Lol but they’ve got no problem with Spotify hosting Eminem songs since it’s inception? This is ridiculous.
Bill Cosby is still on Spotify...
Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
271–280 of 328 posts
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#272What constitutes transphobic exactly? Is it in the eye of the beholder, like porn: you'll know it when you see it?
He had Abigail Shrier as a guest to promote her book called Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters , so that's kind of a bright line?
That you brought that interview up at all guarantees you didn't listen to it.
Abigail Shrier is very supportive of transgendered people, and conveyed in some depth her numerous interviews with medical health professionals who provide aspects of gender reassignment and agreed with their unequivocal experience that it's helping people.
Her book is specifically about statistically aberrant behaviour in small groups of female teens that show atypical behaviour compared to normal transgendered people that are being given hormones and life altering treatments with minimal oversight, often to their lasting detriment.
That isn't transphobic.
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#273Cancel culture at it's best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose. If Spotify were smart they wouldn't censor any of the podcasts. Instead they would put a Twitter like message warning the user... As a way to satisfy the cancel culture crowd. I don't care about Joe or his views. But I do care about people having choice and freedom
This is a private company making its own decisions, not the government.
Also, cancel culture is a catch-22 where those who named and bash it frequently turn to it all the same by going after private companies and persons like Ted Cruz trying to boycott Nike this summer. It's almost an oxymoron. Everyone does it to some degree and it is a perfectly lawful way to vote with your wallet aka boycott those with opinions or actions counter to your morals. Personally I find Trumps fraudulent use of his NY charity, shut down after he settled fraud charges, more than enough reason to boycott him and those who support him. If that's cancel culture, then good.
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> tortuous interference I think you mean tortious interference. Or maybe you were right the first time.
Autocorrect
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#275Earlier 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.
Just searched for that story, and it is indeed unfortunate.
I'll grant you that social media and current climate created a new phenomenon of "mob justice" for inappropriate opinions or comments, but in the opposite direction people are less afraid of management/ownership than they were before (the victims of which are sometimes today's mob).
I'm genuinely interested to know what the net result is.
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they'll find a way to talk to like minded people; and then you'll be surprised how many of them there are. BTW, who are those millions you want to protect? Are you afraid otherwise sensible people will be infected by some opinions expressed on media? Isn't this a bit paternalistic? It's better to fight the enemy in the open field; let's have people talk and show who they are and what they actually mean by what th…
If sensible people are immune to racial and ethnic hatred, then why have we seen it all over the place throughout history. People should have seen right through Blood Libel and not massacred all those innocent jewish people, right? Of course not. Media and narratives matter. Fascism has succeeded in the past at murdering millions of people. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't happen again.
Of course media narrative matters! especially if you control what can be said and only say that one thing. And people go used to this and assume that if all official media is singing the same tune there is something fishy. I'm arguing that total deplatforming (not just effective criticism, I'm talking about total deplatforming) backfires.
Letting people talking about things even if we don't like them, doesn't mean suddenly you have to bend to their narrative and make them control all of the media. But you should return the favour and not fully control the media too.
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#277There's a quote in the Vice article that this seems to be based on discussing a recent guest Shrier who wrote a book against transgender youth. "She also described wanting to transition as a "contagion" with the potential to infect other children, an entirely scientifically baseless idea, Men's Health noted." The idea that transgender identification is, in part, a social contagion, is the subject of academic research…
Anything can be 'the subject of academic research' if you just find one sufficiently biased individual willing to write an article. The paper that you link (which is the only one that ever gets trotted out when this subject comes up...) had to be corrected after publication and has been widely criticised for its poor methodology. The author sought to find evidence to support the idea of transgender identification as…
It seems like you are shifting the goalposts somewhat. In my comment, the claim I'm responding to is that the idea that trans-identification is a social contagion is "an entirely scientifically baseless idea". To rebut that claim I linked scientific research supporting that idea.
You, in turn, replied that the research I linked was not very good. This is shifting the goalposts from "entirely scientifically baseless" to research that satisfies some unknown and nameless criteria of yours.
You also mention that it "had to be corrected after publication and has been widely criticised for its poor methodology." That's an interesting point, but to my knowledge, the critics that drove that correction were trans activists rather than scientists. It "had to be corrected" (to the state it currently is in today where it makes the argument I reference) because of protests from these activists. The wikipedia summary of the controversy surrounding this paper says[1]:
"Criticism was voiced by transgender activists, and two weeks after publication, PLOS One responded by announcing a post-publication review of the paper. In March 2019, the journal concluded its review and republished Littman's revised and corrected version."
It's also not really a coherent criticism to say that, when I was faced with a claim that something is entirely non-scientific, I responded by citing the most frequently cited scientific paper to rebut that claim. Okay, it's a frequently cited scientific paper. That still rebuts the idea that the social contagion hypothesis is entirely non-scientific.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_onset_gender_dysphoria_c...
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#278There's a quote in the Vice article that this seems to be based on discussing a recent guest Shrier who wrote a book against transgender youth. "She also described wanting to transition as a "contagion" with the potential to infect other children, an entirely scientifically baseless idea, Men's Health noted." The idea that transgender identification is, in part, a social contagion, is the subject of academic research…
This reminds me of people back in the day saying that homosexuality is a "disease" which is being spread by homosexuality. I'm not a scientist, but isn't it just the fact of being educated that such exist? If I don't know about transgenderism, or I know about it but people view it as a negative thing, I would never get the idea of being it myself, right? I just live my whole life with a strange feeling of not really…
The basic idea of the paper is investigating teens who did not show symptoms of gender dysphoria in their youth, who had what the author calls "Sudden onset gender dysphoria" after being exposed to trans-friendly content (youtubers, tumblr blogs, etc), and who have one or more friends in their social group who become trans at the same time as they did. You can read more here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
I agree with you that I am not likely to transition if one my peers did. That's not really what the author is saying. The author is saying that some people (specifically teenage girls) seem to be transitioning together, without prior symptoms of gender dysphoria, after being exposed to content about trans people.
This research may be right or wrong. Trans-identification may or may not be a social contagion. I lack the expertise and evidence to judge. However, I can tell that the idea that this is a "completely unscientific" question is wrong by evidence of their being scientific research about it.
"Social contagion" doesn't mean the author thinks of trans-identification as "a disease". Social contagion means that it is spread through social interactions, which is why multiple individuals in friend-groups will sometimes develop sudden onset gender dysphoria together.
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#279Cancel culture at it's best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom to choose. If Spotify were smart they wouldn't censor any of the podcasts. Instead they would put a Twitter like message warning the user... As a way to satisfy the cancel culture crowd. I don't care about Joe or his views. But I do care about people having choice and freedom
> Cancel culture at it’s best. What happened to freedom of speech, freedoms of opinion, freedom to choose.
I’d argue that the existence of cancel culture means that those freedoms are working exactly as they should.
Being forced to tolerate someone who I don’t agree with is when those freedoms are actually gone.
Re: Spotify reportedly fighting with employees about hosting episodes of Joe Rogan
#280Also noticeable - business insider’s reporting on his recent episode with Tim Kennedy is a total misrepresentation. Edit: The vice piece also misrepresents him. Edit: I’d go further than ‘misrepresent’ - they lied about what he said.
Want to explain, for those of us not keeping track?
Sure - here is one of the claims made by business insider:
“Joe Rogan made the inflammatory and false claim in a podcast episode on Friday that Caitlyn Jenner could be transgender as a result of living with the Kardashian women.”
This is a false statement, which I would call a lie.
Joe Rogan spent 20 minutes talking to Tim Kennedy about how about the difficulty of doing comedy in the environment of political correctness. He illustrated this by talking about a joke he told during a stand up routine. In that joke, he spent the first half talking about how his own masculinity was being taken away piece by piece because he lives with 3 women by a process of continuous attrition. Then he made the joke of suggesting that this might be what happened to Bruce Jenner.
This simply isn’t the same as what the reports say. If you believe he was making this as a ‘claim’, you would also have to believe that he was making the same claim about himself. Both statements were made in the explicit context of explaining the challenges of making jokes about socially sensitive issues.
It’s more than just a misrepresentation - it’s a lie to say that he claimed Bruce Jenner was turned trans by the Kardashian women.
He didn’t make that claim. He used it as an example of a joke which is hard to tell because it’s politically incorrect.
It would be fair to say he made a joke that many people see as transphobic.