be out of a job. All of that strikes me as fair. Free market correction.

If a media platform fires some talent that holds views they don't believe in, or think will cost them money, they fire that talent. The talent can look elsewhere for work. Free market correction. Seems fair to me.



Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.99 on MacOS X
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,483





Posted with Apple iPhone
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,563




Posted with Google Chrome 97.0.4692.98 on Linux
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021




Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


Yes, the anthem is part of business functions. The halftime show, the pregame, the concession stand - it’s all part of the entertainment package the fans are buying. The NFL lost viewers and revenue. If I was an owner, I’d be pissed.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
FreeKyle


Member Since: Thu Nov 11, 2021


Twitter has a monopoly. There’s no other platform that has its volume. There may be copycats but nobody traffics there. Try and correct me on that. Name the platform where President Trump could have switched to when he was banned from Twitter, one that has even 1/100 of Twitter’s volume.

And your cake analogy is bunk. The bakers were exercising their freedom of religion. Twitter isn’t exercising a damn thing other than arbitrarily censoring people based on politics and Nazism.

And to answer your question, if Dana White told Colby Covington to stop wearing MAGA hats and spewing politics during his pre-fight entrances and post-fight interviews, and Colby kept doing anyway, then guess what? Yes, I would think that Dana would be within his right to fire the guy and I’d think that Colby had only himself to blame. So thanks for asking the question, I just proved that I don’t make exceptions unlike you unethical democrats.


Posted with Apple iPhone 15.1
1 2 3 4 5 6  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software