The idea that Neil would use his catalog as leverage to get someone else's content removed is a bad precedent. If you don't think so, what if the tables were turned? What if Monsanto was using their money, power and influence to get Neil's catalog removed from streaming services? Would that stop you from enjoying Neil's music or would you find alternative ways of consuming his content? Likely causing you to consume less new music from other artists and more of Neil Young's catalog.
This is why pressuring platforms to remove content you disagree with is unlikely to have the results you desire. Since you stay with service "A" consuming more content that reinforces your beliefs and the removed content moves to service "B" along with their audience consuming more content the reinforces their beliefs. This leaves society fractured, more entrenched and unlikely to be exposed to any ideas that doesn't confirm their beliefs.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
Theres a meme going around of what hippies in 1968 said and believed and what hippies in 2022 say and believe. Anti Authoritarian, question authority, do your own thing, became shut up, do what the government says and fall in line. Calling out that hypocrisy isnt wrong, those people who say that is a clear double standard have legitimate grievances.
There is no perfect mix. Free speech has its flaws and government (even more so large corporations that control communication platforms) controlled speech has its flaws.
I would rather allow free speech and discussion knowing that negative effects of the alternative are much, much worse. It is like people want the US to be like China where only one viewpoint can be discussed.
So if Pearl Jam was to play Bonnaroo, but then Bonnaroo decided to add a bunch of White power music to the lineup and having a stack of limited edition numbered Mein Kampf books and accompanying litographs at the merch tables - then Pearl Jam would be wrong to cancel because of this precious freedom of speech you speak of?
Help me understand.
Joe Rogan has no relation to the ideas or books you presented. He's the host of the most popular podcast in the world, on the largest steaming service in the world. The idea he is marginal, or that his fans and his ideas are marginal is simply not accurate. His podcasts episodes get more views that primetime airings of Colbert, NBC Nightly News, or any of those shows.
The idea that Neil would use his catalog as leverage to get someone else's content removed is a bad precedent. If you don't think so, what if the tables were turned? What if Monsanto was using their money, power and influence to get Neil's catalog removed from streaming services? Would that stop you from enjoying Neil's music or would you find alternative ways of consuming his content? Likely causing you to consume less new music from other artists and more of Neil Young's catalog.
This is why pressuring platforms to remove content you disagree with is unlikely to have the results you desire. Since you stay with service "A" consuming more content that reinforces your beliefs and the removed content moves to service "B" along with their audience consuming more content the reinforces their beliefs. This leaves society fractured, more entrenched and unlikely to be exposed to any ideas that doesn't confirm their beliefs.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
Theres a meme going around of what hippies in 1968 said and believed and what hippies in 2022 say and believe. Anti Authoritarian, question authority, do your own thing, became shut up, do what the government says and fall in line. Calling out that hypocrisy isnt wrong, those people who say that is a clear double standard have legitimate grievances.
There is no perfect mix. Free speech has its flaws and government (even more so large corporations that control communication platforms) controlled speech has its flaws.
I would rather allow free speech and discussion knowing that negative effects of the alternative are much, much worse. It is like people want the US to be like China where only one viewpoint can be discussed.
So if Pearl Jam was to play Bonnaroo, but then Bonnaroo decided to add a bunch of White power music to the lineup and having a stack of limited edition numbered Mein Kampf books and accompanying litographs at the merch tables - then Pearl Jam would be wrong to cancel because of this precious freedom of speech you speak of?
Help me understand.
Joe Rogan has no relation to the ideas or books you presented.
And?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
This. Exactly. People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray. Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation. Its fine to pull your own music from Spotify, but to try and silence Joe because you view him as misinformation is censorship. As I pointed out, its quite a change from someone who spent 60 years saying question the government and question authority, to now, fall in line, do what the government says, and shut up. People see that hypocrisy, thats why Joe has an audience. Joe is successful because the mainstream media is viewed by a majority of the public as overt shills. Blaming Joe is a joke. Maybe the media shouldn't have lied to us all for our entire lives. The blame is misdirected. Who decides what is misinformation? I love Neil but as you said, he has said some wild things over the years. I dont want Neil censored. And I dont want Joe censored either. Im all for people who want to remove themselves from platforms, do it. But thats not what Neil is advocating. And thats wrong. I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to. No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.
Neil's statement would've been so much better if "Young or Rogan. Not both" was missing. Completely pointless and classless. Nobody in their right mind is going to drop 11 million paying subscribers.
I've had this debate a lot with my brother and to be clear... it's very tricky business IMO. I agree with Neil's stance, but wish he didn't feel the need to do it. And as some have pointed out, his boycott will do very little if anything.
I often fall back on this concept... If you believe that the pen is mightier than the sword (and I do) then censorship is absolutely required.
No freedom is absolute freedom in a safe society, including freedom of speech.
I honestly wish that platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Spotify etc. did NOT have to be censored or regulated. But I honestly think they really do. And I blame people. People suck. People can be brainwashed, can be manipulated, can be hoodwinked. And there are many entities out there who are praying and capitalizing on that manipulation. If we cannot fix the people who can be so easily manipulated, then our recourse is to try to slow the means by which they are being manipulated.
Folks in opposition will say sure, but where does it end? Isn't it a slippery slope? And I agree with those fears, but we have to at some point weigh the good with the bad. We're either going to put our faith in our law makers and government (elected) or with entertainers and corporations who seek to gain and destroy with misinformation and propaganda. In the digital age, we also need to be mindful of foreign adversaries who use these tactics to cause chaos.
I generally side with the government because I feel I have at least slightly more control of what that government does and have the ability to change it if I don't like what I see.
On a somewhat related note.. we have a fellow in Canada named Jordan Peterson (D-Bag, in my opinion). He got famous for being a dissenting voice opposed to speech laws in Canada with regards to transgender pronoun stuff. I've read this guy. I've watched him. And hidden in a lot of what he says is fearmongering. For example, when our government amended the human rights code to include gender identity, Peterson warned us that 'in five years, we won't be able to have a discussion about gender' as a means to make people afraid of censorship and laws. Well... it's been five years, and he is now proven to be an incorrect fear mongering D-bag. What he tried to make people afraid of (The Censorship Boogeyman) did not come true at all.
You are free to disagree with Peterson, but where the issue begins is when you or others tell me I cant as an adult listen to Peterson, thats the issue. You can feel about him however you want but those of us who do like him, deserve to be able to hear him.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
This. Exactly. People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray. Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation. Its fine to pull your own music from Spotify, but to try and silence Joe because you view him as misinformation is censorship. As I pointed out, its quite a change from someone who spent 60 years saying question the government and question authority, to now, fall in line, do what the government says, and shut up. People see that hypocrisy, thats why Joe has an audience. Joe is successful because the mainstream media is viewed by a majority of the public as overt shills. Blaming Joe is a joke. Maybe the media shouldn't have lied to us all for our entire lives. The blame is misdirected. Who decides what is misinformation? I love Neil but as you said, he has said some wild things over the years. I dont want Neil censored. And I dont want Joe censored either. Im all for people who want to remove themselves from platforms, do it. But thats not what Neil is advocating. And thats wrong. I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to. No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.
When did society change from, "I disagree with your views but I'm open to hearing them. I dont know who you are but Im willing to sit politely at your lecture and then in the Q and A, ask some questions. I am willing to hear you out and give you the benefit of the doubt, and I will listen to you.", morph into "I disagree with you, thus I wont listen to you, and I will prevent others listening to you who actually enjoy your work. I will ruin you and your career and livelihood and call you names and scream. My view of you is correct and anyone that has a positive view of you is a liar, criminal and a threat. You even speaking at all is a threat."
Neil's statement would've been so much better if "Young or Rogan. Not both" was missing. Completely pointless and classless. Nobody in their right mind is going to drop 11 million paying subscribers.
You act like you haven't read your own thread where a sizable amount of folks have said they value free speech and hope PJ wouldn't do this. We arent a monolith.
I love Neil. But this was clear to anyone with a knowledge of the world in 2022. The average listener of Neil is old. Average Age of Joe's audience in 20's-30s. The overlap between the two is likely minimal at best. Frat boys in 2022 arent gonna bump Harvest in the whip, even though they should. Neil isnt the moneymaker at Spotify and Joe is. He is literally the face of Spotify, or at least the podcasting face. Its pretty obvious the reaction from Joe's audience was that Google graphic. What Neil would need for him to be successful would be to pull Joe's audience away, siphon it off. As evidenced by that graphic, thats just not going to happen. My guess is that the response from the vast majority of Joe's audience yesterday was, "Neil who?". And while I encourage them all to listen to Neil's music, it's clear Neil is engaging in a fools errand. In fact, the meme I saw most from Joe fans in response to yesterday was quoting Skynyrd's line about Neil. I didnt see a single person swayed by Neil. Neil is out of his depth in this one. My hope is both can exist peacefully, we can enjoy After the Gold Rush, and also enjoy the latest Rogan Podcast.
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
This. Exactly. People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray. Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.
The dude gives a platform for e.g. Alex Jones to spew his BS. Maybe pause and put together an oversight committee to take a look at your fandom-choices in life.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
This. Exactly. People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray. Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation. Its fine to pull your own music from Spotify, but to try and silence Joe because you view him as misinformation is censorship. As I pointed out, its quite a change from someone who spent 60 years saying question the government and question authority, to now, fall in line, do what the government says, and shut up. People see that hypocrisy, thats why Joe has an audience. Joe is successful because the mainstream media is viewed by a majority of the public as overt shills. Blaming Joe is a joke. Maybe the media shouldn't have lied to us all for our entire lives. The blame is misdirected. Who decides what is misinformation? I love Neil but as you said, he has said some wild things over the years. I dont want Neil censored. And I dont want Joe censored either. Im all for people who want to remove themselves from platforms, do it. But thats not what Neil is advocating. And thats wrong. I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to. No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.
When/why did everybody jump to censorship? I've read the letter a few times now, and I don't see anything even lightly touching upon restricting free speech, censorship, or even cancel culture (unless canceling oneself is a thing now?).
While I agree that Neil has gone off the rails at times over the past 20 years or so (an entire album about a pet car project, an entire album about GMO conspiracy theories, "Let's Roll"), I see no attempts of any kind on Neil's part to censor or cancel anyone (again, except himself?). He never says cancel Joe's show, and I'll stay on Spotify. He's fully aware of his lower rung on today's popular culture ladder, which is why he's simply pulling his catalog. It more of a white flag than a gauntlet thrown.
And his "Rogan or Young" doesn't read as a petulant ultimatum to me in context of the entire letter -- more so just him thinking out loud that Young cannot coexist on a platform with Rogan. I can see why it would read as a petulant ultimatum out of context, though.
You act like you haven't read your own thread where a sizable amount of folks have said they value free speech and hope PJ wouldn't do this. We arent a monolith.
I don't see anyone who has put forth this misdirected (and I guess not really through out) idea of "free speech" that has said anything relevant? But I did respond to people on the first page. I even brought in Pearl Jam who we so non-monololithy love into that response.
Tell me, If you were invited to at a party in a nice neighborhood in the town of Springwood and the host of the part invited... eh... lets say a dude named Fred Krueger, known child killer, but not convicted due to a technicality making him able to attend the party. Then, would you not leave that party and perhaps, maybe, who knows tell the host that "If you gonna have that dude who has killed at least 20 kids on this very street here, well then I'm leaving". Or would that betray this idea that you hold onto about having to stay put? "Nice sweater Fred... looks cozy"
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
This. Exactly. People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray. Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.
The dude gives a platform for e.g. Alex Jones to spew his BS. Maybe pause and put together an oversight committee to take a look at your fandom-choices in life.
He had Alex Jones and Bernie Sanders (which he supports). Always objective with proper debate. Clearly, you never listened to any if his interviews. Clips only.
You guys can also cancel your subscriptions instead of asking/demanding artists to take their music off the platform. I'm sure you guys will buy their albums
Yes! I don’t pay for any of those services. I buy albums if I like the artist. YouTube with ads for music that I maybe will maybe won’t buy.
DC '03 - Reading '04 - Philly '05 - Camden 1 '06 - DC '06 - E. Rutherford '06 - The Vic '07 - Lollapalooza '07 - DC '08 - EV DC 1 & 2 '08 (Met Ed!!) - EV Baltimore 1 & 2 '09 - EV NYC 1 '11 (Met Ed!) - Hartford '13 - GCF '15 - MSG 2 '16 - TOTD MSG '16 - Boston 1 & 2 '18 - SHN '21 - EV NYC 1 & 2 '22 - MSG '22
I thought Neil was a freedom of speech guy? If you truly are then you should to be for it even when you don’t like what is being said. Don’t like this take from Neil and hope PJ would not do the same.
It's nothing to do with free speech. Rogan is talking unsubstantiated shit about vaccines that will likely cost lives. If Neil doesn't want to be associated with a platform that allows this misinformation, then that's his own call.
unsubstantiated shit such as?
One example would be him talking about COVID not causing myocarditis in younger people - myocarditis is an exceptionally rare side effect of MRNA vaccines, but you're many many times more likely to get it from COVID-19 than you are from a vaccine. He was actually fact checked live on air and backpedalled immediately. People that have a listenership of millions shouldn't be pretending to be medical professionals.
He did not back pedal. He and Josh Szeps had a pointed conversation in which Rogan had his mind changed and then he pubically thanked Szeps for bringing the data clarity to his attention. Which Szeps also acknowledged.
I don't even listen to Rogan, I happen to be a person interested is Szeps, his writing and podcast. The misinformation about Rogan's supposed misinformation and fan worship who are leaping off a cliff for him is so dumb.
A person saying they don't trust something is not medical advice. A person saying they are not sure why x or y is not considered is not medical advice.
The assertion that grown ass human beings can't listen to Joe Rogan and make a rational choice about whatever it is he is talking about any given day is not an indictment on Rogan, it is an indictment of what we really think about "other" people.
Meanwhile Neil spouts off bat shit crazy counter science nonsense about GMOs and nobody so much as blinks an eye or wonders if he hasn't gone a little off the deep end.
This. Exactly. People act like Joe Rogan alone is leading people astray. Im a fan of Neil and of Joe, but Joe is in the right in this situation.
The dude gives a platform for e.g. Alex Jones to spew his BS. Maybe pause and put together an oversight committee to take a look at your fandom-choices in life.
He had Alex Jones and Bernie Sanders (which he supports). Always objective with proper debate. Clearly, you never listened to any if his interviews. Clips only.
Clearly you haven't listened to any of his interviews.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
Who decides what is misinformation? I love Neil but as you said, he has said some wild things over the years. I dont want Neil censored. And I dont want Joe censored either. Im all for people who want to remove themselves from platforms, do it. But thats not what Neil is advocating. And thats wrong.
I am a grown up, and I need to be able to listen to, consume, and engage with the content I want to. No one, not Apple, Spotify, Twitter, or Neil should be able to tell me what I get to spend my time listening to.
That change of mentality and ideology is scary.
SHOW COUNT: (157) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=97, US=116, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Ohana x2 Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
SHOW COUNT: (157) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=97, US=116, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Ohana x2 Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
SHOW COUNT: (157) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=97, US=116, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Ohana x2 Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
http://www.hi5sports.org/ (Sports Program for Kids with Disabilities)
http://www.livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=3652
Shirt from 2006 CSNY Freedom of Speech tour.
While I agree that Neil has gone off the rails at times over the past 20 years or so (an entire album about a pet car project, an entire album about GMO conspiracy theories, "Let's Roll"), I see no attempts of any kind on Neil's part to censor or cancel anyone (again, except himself?). He never says cancel Joe's show, and I'll stay on Spotify. He's fully aware of his lower rung on today's popular culture ladder, which is why he's simply pulling his catalog. It more of a white flag than a gauntlet thrown.
And his "Rogan or Young" doesn't read as a petulant ultimatum to me in context of the entire letter -- more so just him thinking out loud that Young cannot coexist on a platform with Rogan. I can see why it would read as a petulant ultimatum out of context, though.
Tell me, If you were invited to at a party in a nice neighborhood in the town of Springwood and the host of the part invited... eh... lets say a dude named Fred Krueger, known child killer, but not convicted due to a technicality making him able to attend the party. Then, would you not leave that party and perhaps, maybe, who knows tell the host that "If you gonna have that dude who has killed at least 20 kids on this very street here, well then I'm leaving". Or would that betray this idea that you hold onto about having to stay put? "Nice sweater Fred... looks cozy"
Not as funny. Good try. Good effort.
SHOW COUNT: (157) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=97, US=116, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Ohana x2 Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2
SHOW COUNT: (157) 1990's=3, 2000's=53, 2010/20's=97, US=116, CAN=15, Europe=20 ,New Zealand=2, Australia=2
Mexico=1, Colombia=1
Upcoming: Ohana x2 Aucklandx2, Gold Coast, Melbournex2