I’ve heard and been called every anti-Jewish term there is. As an adult with a functioning brain, I understand the difference between referring to them and using them as a slur. If a person tried using the expression “k-word” around me or (god help us) “k-slur”, that person would be treating me like a child.
I don’t cite Orwell often, but it’s appropriate when someone is outright pretending a current rule has always been the rule. Are you being wilfully obtuse or do you genuinely think that saying “the n-word” has been the kinky acceptable way to refer to the word since Segregation?
Well, the first time I remember hearing it referred to as the “n-word” was during the OJ Simpson trial. Over the next 15-20 years, it became the default. But well through the 2000s and into the 2010s it wouldn’t be censored in print. I was at university in the early 2000s and it would be spoken in literature classes or if it came up in the social sciences. It’s not so outrageous to believe that there was once considered a difference between using a racial slur as a racial slur and referring to it.
Let’s not forget that the transition to social prohibition on uttering the word, even to refer to it, has been gradual and accepted by different people at different stages. For most of our lives, it was acceptable to say if not used as a racial epithet. There are some, like John McWhorter, who continue to believe it is acceptable to say in quotations.
I don’t use it, Spotify is totally justified in removing those episodes, and Joe Rogan was right to apologize. However, his explanation makes sense and it is wrong to use the montage as evidence of racism.
1. willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
2.a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Political philosophy isn't math. I assure you that there are people with bachelor's degrees in political philosophy (not to mention masters' degrees and PhDs) who completely disagree with you and each other about where the lines around appropriate discussion should be drawn. Yet you assert your academic credentials as some kind of indisputable authority re where those lines should be drawn, as if everyone who has studied what you have would obviously come to the same conclusion.
Argumentum ab auctoritate has no purchase with me, my friend.
How is someone with your degree more competent to make that determination than anyone else? Take lawyers, who study what the law IS and how to PRACTICE the law. But, what the law SHOULD BE is a political question, open to any citizen with an operative mind.
I had openly Marxist professors at university, who posed questions about whether the horrors under Stalin and Mao were worth their achievements. I definitely do not think they were worth it and I think Marxists are espousing an ideology which has led to the deaths of tens of millions of people, I look back on those classes and interesting and engaging and worthwhile and I would never have even thought about calling for the censorship or firing of those professors.
Having seen plenty of the rally on Saturday afternoon, I assure you that the vast majority were anti-vaxxers spouting what i believe to be bullshit. I actually think there is a policy debate to be had regarding requiring all commercial truckers entering Canada to be vaccinated, but the rallies were full of wackos.
And every time someone trots out the talking points about how free speech and free expression only exist in the context of constitutional law, I’m reminded of how happy most people are to radically narrow public discourse to a band that appeals to them and their tribe.
The concept of free expression is much broader that what is protected by the first amendment or the equivalent in other countries.
I shouldn’t even have to give these qualifiers in a discussion of principles like this, but 1) I’m triple vaxxers, 2) I believe Rogan has given a platform to seriously wrong people who have articulated an incorrect reading of the science around Covid vaccines and treatment, 3) Neil Young can do business with whom ever he wants for whatever reasons he wants, 4) Spotify can do business with whomever they want for whatever reasons they want, 5) I believe the information provided about Covid coming from American and other public health authorities has been more or less accurate and helpful, particularly in a novel and evolving situation like the ongoing lethal pandemic.
HOWEVER, what people are advocating is a giant corporation policing criticism of the official line. It’s not that robust free expression and an absolutely free press don’t create their own dangers and downsides. They absolutely do (see this past weekend’s “freedom rallies” across Canada for a fine example). It’s that the most dangerous lies are ALWAYS the official line and the only way we have come up with to counter that danger is an absolutely free press and the absolute ability to critique the government line, and that includes mistakes on the part of those criticizing the government or other powerful institution.
Yes, this can get ugly. Yes, it means buckets of money can be made “spreading” false information. And rich companies and individuals like Spotify and Joe Rogan are hardly sympathetic figures.
I also think there are lines that can be crossed, like direct incitement to violence.
I know there is a real disagreement among the public about this issue and that’s fine. But this is not exclusively the view of people who don’t understand free speech, and it certainly shouldn’t be seen as a “red flag” of crypto Trumpism.
This seems like a pretty decent response and take from Joe Rogan. Maybe Neil will agree to similar disclaimers when he’s spouting off against GMOs and rejecting decades of consensus science on the topic.
The story in the NY Post was rejected by the other major papers and by CNN and MSNBC as likely a false story planted by Russia. The story was also censored on FB and Twitter. It turned out to be true.
I’m sure it is relatively easy to find, but I don’t listen to Rogan and the majority of what Id read said shit like “promoting Covid disinformation” and “promoting anti vax sentiment”. I didn’t know about these doctors who were in his show, so I appreciate the responses.
I would note that the number of people unwilling to get a Covid vaccine has been pretty well entrenched for a long time (well before these doctors were on the JRE).
Yeah, I don’t listen to him, but have obviously heard and seen clips. Reminds me more of stoned twentysomething dorm room talk than a hotbed of right wing radicalization.
I agree that vaccine hesitancy / refusal is a major problem, but I remember hearing about it well before the Covid vaccine became widely available, like in December 2020. My impression was that the number of people u willing to get the vaccine has been going down since then, not up.
But they quit touring right before the infrastructure and technology for large scale, high quality tours became available. I think money for creature comforts and the ability to actually put on quality shows could have changed the way John thought and felt about touring.
This is an honest question. I know Rogan has the antivax vibe around him, but what are the extent of his anti vax statements? I know that about a year ago he said young and healthy people did not need to get the vaccine, and then walked it back on twitter. I know he too Ivermectin when he got covid and then talked about it, which included challenging Sanjay Gupta on the JRE. I know he misstated the incidence of myocarditis caused by the vaccine and was challenged by his guest, who was an expert on the subject. Jamie looked up the accurate information in real time, and then Rogan gave kudos to the guest the following day on Twitter. I also know he has criticized various lockdown policies, especially California's, although that's not really misinformation as policy / priority disagreement.
Is there something more to this kerfuffle?
Thanks in advance.
It might be the most pointless emotion / thought I have, but I really feel sad they didn't cap off their career with a massive proper concert, nevermind how potentially awesome it would have been had they become a well-oiled touring juggernaut like the Rolling Stones.
Comments