5 ms·
It not aggressive or unprovoked - it’s principled. Neil Young is supporting the hundreds of doctors who have previously pointed to the fact that Joe Rogan is c
by subpixel 5y ago
It not aggressive or unprovoked - it’s principled. Neil Young is supporting the hundreds of doctors who have previously pointed to the fact that Joe Rogan is creating controversy, for profit, that endangers his listeners (and the people who live in a society with them, since we’re talking about COVID misinformation).
- naasking 5y agoRogan isn't creating the controversy, media outlets reporting on Rogan are. They also frequently stir up controversy for clicks. Are you not equally skeptical of their profit motive?
- subpixel 5y agoI am confident that Neil Young is not removing his music from Spotify in order to make money.
- naasking 5y agoAnd I am confident that Neil Young doesn't know what he's talking about: https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spreading-scientific-misinformation?ref=scroll https://www.thedailybeast.com/neil-youngs-long-record-of-spr...
- subpixel 5y agoI'm with the anti-GMO crowd for the monopolistic concerns on top of the effing-with nature concerns. GMOs are (probably) not dangerous like asbestos, but they are by no means safe and a good idea. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
- naasking 5y agoAll evidence to the contrary I suppose. So is it safe to label you anti-science and conclude you and Young are endangering people with death and disability because GMO-enhanced crops can feed more people and satisfy nutritional deficiencies? This strikes me as very much the same sort of disagreement over what are clear facts on one side, and what some would consider unwarranted paranoia on the other. Maybe people should just be allowed to have these conversations because the paranoid serve a useful purpose.