Anyone Leaving Spotify After Joe Rogan Incident?

[asbak]

So persecuted, oh my!

ribbit

[asbak]

It seems that isn't possible for people to do any more..

Ahem.......

That broad statement is incorrect.

It is entirely possible for civilised people - other than the Neil Young's of this world and their cancel mobs - to do. The rest of the world didn't change. The rest of the world did not shut down free speech, debate, freedom of ideas, tolerance of different ideologies nor seeking knowledge. The irony of a cage fighting barbarian being more civilised and open-minded than a boomer hippy is not lost on me.

Cancel culture is a more recent phenomenon in the West. I clearly remember a time when it would have been frowned upon yet today it has become the dominant culture and the norm.

That is why NY and entourage are making a show and dance of going elsewhere to environments more conducive to their ideology of intolerance and nuttery which is something they are entirely entitled to do.

[merlyn]

Introduction to Science

Here we will conduct an experiment to determine if house bricks float.

Apparatus
One brick

Experiment
Go outside. Hold the brick at arm's length and let go.

Results
The brick hits the ground.

Analysis and conclusions
Bricks do not float.

That's the scientific method. There's no opinion comes into that. There's no belief comes into it. The brick hit the ground, this is a fact and not up for debate.

If you believe in all of the above you have bigger problems than I do.

See above.

"Blah blah rightwing white man bad orange man bad misogynist you must be in the KKK". That's an intellectually lazy attempt at a smear. Too easy.

Also, by dismissing it an easy way out. The narrative you're presenting is popular with the rightwing, and while I doubt you're in the KKK, by repeating this narrative you have thrown your lot in with a movement that includes extreme elements of the rightwing.

merlyn, I'm not here to debate nutters and cultists about quackery so I won't, but I will leave you with this thought.

Geez, aren't you a charmer? Fortunately being acquainted with logic I can dismiss this as the logical fallacy of ad hominem. Factor logical fallacies out of the narrative you're presenting and we have ... not a lot.

[Largos]

cage fighting barbarian

Where are cage fighting barbarians nowadays? I only know of UFC.

[sysrqer]

I haven't really looked into it all to understand why artists are leaving but I'm kind of glad they are. Regardless of the politics Spotify is pretty terrible for the artists so maybe this will be a catalyst for a better paradigm (probably not though).

As far as Joe Rogan goes, I have enjoyed more than a few of his videos but he can be a complete asshat sometimes.

[sysrqer]

What maybe surprises me most, is that a lot of people want to silence the other side.
If you don't like Joe Rogan, don't watch him.

The issue is similar to why we generally don't allow racists free speech. Living in a society is a social contract (read up on Rousseau) and saying things that can harm people within that society violates that contract. It isn't about silencing but rather reducing harm. I don't think anyone will care what your views are about covid or anything else but if you are a very influential person and you say things that are unfounded and put the lives of many people at risk (verses widely peer reviewed systematic research) then society has a responsibility take action. Negative and positive freedoms are a thing but many people only focus on one of them unless it suits them to do otherwise.

[tavasti]

If you don't get science, fair enough, but why then are you making pronouncements on the subject?

There are people who believe in the science of the perpetual motion engine, and there are people who don't. I don't believe in perpetual motion science and I don't believe in politicians and scientists who preach science yet are routinely caught cheating at their own health & safety regimes.
I could elaborate but I won't because it is pointless.

I also never knew that science is absolute and that their science is and can never be wrong or riddled with errors, that screw-ups do not occur in science, that all scientists are benevolent and honest people who only tell us the truth all of the time and that science can not possibly ever by motivated by profit and personal gain to unload pollution and poisons on humans and the environment.

First of all, science clearly proves that perpetual motion machine is impossible.

Then, the rest. Yes, there is is some cheating also in science, and sure there is other sources of errors. Therefore stuff that is only from one study isn't considered very strong proof of anything, but many indipendent studies are are done. When there is bigger number of studies pointing to same direction, then is starts to be better proof that results are correct.

Now what you say that because there is some amount of cheating, errors and mistakes, all the science is wrong, and instead of it you believe someone who states something without any studies? Because professional pilots sometimes make mistakes and cause accidents you think it is better to take someone who isn't professional?

[Linuxmusician01]

I've seen a lot of tweets stating musicians left Spotify after some COVID remarks from the Joe Rogan podcast.

If you removed your music from Spotify over this, why? And what are you doing to replace Spotify?

This would require someone to know and to give a damn about who Jou Rogan is.

He appears to be some sort of North American cage fighter. As an intellectual and a European I couldn't care less if a primate like that woud explode like the drummer from Spinal Tap. I wouldn't piss on 'im if he caught fire.

Bye.

[Gps]

What maybe surprises me most, is that a lot of people want to silence the other side.
If you don't like Joe Rogan, don't watch him.

The issue is similar to why we generally don't allow racists free speech. Living in a society is a social contract (read up on Rousseau) and saying things that can harm people within that society violates that contract. It isn't about silencing but rather reducing harm. I don't think anyone will care what your views are about covid or anything else but if you are a very influential person and you say things that are unfounded and put the lives of many people at risk (verses widely peer reviewed systematic research) then society has a responsibility take action. Negative and positive freedoms are a thing but many people only focus on one of them unless it suits them to do otherwise.

Well, on the racist part we agree. People should not be judged on their skin color for example.

When it comes to covid , I have a lot to say but I have not seen Joe Rogan enough, to even know if I agree with him or not.
Before this, lets call it a riot, I had hardly heard of him.

What I have seen happening in my own country though (Netherlands) every covid critical scientist, who does not follow the main stream media narrative, gets ignored and or is being made a fool of. Pieter Borger as one example.
Now if Pieter Borger would be the only scientist with this point of view, I would have ignored him too.

Then there was this dutch doctor who treated people with covid successfully, and if I recall right, this was with hydroxychloroquine and sync.
He was told to stop, or his license would be revoked.

I see a lot of very questionable censorship, but as I said, I have not seen joe rogan enough, to know if this applies to him too.

Still I believe strongly in freedom of speech, even for those who claim the earth is flat and that nasa is part of a conspiracy to make us think the earth is round.

I will argue them, but never would I want to silence them.

Edit:
Something I need to add about this dutch doctor. His treatment for covid only works for people who just got the first symptoms.
For people who are already serious ill because of covid, hydroxychloroquine and sync won't work anymore.

[bhilmers]

Now if Pieter Borger would be the only scientist with this point of view, I would have ignored him too.

As others have pointed out, scientific consensus is what's most important. Regarding sars-cov-2, dissenting scientists are still a tiny minority. I don't for one second believe these people are being silenced because they are "fighting the good fight" against a corrupt government or academic machine. Can't publish in your first pick of journals? There are others to choose from and they would be happy to publish quality science because it gives them an edge over journals (the free market). Can't publish in your country? Adversarial countries would be happy to publish quality science because it makes their enemies look bad (statesmanship). That's not to say some of these dissenting scientists don't have good ideas, it's just that these ideas aren't powerful enough and/or there isn't enough compelling evidence to change the course of policy.

And since I've decided to jump into this thread, I think Joe Rogan is a meathead and I can't stand to listen to him. I think he's dangerously irresponsible with his platform and he either he lacks the self-awareness needed to do good or simply doesn't care to do good, or maybe both. I also have never found a need for Spotify so I'm cool with both Rogan and Spotify being cancelled.

[Gps]

In my world, that consensus is a main stream media lie.
There is no consensus amongst scientist, and if there was, it would probably be for the first time in history.

After two years I am still not sure if there is a conspiracy or just blind panic and acting dumb.
Although I suspect some conspiracy, I have not seen any direct proof of this.


If we had quality media, they would have invited Pieter Borger and then somebody from the other side.
Then we could make up our minds for our self, who we believe.

Today though at a press conference, I heard a minster say, that false positives are possible with the pcr test.
I consider that a win. They have been denying this for two years now.

[bhilmers]

In my world, that consensus is a main stream media lie. There is no consensus amongst scientist, and if there was, it would probably be for the first time in history. After two years I am still not sure if there is a conspiracy or just blind panic and acting dumb. Although I suspect some conspiracy, I have not seen any direct proof of this.

There might be a good reason why you don't see proof of a conspiracy. Because there probably isn't one. Science is an international endeavor. Experimental success relies on the success of previous experiments. That's how we arrive at consensus. Coronaviruses aren't new. Vaccines aren't new. Even the mRNA vaccine is technology that's been developed over the last two decades, and as the evidence shows it's remarkably effective.

There is a reason why every country in the world is handling the covid-19 pandemic in nearly the same way, regardless of corruption in their individual governments and media. It's because, while not perfect, the science and policy is sound. We've got two years of global data that prove this and you'd have to live in a different reality to not see it.

Leaving the thread now, thanks for the discussion.

[asbak]

cage fighting barbarian

Where are cage fighting barbarians nowadays? I only know of UFC.

Yes UFC and the like.

Rogan's into the MMA scene so it was a somewhat jokey reference (my poor attempt at satire) where I juxtaposed a representative of knucklehead culture (Rogan) vs the more genteel (Young).

[asbak]

I haven't really looked into it all to understand why artists are leaving but I'm kind of glad they are. Regardless of the politics Spotify is pretty terrible for the artists so maybe this will be a catalyst for a better paradigm (probably not though).

As far as Joe Rogan goes, I have enjoyed more than a few of his videos but he can be a complete asshat sometimes.

That is for sure. I don't have any particular affinity for his views and (to me anyway) somewhat weird beliefs (smoking all that weed I guess?) but he has an ability to attract interesting people for interviews which has helped turn him into the phenomenon that he has become.

[asbak]

The issue is similar to why we generally don't allow racists free speech. Living in a society is a social contract (read up on Rousseau) and saying things that can harm people within that society violates that contract. It isn't about silencing but rather reducing harm. I don't think anyone will care what your views are about covid or anything else but if you are a very influential person and you say things that are unfounded and put the lives of many people at risk (verses widely peer reviewed systematic research) then society has a responsibility take action. Negative and positive freedoms are a thing but many people only focus on one of them unless it suits them to do otherwise.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the saying goes.

Who has the monopoly on what is harmful vs not harmful, or truth vs falsehoods, or accuracy vs faults, right vs wrong.

The world isn't a giant safe space and when one mob take it upon themselves to make up the rules and place themselves in charge it's only going to lead to one outcome, namely to employ this as a weapon against others who have different views.

People out there in the wild aren't as kind or sane as a reasonable person who is used to a protected existence may believe they are. Many people are predators and once they get power (and these types usually gravitate toward politics and similar fields) they will abuse it. Once they get to decide what may or may not be allowed, they will abuse that power.

Therefore imo a society containing at least some chaos, a few hurt feelings & offending the thin-skinned is a small price to pay compared to the police state alternative. Why? Because at least one still has some kind of a choice & freedom in a more chaotic society.

In the Neil Young utopia Big Brother does the deciding. This would be a paradise on earth for Statists and Stockholm syndromed people, as for myself I'd rather not live that dream.

A world where you still have a choice on what you are allowed to see, read and hear on Spotify or elsewhere is preferable to a world where Big Brother makes these decisions for you.

That's my take on it. Many will disagree but as far as I'm concerned their views and ideologies are not "more equal" (reference to Orwell's Animal Farm) than mine. Once such groups appoint themselves in charge and declare themselves more equal (for the children, for humanity, for decency! they will claim), that they are "right", that they own the monopoly on the truth and all these things, then it becomes a very slippery slope.