4 ms·

Better to signal virtue than a lack of virtue.

finite_jest 5y ago
I think it is more virtuous to send honest signals than to be a hypocrite. Also, "virtue" in these cases usually just means conforming to social pressure and the norms of particularly vociferous factions of society. Even if you happen to agree with those norms (which are seen as Draconian by many), the sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude probably won't help the cause in the long run.
- breakyerself 5y ago
  Honesty is better than hypocrisy although the two are not mutually exclusive. More often one has to choose between being honest and hypocritical or being dishonest and consistent. What evidence do you have that this move by Neil Young is anything other than his honest feelings on the subject? A lot of people are sick of Rogan spreading BS. It's not suprising someone like Young would choose to use what little leverage they have to push for him to be removed.
- p1necone 5y ago
  Engage with peoples points, don't just claim that they're sanctimonious or that there's a lot of them, so you get to ignore them - that's absurd. A lot of people sharing the same opinion doesn't magically make that opinion less valid, engaging with the world as if there's some great conspiracy against you is counterproductive.
  - finite_jest 5y ago
    > that there's a lot of them, I kinda made the opposite of the that claim in my comment :-) I think a lot of people see the norms "virtue signallers" want to impose as Draconian. I don't think a guy having controversial guests on his podcasts is something many people find intolerable.
pumaontheprowl 5y ago
Well in this case he's signalling support for censorship, so you can't really call that virtuous.
- Barrin92 5y ago
  There are people out there who care more about the truth and acknowledge that such a thing exists than giving every crazy person a megaphone. If we want to live in a circus where people who have no idea what they're talking about get to disseminate lies while thousands of people die preventable deaths every day we've lost our collective minds.
- breakyerself 5y ago
  If Joe Rogan had the head of NAMBLA on and leant him a sympathetic ear would you have Rogans back?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- BeefWellington 5y ago
  Is he though? He asked them to remove JRE or remove his catalog. He's exercising his choice to remove himself from the platform because he doesn't want to be associated with Spotify and the people they employ. Supporting censorship would be more along the lines of asking the government to jail Rogan, erasing his content, etc. Spotify has actually removed certain JRE episodes from the available catalog as a condition of their deal.[1] [1]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/spotify-quietly-deletes-controversial-joe-rogan-experience-episodes/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/spotify-quietly-deletes-contro...

I think it is more virtuous to send honest signals than to be a hypocrite. Also, "virtue" in these cases usually just means conforming to social pressure and the norms of particularly vociferous factions of society. Even if you happen to agree with those norms (which are seen as Draconian by many), the sanctimonious holier-than-thou attitude probably won't help the cause in the long run.

breakyerself 5y ago
Honesty is better than hypocrisy although the two are not mutually exclusive. More often one has to choose between being honest and hypocritical or being dishonest and consistent. What evidence do you have that this move by Neil Young is anything other than his honest feelings on the subject? A lot of people are sick of Rogan spreading BS. It's not suprising someone like Young would choose to use what little leverage they have to push for him to be removed.
p1necone 5y ago
Engage with peoples points, don't just claim that they're sanctimonious or that there's a lot of them, so you get to ignore them - that's absurd. A lot of people sharing the same opinion doesn't magically make that opinion less valid, engaging with the world as if there's some great conspiracy against you is counterproductive.
- finite_jest 5y ago
  > that there's a lot of them, I kinda made the opposite of the that claim in my comment :-) I think a lot of people see the norms "virtue signallers" want to impose as Draconian. I don't think a guy having controversial guests on his podcasts is something many people find intolerable.

pumaontheprowl 5y ago

Well in this case he's signalling support for censorship, so you can't really call that virtuous.

Barrin92 5y ago
There are people out there who care more about the truth and acknowledge that such a thing exists than giving every crazy person a megaphone. If we want to live in a circus where people who have no idea what they're talking about get to disseminate lies while thousands of people die preventable deaths every day we've lost our collective minds.
breakyerself 5y ago
If Joe Rogan had the head of NAMBLA on and leant him a sympathetic ear would you have Rogans back?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
BeefWellington 5y ago
Is he though? He asked them to remove JRE or remove his catalog. He's exercising his choice to remove himself from the platform because he doesn't want to be associated with Spotify and the people they employ. Supporting censorship would be more along the lines of asking the government to jail Rogan, erasing his content, etc. Spotify has actually removed certain JRE episodes from the available catalog as a condition of their deal.[1] [1]: https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/spotify-quietly-deletes-controversial-joe-rogan-experience-episodes/ https://nypost.com/2021/04/09/spotify-quietly-deletes-contro...