Neil Young demands Spotify remove his music.

My 9 year old son came home on Friday and told me that their class was shown some Joe Rogan podcast with Brian Cox, while learning about the Universe, who do I contact to get it cancelled?

Can’t be having this misinformation spread…
 
Lee1983 said:
My 9 year old son came home on Friday and told me that their class was shown some Joe Rogan podcast with Brian Cox, while learning about the Universe, who do I contact to get it cancelled?

Can’t be having this misinformation spread…
Click to expand...
You need to write to the head telling him in no uncertain terms that they can have your kid, or the teacher, but they can't have both.
 
Kiss this guy said:
Click to expand...

Lee1983 said:
My 9 year old son came home on Friday and told me that their class was shown some Joe Rogan podcast with Brian Cox, while learning about the Universe, who do I contact to get it cancelled?

Can’t be having this misinformation spread…
Click to expand...
Whilst I’m sure the point you were making sounded good in your head the facts are he is spreading misinformation on the most important subject and his views are dangerous and deranged.
I’m pretty sure Cox would have taken the lead on any discussion about the universe whilst the silly **** next to him just nodded along.

Rogan may have genuinely good opinions on many subjects but whilst he’s hanging his hat on the anti vaccine nonsense anything worthwhile he has to say doesn’t matter.
It’s not going to stop though, he will be around for a while making money off the backs of the worst of society who embrace anything that seems batshit crazy enough to hold their attention.
 
@Kiss this guy

1510058903364-Screen-Shot-2017-11-07-at-124659.png
 
Seems to me people, predominantly on the left, have abandoned core principles like freedom of speech and freedom of choice, because they have forgotten why these basic human rights have been fundamental to our progress. It feels a bit weird living in a world where it has become routine for dissident voices to be silenced and medical interventions to be mandated, and for these actions to be cheered on by people who have previously championed freedom.

We've already instituted legal constraints about what can be said, such as incitement and defamation, and these seem fair enough to me because they set reasonable limits and in return we are guaranteed that our rights to speak will be respected. But now we want certain opinions to be beyond the pale and removed from the public square do we? That's considered progressive these days is it?

Ok, so which opinions are beyond the pale and who decides? The government? Well the political persuasion of governments changes regularly, so do we change the rules every time we change a governing party? Doesn't seem very practical to me. How about letting trillion dollar corporations decide? That working well at the moment? The profit incentive not going to interfere with the decision making process? How about a situation where the owners of these corporations have a particular political ideology and start banning people who they see as being antagonistic to them? Is that an acceptable solution? Well maybe if you happen to share that ideology but that doesn't make you particularly pro free speech in my book.

Being pro free speech means defending the right of people you disagree with to have a voice and to engage in the battle of ideas, trusting people to be able to decide for themselves which ideas are the strongest, and not to censor the ideas people are permitted to be exposed to. If you find yourself on the other side of this argument it may be time to stop beating about the bush and accept that you are in fact anti free speech, and you're not the good guys in this situation.
 
Onholiday(somemightsay) said:
Artists have every right to be fucked off that their music is being diluted in quality (as a side note)...........
Click to expand...
And being paid paltry amounts for each stream compared to Spotify(and other similar platforms).
I cancelled my subscription to Spotify for my own reasons before any of this broke. Didn’t tell them why?
I am on Apple too which is cheaper but I think ultimately the quality is even worse.
I think Neil has had problems with the company for quite a while and if this issue was enough for him personally to take this step, then that’s his right.
It’s not censorship. It’s his choice and he hasn’t asked anyone else to make the same choice. That’s left to each of us and our conscience. If you’re not bothered you’re not bothered. I would say most people on here won’t be.
However, Joni has taken a stand also. Another artist I greatly admire. If a few more started to follow suit it may become uncomfortable for Spotify.

Watch this space. Will it rumble on or fizzle out?
 
hgblue said:
Seems to me people, predominantly on the left, have abandoned core principles like freedom of speech and freedom of choice, because they have forgotten why these basic human rights have been fundamental to our progress. It feels a bit weird living in a world where it has become routine for dissident voices to be silenced and medical interventions to be mandated, and for these actions to be cheered on by people who have previously championed freedom.

We've already instituted legal constraints about what can be said, such as incitement and defamation, and these seem fair enough to me because they set reasonable limits and in return we are guaranteed that our rights to speak will be respected. But now we want certain opinions to be beyond the pale and removed from the public square do we? That's considered progressive these days is it?

Ok, so which opinions are beyond the pale and who decides? The government? Well the political persuasion of governments changes regularly, so do we change the rules every time we change a governing party? Doesn't seem very practical to me. How about letting trillion dollar corporations decide? That working well at the moment? The profit incentive not going to interfere with the decision making process? How about a situation where the owners of these corporations have a particular political ideology and start banning people who they see as being antagonistic to them? Is that an acceptable solution? Well maybe if you happen to share that ideology but that doesn't make you particularly pro free speech in my book.

Being pro free speech means defending the right of people you disagree with to have a voice and to engage in the battle of ideas, trusting people to be able to decide for themselves which ideas are the strongest, and not to censor the ideas people are permitted to be exposed to. If you find yourself on the other side of this argument it may be time to stop beating about the bush and accept that you are in fact anti free speech, and you're not the good guys in this situation.
Click to expand...
Part of that freedom, is freedom of choice.
Neil made his choice. You have the freedom to do the same. You have the freedom to do nothing.
 
hgblue said:
Seems to me people, predominantly on the left, have abandoned core principles like freedom of speech and freedom of choice, because they have forgotten why these basic human rights have been fundamental to our progress. It feels a bit weird living in a world where it has become routine for dissident voices to be silenced and medical interventions to be mandated, and for these actions to be cheered on by people who have previously championed freedom.

We've already instituted legal constraints about what can be said, such as incitement and defamation, and these seem fair enough to me because they set reasonable limits and in return we are guaranteed that our rights to speak will be respected. But now we want certain opinions to be beyond the pale and removed from the public square do we? That's considered progressive these days is it?

Ok, so which opinions are beyond the pale and who decides? The government? Well the political persuasion of governments changes regularly, so do we change the rules every time we change a governing party? Doesn't seem very practical to me. How about letting trillion dollar corporations decide? That working well at the moment? The profit incentive not going to interfere with the decision making process? How about a situation where the owners of these corporations have a particular political ideology and start banning people who they see as being antagonistic to them? Is that an acceptable solution? Well maybe if you happen to share that ideology but that doesn't make you particularly pro free speech in my book.

Being pro free speech means defending the right of people you disagree with to have a voice and to engage in the battle of ideas, trusting people to be able to decide for themselves which ideas are the strongest, and not to censor the ideas people are permitted to be exposed to. If you find yourself on the other side of this argument it may be time to stop beating about the bush and accept that you are in fact anti free speech, and you're not the good guys in this situation.
Click to expand...
Which is all very well until you present a straw man argument like this in response to what is, fundamentally, not an issue about free speech or freedom of expression, principles for which I would fight with the same passion expressed in your post. Neither Neil Young or Joni Mitchell have sought to prevent the likes of Rogan from broadcasting their 'message'. Instead, both have taken a stand by simply saying they no longer wish to share the same platform. I would add that any attempt to characterise the debate as one of fearless defenders of free speech against the 'loony lefties' is reductive, naïve and potentially dangerous and smacks of the gaslighting tactics employed by Trump's lunatic following.
 
hgblue said:
Seems to me people, predominantly on the left, have abandoned core principles like freedom of speech and freedom of choice, because they have forgotten why these basic human rights have been fundamental to our progress. It feels a bit weird living in a world where it has become routine for dissident voices to be silenced and medical interventions to be mandated, and for these actions to be cheered on by people who have previously championed freedom.

We've already instituted legal constraints about what can be said, such as incitement and defamation, and these seem fair enough to me because they set reasonable limits and in return we are guaranteed that our rights to speak will be respected. But now we want certain opinions to be beyond the pale and removed from the public square do we? That's considered progressive these days is it?

Ok, so which opinions are beyond the pale and who decides? The government? Well the political persuasion of governments changes regularly, so do we change the rules every time we change a governing party? Doesn't seem very practical to me. How about letting trillion dollar corporations decide? That working well at the moment? The profit incentive not going to interfere with the decision making process? How about a situation where the owners of these corporations have a particular political ideology and start banning people who they see as being antagonistic to them? Is that an acceptable solution? Well maybe if you happen to share that ideology but that doesn't make you particularly pro free speech in my book.

Being pro free speech means defending the right of people you disagree with to have a voice and to engage in the battle of ideas, trusting people to be able to decide for themselves which ideas are the strongest, and not to censor the ideas people are permitted to be exposed to. If you find yourself on the other side of this argument it may be time to stop beating about the bush and accept that you are in fact anti free speech, and you're not the good guys in this situation.
Click to expand...
My parents were big fans of Neil Young. They were anti-establishment hippy types, both immigrants, both marching for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War. They were anti-censorship as all the institutions and their media mouthpieces were usually trying to shut up people that they supported (eg Muhammad Ali). In sum, they were opponents of "The Man." These were the values I was raised with and the ones I retain to this day.

Funny how things change though. The old 60's rebel rocker-guy (and my parents for that matter) now seem to be squarely on the side of "The Man."

I don't like Joe Rogan but I like "The Man" even less and I like all the people running around wanting to police discourse and ideas even less than that.
 
Phil1 said:
Whilst I’m sure the point you were making sounded good in your head the facts are he is spreading misinformation on the most important subject and his views are dangerous and deranged.
I’m pretty sure Cox would have taken the lead on any discussion about the universe whilst the silly **** next to him just nodded along.

Rogan may have genuinely good opinions on many subjects but whilst he’s hanging his hat on the anti vaccine nonsense anything worthwhile he has to say doesn’t matter.
It’s not going to stop though, he will be around for a while making money off the backs of the worst of society who embrace anything that seems batshit crazy enough to hold their attention.
Click to expand...

Is it possible, just possible, that Rogan has an opinion of what he had did to avoid getting a vaccine because it worked for him? How would that be 'misinformation' especially if he's not expressed a wish for people not to get the vaccine? He has said he, personally, doesn't think certain sets of people need it, but hasn't directed that as instruction.

You DO understand that science isn't perfect and it's all about opinions? Some scientists say that this pandemic approach has been all wrong and to have dealt with this earlier was to give the vaccine to the most vulnerable and old, not everybody, as healthy people would produce antibodies that are more sustainable and produce blueprints/ memory of viruses.

What's the solution; to keep jabbing to try and vacc the way out, cos that ISN'T HAPPENING!! Omicron is proving that to be a false mindset. So, what's going to happen with Omicron BA.2?

Again to your other point, I find it bizarre how the "making money" aspect is levelled at Rogan when you LITERALLY have Big Pharma making BILLIONS in a quarter AND denying poorer countries the technology to develop vaccines to combat this 'pandemic'.

Does this not seem odd to you...?
 
hgblue said:
Seems to me people, predominantly on the left, have abandoned core principles like freedom of speech and freedom of choice, because they have forgotten why these basic human rights have been fundamental to our progress. It feels a bit weird living in a world where it has become routine for dissident voices to be silenced and medical interventions to be mandated, and for these actions to be cheered on by people who have previously championed freedom.

We've already instituted legal constraints about what can be said, such as incitement and defamation, and these seem fair enough to me because they set reasonable limits and in return we are guaranteed that our rights to speak will be respected. But now we want certain opinions to be beyond the pale and removed from the public square do we? That's considered progressive these days is it?

Ok, so which opinions are beyond the pale and who decides? The government? Well the political persuasion of governments changes regularly, so do we change the rules every time we change a governing party? Doesn't seem very practical to me. How about letting trillion dollar corporations decide? That working well at the moment? The profit incentive not going to interfere with the decision making process? How about a situation where the owners of these corporations have a particular political ideology and start banning people who they see as being antagonistic to them? Is that an acceptable solution? Well maybe if you happen to share that ideology but that doesn't make you particularly pro free speech in my book.

Being pro free speech means defending the right of people you disagree with to have a voice and to engage in the battle of ideas, trusting people to be able to decide for themselves which ideas are the strongest, and not to censor the ideas people are permitted to be exposed to. If you find yourself on the other side of this argument it may be time to stop beating about the bush and accept that you are in fact anti free speech, and you're not the good guys in this situation.
Click to expand...

I concur and the most super ironic thing about the people screaming about people having opinion, is that they will most likely have a family member who went to war and suffered for the right to be free.

I find it disturbing that people forget/ ignore that aspect in their own background.
 
I see the fabled ‘freedom of speech’ Argument is being rolled out again to defend a fucking nutjob.
It’s a simple case of right and wrong and if you fall on the side of thinking Rogan is within his rights to endanger the more gullible people Of the world then good on you but you’re not the fucking free thinkers and progressive folk you think you are. Far from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top