|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On February 03 2022 06:36 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 05:17 Acrofales wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. So pressurizing a boss to fire someone because you disagree with their opinion is different from pressurizing voters to "fire" someone because you disagree with their opinion. Very much so. You are trying to define canceling at a more general level than appropriate in order to encompass more activity. Voters are supposed to go to the polls and fire a politician they disagree with, it's how the whole system works. Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. I agree with Ren and I'll add that conservatives are not saying companies should be denied the freedom to fire people, i.e. they're not saying the government should intervene and stop companies from canceling people. They're just saying the companies and the mobs shouldn't so what they're doing, because of the principles of freedom of thought & expression.
Freedoms which go both ways. You’re perfectly free to your speech as well as the repercussions of said speech, or freedom of association.
Perhaps I’m overly dismissive of ‘cancel culture’ given seemingly every cancelled person has a best selling book called ‘The Things I’m not allowed to Say’ or something.
|
On February 03 2022 06:56 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 06:45 brian wrote:On February 03 2022 06:42 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:36 brian wrote:On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. agreed there, but it’s not the difference between a market solution and a non market solution, which is what you were trying to say it was, right? unless i’ve misunderstood. I guess they both are "market" solutions. However, one would be free market and the other would be a manipulated market with certain loud voices having an outsized effect. tale as old as time. it’s a modern day sit-in. or just a very traditional boycott. ok not super traditional boycott, so maybe more like a digital sit-in. i can’t have all my friends sit in and deny the ability for Spotify to serve others. so instead we boycott Spotify entirely over their serving of Joe Rogan. There is a difference. Sitting in involves physical effort. Sending a tweet is a few seconds of typing. So it is much easier to create outrage and cancel someone now.
i don’t see this as an important distinction. it’s a digital solution to a digital problem. the internet makes everyone more connected. that’s not breaking news. we don’t have to print up flyers and go door to door to get support. i don’t see this is a bad thing. that’s progress baby!
the internet is where joe rogans income and fame comes from; it would be ridiculous to suggest it can’t be used to stop him. that’s just arguing for immunity from his own words and actions. it exists for us all.
|
|
|
On February 03 2022 05:17 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. So pressurizing a boss to fire someone because you disagree with their opinion is different from pressurizing voters to "fire" someone because you disagree with their opinion. It's worth noting that someone like J.K. Rowling won't be cancelled by her publisher because 1 person is upset... but rather that the money they are losing from maintaining relations with her is greater than the money they will make from publishing her books. So in the end you still have to convince a large number of people. Whether that's a voter base or a fan base. It's worth noting that I don't really believe cancelling is a thing to begin with, but if it is, I don't really see why musicians, reporters, comedians, etc. can be cancelled but politicians cannot.
I think applying the term cancel culture to politicians isn't very useful. People trying to sway public opinion to get you terminated is inherently part of the job. Otherwise you could argue that every single campaign against every single incumbent candidate is just an effort from "cancel culture" and it becomes so broad that it loses all meaning. I don't think "the right" is as opposed to cancel culture as they pretend to be - the most obvious example being Colin Kaepernick.
Personally I think cancel culture has its purposes. There's some shitty people that get their comeuppance because their shitty behavior gets caught on camera and then it goes viral.
On the other hand, it's obvious that cancel culture has run amok in some respects. The trend of "Let's look through the tweets of people from 10 years ago to see if there is something we can outrage over" comes to mind. Jeopardy! couldn't even replace Alex Trebek because even non-controversial people like Ken Jennings and Mayim Bialik(sp?) maybe told a bad joke on Twitter 10 years ago and now they are irredeemable pieces of shit, lol.
Or Jimmy Kimmel having to issue an apology because 20 years ago he used to dress up like Karl Malone for an impression and now that's "blackface." I think reasonable people are able to determine that dressing up as caricatures of black people to mock black people is different than dressing up like Karl Malone to specifically make fun of Karl Malone. But the "woke cancel culture" can't tell the difference. And this woke cancel culture is probably a very small minority of "the left" but they are very vocal. Democrats need to realize this is a major losing issue for them and distance themselves from it. The majority of people don't think they're accomplishing anything by attacking Jimmy Kimmel, who by all accounts is a lovely person. They just see it as stupid and obnoxious.
|
United States44191 Posts
On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways.
They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values.
|
On February 03 2022 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values.
An interesting claim to make when the express goal is to remove Rogan from the public discourse by removing him from our public forums. The ultimate goal is to remove specific ideas from the public discourse, and that goal is very much antithetical to core American values.
|
|
|
United States44191 Posts
On February 03 2022 08:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 07:45 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values. An interesting claim to make when the express goal is to remove Rogan from the public discourse by removing him from our public forums. The ultimate goal is to remove specific ideas from the public discourse, and that goal is very much antithetical to core American values.
Since when has Spotify been a public forum? I don't see how people saying they don't want to use a platform that supports an individual is any different from them saying that they don't want to go to a church that has a pastor they disagree with. Individual choice couldn't be any more American.
|
On February 03 2022 08:36 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 08:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 03 2022 07:45 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values. An interesting claim to make when the express goal is to remove Rogan from the public discourse by removing him from our public forums. The ultimate goal is to remove specific ideas from the public discourse, and that goal is very much antithetical to core American values. Joe Rogan should be deplatformed and removed from the public discourse. Rogan and his guests tell tens of millions of people that I'm evil and seeking to destroy Western civilization just for being trans, which leads to hate crimes and the GOP legislating against us to strip away what rights we do have and make it so that we suffer and die. It will be a good day when no one listens to him or people like him anymore.
What guest/episode was this. I knew some of his stuff was out there, but wow this is sick if true.
|
On February 03 2022 09:51 Nick_54 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 08:36 plasmidghost wrote:On February 03 2022 08:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 03 2022 07:45 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values. An interesting claim to make when the express goal is to remove Rogan from the public discourse by removing him from our public forums. The ultimate goal is to remove specific ideas from the public discourse, and that goal is very much antithetical to core American values. Joe Rogan should be deplatformed and removed from the public discourse. Rogan and his guests tell tens of millions of people that I'm evil and seeking to destroy Western civilization just for being trans, which leads to hate crimes and the GOP legislating against us to strip away what rights we do have and make it so that we suffer and die. It will be a good day when no one listens to him or people like him anymore. What guest/episode was this. I knew some of his stuff was out there, but wow this is sick if true.
plasmidghost might be referring to JR's talk with JP, although I'm sure JR has made countless other reprehensible comments in other episodes and with other guests, too: https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/01/28/spotifys-joe-rogan-suggests-trans-are-sign-of-civilizations-collapsing/
(I haven't watched that episode... I don't think I'd be able to stomach a conversation between the two of them... I just found this article online.)
|
|
|
"Cancel culture" is more tricky to identify with major public figures like Rogan, but I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that when Joe Schmoe who works at the starbucks in the middle of nowhere has an old tweet and people mob his employer to get him fire that such a thing could reasonably be defined as "cancel culture."
There are two problems with public figures. One is that they say what they say to make themselves and other people money which creates an effort vs. reward problem. Much of the outrage appears to be very hot but very short lived. It's not actually clear most of the time that these threats would be followed through with or that the people calling for someone to be fired were even customers in the first place. It's simply too easy to create the impression of controversy. The second is not a market problem per se, but it's a cultural issue. Just how many views are we going to declare bad, and so bad that people need to be banished for expressing them? If Spotify decided to drop Rogan, I wouldn't have a problem with that in the sense that I think they need to be forced to pick him back up, but I might object heavily to the firing anyways. That doesn't seem hard to understand but somehow no one ever seems to take it into account.
I don't have Spotify, but I am someone who generally opposes banning people, including on this website. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Just because there's a market element doesn't mean we drop all other considerations.
|
On February 03 2022 10:05 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 09:51 Nick_54 wrote:On February 03 2022 08:36 plasmidghost wrote:On February 03 2022 08:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 03 2022 07:45 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 04:10 Gorsameth wrote:On February 03 2022 04:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:
My understanding of cancelation is that it just doesn't include politicians. The voters make the choice of which politician they want, so they act as a collective and neutral decision maker on who should represent them in office (probably taking many things into account). A cancelation is when someone says something controversial and then gets summarily and immediately fired from their (probably private sector) job. which is also a weird thing for Conservatives to be against. They preach about how the market should be free. 'Cancel culture' is the free market expressing itself that it doesn't accept certain views. but no, when its them getting fired the free market is bad. No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces. If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working. If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values. An interesting claim to make when the express goal is to remove Rogan from the public discourse by removing him from our public forums. The ultimate goal is to remove specific ideas from the public discourse, and that goal is very much antithetical to core American values. Joe Rogan should be deplatformed and removed from the public discourse. Rogan and his guests tell tens of millions of people that I'm evil and seeking to destroy Western civilization just for being trans, which leads to hate crimes and the GOP legislating against us to strip away what rights we do have and make it so that we suffer and die. It will be a good day when no one listens to him or people like him anymore. What guest/episode was this. I knew some of his stuff was out there, but wow this is sick if true. G-d I wish it was just one episode. The most recent example was with Jordan B. Peterson. www.advocate.comShow nested quote +On his January 25 episode, Rogan hosted Jordan Peterson, a retired Canadian psychology professor turned right-wing provocateur who posited that being trans is both a “sociological contagion” and similar to the now-debunked “satanic panic” of the 1980s.
When Rogan steered the discussion to the subject of transgender people, Peterson explained his opposition to Canadian federal Bill C-16, which amended the country’s human rights protections to include gender identity. “I knew full well as a clinician that as soon as we messed with fundamental sex categories and changed the terminology, we would fatally confuse thousand of young girls. I knew that because I knew the literature on sociological contagion,” Peterson said.
In response, Rogan said it was similar to the work of anti-trans author Abigail Shrier, who also claimed that trans people are a contagion, and who had previously appeared on his podcast. In her work, Shrier discusses the concept of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” which comes from a since-corrected study by Brown University researcher Dr. Lisa Littman that initially suggested trans youth began identifying that way due to “social and peer contagion.” The study was deeply flawed, however, as it was conducted by surveying the parents of the trans youth, who had visited anti-trans websites, rather than the trans youths themselves.
Sorry, where specifically in that article does it mention that Joe Rogan says trans people are evil and seeking to destroy Western Civilization?
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Rogan is definitely an asshole but you know you aren't forced to listen to him right? Just don't listen to him if you are offended.
|
On February 03 2022 11:11 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2022 10:39 BlackJack wrote:On February 03 2022 10:05 plasmidghost wrote:On February 03 2022 09:51 Nick_54 wrote:On February 03 2022 08:36 plasmidghost wrote:On February 03 2022 08:20 Doc.Rivers wrote:On February 03 2022 07:45 KwarK wrote:On February 03 2022 06:32 RenSC2 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:28 brian wrote:
those aren’t appreciably different from where i’m sitting. It's the difference between saying "I don't want this" and "you can't have it either". On February 03 2022 06:32 IyMoon1 wrote:On February 03 2022 06:01 RenSC2 wrote:
[quote]
No, cancel culture relies on fear of perceived potential losses to circumvent actual market forces.
If the market decided that Joe Rogan was an idiot not worth listening to and he lost his market share and was no longer worth what he was being paid so he got fired, that would be the free market working.
If instead a bunch of people threaten to boycott Spotify if he’s not removed, they are using fear rather than actual market forces to try to cancel him. Those are just the same thing but before the follow through Except that it is a relatively small group purporting to speak for a large group. Their actual direct actions are almost negligible, but by being extremely loud, they can scare companies into cancelling people anyways. They're not saying "I don't want you to be able to listen to Joe Rogan", they're saying "I don't want to support Spotify if it platforms Joe Rogan". Hopefully you can understand the difference. They're not controlling what anyone else does, they're exercising their natural rights to decline to do business with an entity that doesn't support their values. An interesting claim to make when the express goal is to remove Rogan from the public discourse by removing him from our public forums. The ultimate goal is to remove specific ideas from the public discourse, and that goal is very much antithetical to core American values. Joe Rogan should be deplatformed and removed from the public discourse. Rogan and his guests tell tens of millions of people that I'm evil and seeking to destroy Western civilization just for being trans, which leads to hate crimes and the GOP legislating against us to strip away what rights we do have and make it so that we suffer and die. It will be a good day when no one listens to him or people like him anymore. What guest/episode was this. I knew some of his stuff was out there, but wow this is sick if true. G-d I wish it was just one episode. The most recent example was with Jordan B. Peterson. www.advocate.comOn his January 25 episode, Rogan hosted Jordan Peterson, a retired Canadian psychology professor turned right-wing provocateur who posited that being trans is both a “sociological contagion” and similar to the now-debunked “satanic panic” of the 1980s.
When Rogan steered the discussion to the subject of transgender people, Peterson explained his opposition to Canadian federal Bill C-16, which amended the country’s human rights protections to include gender identity. “I knew full well as a clinician that as soon as we messed with fundamental sex categories and changed the terminology, we would fatally confuse thousand of young girls. I knew that because I knew the literature on sociological contagion,” Peterson said.
In response, Rogan said it was similar to the work of anti-trans author Abigail Shrier, who also claimed that trans people are a contagion, and who had previously appeared on his podcast. In her work, Shrier discusses the concept of “rapid-onset gender dysphoria,” which comes from a since-corrected study by Brown University researcher Dr. Lisa Littman that initially suggested trans youth began identifying that way due to “social and peer contagion.” The study was deeply flawed, however, as it was conducted by surveying the parents of the trans youth, who had visited anti-trans websites, rather than the trans youths themselves. Sorry, where specifically in that article does it mention that Joe Rogan says trans people are evil and seeking to destroy Western Civilization? Just realized I didn't copy the last paragraph Show nested quote +Later in his conversation with Peterson, Rogan suggested that the acceptance of trans people is a sign of society collapsing, citing the work of right-wing British author and political commentator Douglas Murray, who claims that trans acceptance will someday be seen as “a late-empire, a bad sign of things falling apart” — an assertion Rogan has frequently repeated on his show. “[Murray] had an amazing point about civilizations collapsing, and that when they start collapsing they become obsessed with gender. And he was saying that you could trace it back to the ancient Romans, the Greeks,” Rogan said on his January 25 episode.
“[Murray] had an amazing point about civilizations collapsing, and that when they start collapsing they become obsessed with gender. And he was saying that you could trace it back to the ancient Romans, the Greeks,”
That's a pretty loose translation of "trans people are evil and seeking to destroy Western Civilization"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
