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.
This is a pretty good summary of what I was trying to get at. Neil absolutely has the right to pull his music off of Spotify if he wants to. It’s when you are trying to get someone else de-platformed is what I have an issue with. Same way they tried to get Chapelle off of Netflix cause people didn’t like some jokes he told.
And the notion that we need to censor what someone deems to be misinformation is very dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? The few leaders of the top tech platforms? You would have to assume that they are infallible sane rational people who will always remain that way. But what happens when they are not? You used to not even be able to mention the possibility that Covid started in a lab without it being labeled misinformation. Now they all admit that it could be a possibility.
And then there was the kid who did unfortunately get myocarditis from the vaccine and posted a YouTube video describing his experience. Youtube labeled it misinformation and took it down. How do you deny someone from detailing their own personal experience? The vaccines are great at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying, but they are not perfect and might not be a one size fits all solution. Boosters might help those 60+ but may only have diminishing returns for those under 40. Moderna might have a bigger risk for men under 30. Someone might label that as misinformation but there is data out there that suggests that may be the case. We need to be able to discuss these things freely without being de-platformed.
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.
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.
This is a pretty good summary of what I was trying to get at. Neil absolutely has the right to pull his music off of Spotify if he wants to. It’s when you are trying to get someone else de-platformed is what I have an issue with. Same way they tried to get Chapelle off of Netflix cause people didn’t like some jokes he told.
And the notion that we need to censor what someone deems to be misinformation is very dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? The few leaders of the top tech platforms? You would have to assume that they are infallible sane rational people who will always remain that way. But what happens when they are not? You used to not even be able to mention the possibility that Covid started in a lab without it being labeled misinformation. Now they all admit that it could be a possibility.
And then there was the kid who did unfortunately get myocarditis from the vaccine and posted a YouTube video describing his experience. Youtube labeled it misinformation and took it down. How do you deny someone from detailing their own personal experience? The vaccines are great at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying, but they are not perfect and might not be a one size fits all solution. Boosters might help those 60+ but may only have diminishing returns for those under 40. Moderna might have a bigger risk for men under 30. Someone might label that as misinformation but there is data out there that suggests that may be the case. We need to be able to discuss these things freely without being de-platformed.
But this is just somebody de-platforming himself. Never once does Neil ask Spotify to remove Joe Rogan's show from its platform, only his own music.
Y'all are spinning a narrative that simply isn't there.
19 Pearl Jam shows and still searching for Deep! 1998 (2) - East Lansing & Auburn Hills; 2000 (2) - Tampa & Noblesville; 2003 (2) - Lexington & Noblesville; 2006 (1) - Cincinnati; 2007 (1) - Chicago (Lollapalooza); 2008 (Ed in Milwaukee); 2009 (1) - Chicago; 2010 (1) - Noblesville; 2013 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2016 (Temple of the Dog in Los Angeles); 2017 (Ed at Ohana in Dana Point); 2021 (3) - Dana Point I, II & III; 2022 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2025 - Southern U.S. Tour Please!
Joe has all kinds of people on, people he agrees with and disagrees with. He had Candace Owens on and spent half an hour saying to her face she was a moron for not believing in climate change. And years ago he spent 20 minutes mocking Crowder on his stance on pot. Crowder missed his flight home because of the argument and Joe laughed about it. Additionally, he's been quite critical of Alex Jones over the years. At one point he and Alex had a feud going on and for years Joe wouldn't have him on the show and Alex wouldn't invite him on Infowars.
I think the nuance thats missing is the idea one can agree with some ideas presented by people and disagree with some ideas as well and still like the interview and find it engaging and important and valid. As was said he had Bernie on, actually endorsed him, and didnt he also have Yang on? I cant imagine his more right wing fans were pleased about that, but thats life. Just as left wing folks likely dont enjoy when he has Jordan or someone like that on.
This is the culture I critiqued in a post above. When did the debate move from I may not agree with you but you have the right to speak and lecture and talk and then I will ask questions after listening. To what it is nowadays, It is my duty to silence you. If Peterson speaks on campus its not just that I disagree and wont go or wont attend, which would be the logical thing to do, but rather, the response seems to be if he speaks anywhere on campus at all that is violence. The whole safe space stuff is gross. College is literally the place to be exposed to new ideas.
This is the culture I critiqued in a post above. When did the debate move from I may not agree with you but you have the right to speak and lecture and talk and then I will ask questions after listening. To what it is nowadays, It is my duty to silence you.
Never. Absolutely nothing's changed.
Your media sources might want to get you mad about this new "culture," but it's been around at least since I've been alive.
Shitty actions have generally resulted in shitty consequences. Forever. I may not agree with all these consequences -- I mean, what else was Pee Wee supposed to be doing in that theatre? And what was the cop doing there??? -- but I've seen no uptick in their occurrences, just more vitriol in the media coverage of them.
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.
Of course they should be able to do that. No one has a right to be published. If Apple or Spotify doesn't want to allow their platforms to be used for the publication of particular content, whether it be music or discussion, that's their prerogative, just the same as you don't have the right to have your letter to the editor or an op-ed piece you penned printed in the newspaper or on its website.
Again, freedom of speech as a constitutional right is protected only against infringement by the government. That's it. Any private individual or private entity can restrict speech. And just because you have the right to say something, it doesn't mean that you have a right to an audience or to be listened to at all. If you say something, I can use my speech to disagree with you, to shout you down, to call for your boycott, to shame you, to insult you, etc. When you say the thing, you need to be aware that saying the thing may have consequences. And when I respond, I need to be aware that my response may have consequences. (For example, calling for the boycott might call more attention to the original thing that was said and end up being counterproductive.)
Another lesson in all of this: the value of ownership. Millions of people have embraced the convenience of streaming. But bear in mind that you're at the mercy of the streamer. If it decides to drop your favorite artist because he's a child molester or a Nazi or a Yankee fan, and you just want to listen to his music, you're out of luck if you don't own it.
(And, by the way, I think Trevor Noah is making fun of how little Spotify pays artists as much as he is making fun of Neil Young.)
I wonder if the people who support this type of behavior were for the censorship of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, and PJ and Ed faced some serious backlash for their actions during the Iraq War as well. Is that just the market responding? Cancel culture often only goes one way. Lots of people, including tv hosts and news anchors and posters on this board said extreme things and wild things about our previous President. Few if any were reprimanded or punished for their behavior or words. Why were those people not demanding we shut down free speech then? It seems those who want censorship only want that censorship to involve and go after speech they disagree with, yet would react in disgust if any sort of clamp was put down on their own free speech. Ed and the boys said some very extreme things about George W, didnt Ed impale George W in mask form at one show? I remember at several of the NY shows in 2003, the first tour after 9/11, they played NY proper and when they played their more political songs off Riot Act, a portion of the audience, maybe even a large portion of it, turned their backs and booed. What do we do in a situation like that? Whats the remedy? Seems to me, those in favor of censorship are suggesting we should have muzzled and censored Ed and the boys, right? You can't just freak out and object to speech from the other side thats out there. You've got to be willing to, if you are taking that approach, to call out the speech of your own side too. During the Bush years and the Trump years, those on the left said some pretty utrageous things. Some things that were said were criminal and way over the line. Yet, restricting THOSE peoples speech would have been, hey man, dont do that, we are living in a fascist dictatorship, we cant even speak our minds, man!
Those people saying Joe is irresponsible and misinformation, likely also watch CNN, and MSNBC, and read HuffPo and WaPo, and watch Trevor Noah and the like, and act like they are getting balanced, fair and non biased news without an agenda.
Those people saying Joe is irresponsible and misinformation, likely also watch CNN, and MSNBC, and read HuffPo and WaPo, and watch Trevor Noah and the like, and act like they are getting balanced, fair and non biased news without an agenda.
More balanced than the other side. And also MSNBCs and CNN for example believe the holocaust happened. While the other says it didn't or have people saying it didn't. So just cause they have people saying it didn't happen and treating it as fact. Doesn't mean they're right or that that's a good balance.
Lots of nurses, some medical students, some medical doctors, some PHDs, etc. These people are the experts that know what’s misinformation and what is accurate scientifically proven information????? Joe Rogan isn’t any expert either. But we need to question everything to prove the science. And we also need to question the government, because there is so much corruption in government.
Isn’t it great that you’re not forced to listen or watch? I’ve seen more embarrassing segments and hot takes on “news” stations like CNN and Fox. This is a podcast hosted by a UFC commentator/comedian.
Isn’t it great that you’re not forced to listen or watch? I’ve seen more embarrassing segments and hot takes on “news” stations like CNN and Fox. This is a podcast hosted by a UFC commentator/comedian.
I agree. It's also a podcast that has more reach than most shows on those stations and unfortunately people take what he says as gospel.
This show, another show, a show here and a show there.
I wonder if the people who support this type of behavior were for the censorship of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, and PJ and Ed faced some serious backlash for their actions during the Iraq War as well. Is that just the market responding? Cancel culture often only goes one way. Lots of people, including tv hosts and news anchors and posters on this board said extreme things and wild things about our previous President. Few if any were reprimanded or punished for their behavior or words. Why were those people not demanding we shut down free speech then? It seems those who want censorship only want that censorship to involve and go after speech they disagree with, yet would react in disgust if any sort of clamp was put down on their own free speech. Ed and the boys said some very extreme things about George W, didnt Ed impale George W in mask form at one show? I remember at several of the NY shows in 2003, the first tour after 9/11, they played NY proper and when they played their more political songs off Riot Act, a portion of the audience, maybe even a large portion of it, turned their backs and booed. What do we do in a situation like that? Whats the remedy? Seems to me, those in favor of censorship are suggesting we should have muzzled and censored Ed and the boys, right? You can't just freak out and object to speech from the other side thats out there. You've got to be willing to, if you are taking that approach, to call out the speech of your own side too. During the Bush years and the Trump years, those on the left said some pretty utrageous things. Some things that were said were criminal and way over the line. Yet, restricting THOSE peoples speech would have been, hey man, dont do that, we are living in a fascist dictatorship, we cant even speak our minds, man!
Are you part of the Rogan PR team? Damn, we get it. You love him and want him to keep spreading his BS, but please tell us more...
1991- Hollywood Palladium, California with Temple of the Dog, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains -RIP Magazine Show Oct. 6th 1992- Lollapalooza, Irvine, California Nothing since then. I suck. 2016- Fenway Park, Boston - Both glorious nights 2022- Oakland Night 2 2024 Sacramento, CA
I find I'm more in the middle of this. I believe in free speech and it does occur to me that modern society is trying to get everyone to believe one way. If you don't agree, then it gets messy. It makes me nervous.
On the flip side we've gone from an era where the primary news source was newspapers, who had journalists, which (for the most part) had to make sure what they printed (or reported on the news) was factual.
Now we've entered the era of podcasts and opinion pieces, where what's being discussed doesn't have to be supported by some kind of facts. It's creating a lot of disinformation. It feels like both CNN and Fox News have a big majority of their content as opinion pieces.
I dunno. I don't think you can squash free speech, because I'd hate to be on the end where society decides what I believe in isn't the right thing. On the flip side the way people absorb their information now also seems dangerous.
I find I'm more in the middle of this. I believe in free speech and it does occur to me that modern society is trying to get everyone to believe one way. If you don't agree, then it gets messy. It makes me nervous.
On the flip side we've gone from an era where the primary news source was newspapers, who had journalists, which (for the most part) had to make sure what they printed (or reported on the news) was factual.
Now we've entered the era of podcasts and opinion pieces, where what's being discussed doesn't have to be supported by some kind of facts. It's creating a lot of disinformation. It feels like both CNN and Fox News have a big majority of their content as opinion pieces.
I dunno. I don't think you can squash free speech, because I'd hate to be on the end where society decides what I believe in isn't the right thing. On the flip side the way people absorb their information now also seems dangerous.
Exactly. There are so many people out there doing their own "research" from bullshit sites and podcasts just to have their precious confirmation bias satisfied.
I wonder if the people who support this type of behavior were for the censorship of the Dixie Chicks in 2003, and PJ and Ed faced some serious backlash for their actions during the Iraq War as well. Is that just the market responding? Cancel culture often only goes one way. Lots of people, including tv hosts and news anchors and posters on this board said extreme things and wild things about our previous President. Few if any were reprimanded or punished for their behavior or words. Why were those people not demanding we shut down free speech then? It seems those who want censorship only want that censorship to involve and go after speech they disagree with, yet would react in disgust if any sort of clamp was put down on their own free speech. Ed and the boys said some very extreme things about George W, didnt Ed impale George W in mask form at one show? I remember at several of the NY shows in 2003, the first tour after 9/11, they played NY proper and when they played their more political songs off Riot Act, a portion of the audience, maybe even a large portion of it, turned their backs and booed. What do we do in a situation like that? Whats the remedy? Seems to me, those in favor of censorship are suggesting we should have muzzled and censored Ed and the boys, right? You can't just freak out and object to speech from the other side thats out there. You've got to be willing to, if you are taking that approach, to call out the speech of your own side too. During the Bush years and the Trump years, those on the left said some pretty utrageous things. Some things that were said were criminal and way over the line. Yet, restricting THOSE peoples speech would have been, hey man, dont do that, we are living in a fascist dictatorship, we cant even speak our minds, man!
I wonder what your take was on the treatment of Colin Kaepernick. Cancel culture really does go both ways.
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."
That change of mentality and ideology is scary.
Both the things you're describing have always existed.
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?
Dr. Malone lies about his contribution to the mRNA vaccines, and as a result, is given credibility from anit-vaxxers where it doesn't belong. He then goes on to lie about the vaccine, claiming it's cytotoxic, and makes other claims without providing any evidence.
Neil should have went on Rogan and told him why he was wrong and tried to explain the damage he is doing.
Trying to get him de-platformed is a lazy, weak, virtue signaling move by an old man that likely had alot to do with him being upset with how little the streaming service pays him to begin with.
I find I'm more in the middle of this. I believe in free speech and it does occur to me that modern society is trying to get everyone to believe one way. If you don't agree, then it gets messy. It makes me nervous.
On the flip side we've gone from an era where the primary news source was newspapers, who had journalists, which (for the most part) had to make sure what they printed (or reported on the news) was factual.
Now we've entered the era of podcasts and opinion pieces, where what's being discussed doesn't have to be supported by some kind of facts. It's creating a lot of disinformation. It feels like both CNN and Fox News have a big majority of their content as opinion pieces.
I dunno. I don't think you can squash free speech, because I'd hate to be on the end where society decides what I believe in isn't the right thing. On the flip side the way people absorb their information now also seems dangerous.
I think there was a recent interview with Jon Stewart where he touched on this a little. That the major news media (both sides) are more interested in covering the conflict now instead of just the straight news. That it used to be journalists just presented the facts and let the audience come to the conclusions. Now they are presenting some information but then also more of their opinions and are kind of trying to steer the audience on how they think they should feel about it.
Comments
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
And the notion that we need to censor what someone deems to be misinformation is very dangerous precedent. Who gets to decide what is misinformation? The few leaders of the top tech platforms? You would have to assume that they are infallible sane rational people who will always remain that way. But what happens when they are not? You used to not even be able to mention the possibility that Covid started in a lab without it being labeled misinformation. Now they all admit that it could be a possibility.
And then there was the kid who did unfortunately get myocarditis from the vaccine and posted a YouTube video describing his experience. Youtube labeled it misinformation and took it down. How do you deny someone from detailing their own personal experience? The vaccines are great at keeping people out of the hospital and from dying, but they are not perfect and might not be a one size fits all solution. Boosters might help those 60+ but may only have diminishing returns for those under 40. Moderna might have a bigger risk for men under 30. Someone might label that as misinformation but there is data out there that suggests that may be the case. We need to be able to discuss these things freely without being de-platformed.
Y'all are spinning a narrative that simply isn't there.
1998 (2) - East Lansing & Auburn Hills; 2000 (2) - Tampa & Noblesville; 2003 (2) - Lexington & Noblesville; 2006 (1) - Cincinnati; 2007 (1) - Chicago (Lollapalooza); 2008 (Ed in Milwaukee); 2009 (1) - Chicago; 2010 (1) - Noblesville; 2013 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2016 (Temple of the Dog in Los Angeles); 2017 (Ed at Ohana in Dana Point);
2021 (3) - Dana Point I, II & III; 2022 (3) - San Diego & Los Angeles I & II; 2025 - Southern U.S. Tour Please!
I think the nuance thats missing is the idea one can agree with some ideas presented by people and disagree with some ideas as well and still like the interview and find it engaging and important and valid. As was said he had Bernie on, actually endorsed him, and didnt he also have Yang on? I cant imagine his more right wing fans were pleased about that, but thats life. Just as left wing folks likely dont enjoy when he has Jordan or someone like that on.
This is the culture I critiqued in a post above. When did the debate move from I may not agree with you but you have the right to speak and lecture and talk and then I will ask questions after listening. To what it is nowadays, It is my duty to silence you. If Peterson speaks on campus its not just that I disagree and wont go or wont attend, which would be the logical thing to do, but rather, the response seems to be if he speaks anywhere on campus at all that is violence. The whole safe space stuff is gross. College is literally the place to be exposed to new ideas.
Never. Absolutely nothing's changed.
Your media sources might want to get you mad about this new "culture," but it's been around at least since I've been alive.
Shitty actions have generally resulted in shitty consequences. Forever. I may not agree with all these consequences -- I mean, what else was Pee Wee supposed to be doing in that theatre? And what was the cop doing there??? -- but I've seen no uptick in their occurrences, just more vitriol in the media coverage of them.
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Again, freedom of speech as a constitutional right is protected only against infringement by the government. That's it. Any private individual or private entity can restrict speech. And just because you have the right to say something, it doesn't mean that you have a right to an audience or to be listened to at all. If you say something, I can use my speech to disagree with you, to shout you down, to call for your boycott, to shame you, to insult you, etc. When you say the thing, you need to be aware that saying the thing may have consequences. And when I respond, I need to be aware that my response may have consequences. (For example, calling for the boycott might call more attention to the original thing that was said and end up being counterproductive.)
Another lesson in all of this: the value of ownership. Millions of people have embraced the convenience of streaming. But bear in mind that you're at the mercy of the streamer. If it decides to drop your favorite artist because he's a child molester or a Nazi or a Yankee fan, and you just want to listen to his music, you're out of luck if you don't own it.
(And, by the way, I think Trevor Noah is making fun of how little Spotify pays artists as much as he is making fun of Neil Young.)
Lots of nurses, some medical students, some medical doctors, some PHDs, etc. These people are the experts that know what’s misinformation and what is accurate scientifically proven information????? Joe Rogan isn’t any expert either. But we need to question everything to prove the science. And we also need to question the government, because there is so much corruption in government.
take the money lose the rights…
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
https://twitter.com/alexpattyy/status/1486108847412588553?s=21
Are you part of the Rogan PR team? Damn, we get it. You love him and want him to keep spreading his BS, but please tell us more...
1992- Lollapalooza, Irvine, California
Nothing since then. I suck.2016- Fenway Park, Boston - Both glorious nights
2022- Oakland Night 2
2024 Sacramento, CA
On the flip side we've gone from an era where the primary news source was newspapers, who had journalists, which (for the most part) had to make sure what they printed (or reported on the news) was factual.
Now we've entered the era of podcasts and opinion pieces, where what's being discussed doesn't have to be supported by some kind of facts. It's creating a lot of disinformation. It feels like both CNN and Fox News have a big majority of their content as opinion pieces.
I dunno. I don't think you can squash free speech, because I'd hate to be on the end where society decides what I believe in isn't the right thing. On the flip side the way people absorb their information now also seems dangerous.
Both the things you're describing have always existed.
Dr. Malone lies about his contribution to the mRNA vaccines, and as a result, is given credibility from anit-vaxxers where it doesn't belong. He then goes on to lie about the vaccine, claiming it's cytotoxic, and makes other claims without providing any evidence.
----
Seems like someone open to hearing Joe and differing points of view and is totally unbiased and plays it right down the middle!
Trying to get him de-platformed is a lazy, weak, virtue signaling move by an old man that likely had alot to do with him being upset with how little the streaming service pays him to begin with.
Here's hoping PJ takes a different route.