241–250 of 328 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does the assistant apply the same rigor to Rogan’s claims?
This is not a journalistic podcast but casual conversations podcast. He is a comedian afterall. They google things up and Rogan call people on BS when they contradict themselves, but they are not always right and they fall for some BS themselves.
This seems antithetical to everything Joe Rogan presents himself as in his show. I think it’s entirely reasonable for Spotify employees to want a catalog without what they think of as transphobic material. But it seems completely incompatible with hosting Joe Rogan’s show. I would presume that the contract gives Spotify no editorial control over the content. This is going to be interesting.
That being said, I wish they would provide more episodes of the transphobic content. The single episode cited with the author of the book about trans male teens I don’t think is transphobic. I’ve listened to the episode and don’t understand the complaints. The author researched the topic and interviews many subjects and presents data. That’s discussion and research, not transphobia.
I think the challenge I have in these topics is that we’re in an age where there are lots of people with voices, and there are complaints about everything. It’s hard to filter out unreasonable complaints and determine what’s important.
This is balanced against genuinely needing to protect and empower vulnerable populations where there are people advocating and perpetuating violence against vulnerable populations.
But there needs to be some “evidence bundle protocol” where we can collect all the stuff that supports claims to help people accept or reject.
I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. Joe will talk to anyone, let them have their say and explain their point of view. Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech.
> As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. If you think that somebody is spreading misinformation and is not arguing in good faith, why on earth would you discuss things on a platform where that person controls the editing? That sounds like a recipe for giving somebody the air of legitimacy while having no chance of convincing anybody.
Have they even accused JR of bad faith? Presenting their case to a friendly JR on JRE is not the same as a kangaroo debate against a Ben Shapiro type.
I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. Joe will talk to anyone, let them have their say and explain their point of view. Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech.
Is Spotify a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech? On the matter of free speech, Spotify isn't a public square. Facebook isn't a public square. A masonic fraternity isn't a public square. One of the key things about public squares is that it's funded by public money and administered by public officials. How are people so keen on asking private companies to behave like public institutions... without ask…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who gets to decide what is a detriment to society? Going out on a limb here, but at one point everyone thought the world was flat. Preaching that the earth is actually round, was seen as a detriment to society. So much so that people got horrifically executed for it. We don't know anything. So sensoring ideas because we don't like them, or they seem farfetched, is probably, a real detriment to society.
> Going out on a limb here, but at one point everyone thought the world was flat. Maybe. More likely, at one point most people weren't concerned with more than the local topography. > Preaching that the earth is actually round, was seen as a detriment to society. So much so that people got horrifically executed for it. I won't say definitively that that never happened, but it certainly isn't something that there is a…
The referrence was to the Sun being the center of the solar system, and not the Earth. Apologies. Failure on my part. Memory is a fickle thing.
I’m curious what his contract with them stipulates on these matters. As for the employees, they could contact Rogan and either ask to come on the show to discuss what they find so offensive. Joe will talk to anyone, let them have their say and explain their point of view. Arguing to censor his episode history only sends the message that Spotify isn’t a platform for intellectual curiosity and free speech.
Can't see Rogan agreeing to any type of content moderation. It baffles me when people think it's acceptable to throw freedom of speech out the window just because someone is offended.
When you start getting beaten and murdered by people practicing that free speech, you might change your tune.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom of speech is the right to not be persecuted/sued/shut-down/jailed by the government. Emphasis on government. It's a free market place of ideas, you are allowed to say anything but you are also allowed to suffer the consequences of what you said and be confronted about it by other peers. It's not called "freedom of speech and receive unconditional support and applause". People are free to criticize Rogan, Spot…
If they're trying to interfere in his contract with their employer it's tortuous interference Maybe they just need to have freedom of speech but not freedom from consequences and it will all work out.
I think you mean tortious interference. Or maybe you were right the first time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does he then use his own voice to breathlessly repeat debunked rumors about left-wing activists in Portland? You think he'll correct the record in the next episode? https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-rogan-podcast-forest-fir...
(Washington, left-wing activist, forest fire): https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/police-arrest-puyallup-man-... (Oregon, arsonist, forest fire) https://thepostmillennial.com/arsonist-arrested-after-using-... I haven't found the trifecta of ('Oregon', 'Left-wing activists', 'forest fires'). But I wouldn't have written an article making a claim that it definitely didn't happen. "falsely claimed" and "debunked" are unjus…
The article just says it was a streamer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not convinced we're worse off than in previous decades. Granted, the type of views that are "offensive" changed and there were some clear power shifts (and from your statement I assume you're on the losing side of that shift), but having to conceal your views for fear of retribution was always a thing.
Nowadays you seem to get fired when telling a "dongle" joke privately to another colleague, but someone overheard it. Sorry, but that is absolutely crazy. I have a few fun colleagues that tell jokes all the time. If they get fired for this, I'm instantly quitting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I don't know what this was like previously, but nowadays one of the most common travel advice for vacations in the US is "Do not talk about politics with Americans. It's not a good topic for dinner conversation over there." Make of that what you will. Now what I've been wondering after hearing that advice multiple times is: What do Americans talk about at dinner and other occasions? Because here political issues…
Where is this travel advice coming from? It sounds like typical cultural ignorance to me. I'm American and (when I lived there) would have no qualms talking about politics with seemingly everyone regardless of meal time. There are certainly some people who will have a stronger response these days due to increased polarization, but if you speak sensibly and thoughtfully it's difficult to see it becoming an issue.