Are there any lefty characters with cultural cache that could go on the Joe Rogan experience and talk about smoking weed or whatever dude bros want to hear while serving up some lefty stuff? Most leftists I know are more of a general uptight nerd category or Brooklyn reporter types, not exactly Rogan’s target demo. Maybe Chapo go on Rogan?
This is easier said than done. He doesn’t like to be made to look stupid, and any major topic that’s touched upon while a liberal is on set with him makes him look MAJORLY stupid, so he tends to just keep them away from his show entirely.
Most of them are “experts”.
And that isn’t even close to his dumbest belief. He believes in literal lizard people.
There is zero value in platforming someone who is clinically mentally ill.
But Joe thinks he is funny. YOOOOOO
OK, I’ve thought about it, and I still don’t want to censor anyone or regulate other people’s speech in any way. Including Alex Jones, and certainly not people who talk to Alex Jones. Except for the traditional ways speech has been regulated in this country, defamation law. Which I think Jones has some experience with.
Democrats not even trying for the immense population of pot loving losers by advocating legal weed is one of the biggest own goals of this entire stupid timeline.
3 Likes
Well, if you’ve thought about it I guess that settles it. Case closed.
Settle what I want? Yeah that’s how thoughts work.
I keep thinking Republicans are going to scoop Dems on this and obliterate them into dust.
2 Likes
You would count it as censorship if podcast people decide not to have Alex Jones anywhere near their podcasts given that he is/was a Sandy Hook hoaxer?
Of course not. But if Rogan decides to have Jones on and talks to him, a pressure campaign to try to get Spotify to disappear that podcast from the collection is censorship. Which is, imo, the subtext of all this conversation, forgive me if I’m wrong. You just want to call Joe a POS for having Jones on, whatever, who cares. But that pressure campaign to try to get Spotify to regulate what Rogan says and who his guests are and what they say obviously exists and is a censorship effort. Just like Tipper Gore’s attempted censorship of naughty late 80s rap music.
Beat: My father in law asked my wife for help in downloading Rogan’s podcast.
Brag: My wife refused.
4 Likes
Meh, maybe I’ll just bite the bullet and say if pressuring people with significant audiences to not platform Sandy Hook hoaxers counts as censorship then it sounds good to me.
ETA; naughty rap music like Santa Hook hoaxerism? If you just don’t allow for censoring of anything because censorship is inherently bad, intellectually I can understand that but, I don’t know, as misguided as censoring rap music was, Sandy Hook hoaxerism seems self evidently on another plane of terribleness that even the people who wanted to ban rap music would probably be like, holy shit this is far worse than NWA.
Whether you like it or not, if you want to engage in reality you have to accept that some “censorship” is good even if it’s very difficult and fluid to determine where the line is. You already conceded to defamation, slander and libel are also in play, and there isn’t a country in the world that provide an abosolutist approach to bans on censorships. Just pointing out that “it’s censorship” isn’t a valid argument to oppose it. You can find it distasteful, but the entire country and world are living through the consequences of too much misinformation right now. What’s your plan for addressing that problem? Remember that hope is not a plan.
THAT’S CENSORSHIP!
5 Likes
Now you are participating in a pressure campaign to censor Neil Young and other’s views that people shouldn’t associate with Spotify. Hypocrite.
Slander and libel are subsets of defamation, so of course. True threats also.
I think that the answer to wrong information is more debate and discussion, not censorship and deplatforming.
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law – the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.
But anyway, whatever the answer is, if there is one, I’m certain that the solution to the problem of bad information being shared isn’t to beg our great and benevolent media corporations to silence troublesome voices.
This is a lie.
Indeed, it was quite bad. Bad enough that the traditional remedy of defamation law was successfully employed!