3 ms·

It is incomprehensible for me to understand why people call this "principled". It is bullying in the words of President Obama - "That's not activism" [1]. If Ne

It is incomprehensible for me to understand why people call this "principled". It is bullying in the words of President Obama - "That's not activism" [1]. If Neil wants to go and debate, he should show up on JRE and put his points forth. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaHLd8de6nM

kahrl 5y ago
Seriously. He's playing the culture war and identity politics game for his own benefit. People who are downvoting you think it is "principled" to bully an open platform to moderate content and censor voices inconsistent with their own beliefs. Insanity.
lostcolony 5y ago
Pulling one's business from sources you disagree with is 100% activism. Hell, it's the entire idea behind economic sanctions. Going to talk to Joe Rogan isn't going to change anyone's mind, and is just providing him more attention and validating him as a 'platform', and thus perpetuating the problem.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I completely disagree. Activism is "Pull", not "Push". You need to put your points forth so as to rally people behind you, not beat them into submission. This is just wokeness and cancel culture. It is top-down attempt for censorship, absolutely not activism.
  - qbasic_forever 5y ago
    > This is just wokeness and cancel culture. What? How? Neil decided on his own to pull all his music. No one bullied him, no one called him out on twitter, etc. This isn't even a 'woke' issue. Neil decided he doesn't want to share a platform with disinformation spreaders, period.
  - afavour 5y ago
    That doesn’t match any dictionary definition of activism that I know. Boycotts are activism. Always have been.
    - systemvoltage 5y ago
      > He wrote: “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” [1] So he wanted Joe Rogan removed. It wasn't "I'll leave because I disagree with people on this platform". He insisted to remove Joe Rogan and threatened. That, in my book, ain't activism. It is bullying and exploiting his position in the industry. I would be fine with Gandhi's approach towards boycotts (Salt March). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/business/neil-young-spotify-remove-music.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/business/neil-young-spoti...
      - lostcolony 5y ago
        He didn't threaten and wait until they blinked; he wasn't trying to bully them. It was simply "I do not want to do business with you while you support and provide a platform to that guy". His letter -specifically asked his music be removed-, with that explanation as to why. Your book is wrong. No one just boycotts something without also explaining why to the thing being boycotted; that -might- achieve in the business or whatever folding, if enough people do it, but it won't lead to them changing. -That- would be "cancel culture"; we won't tell you what you can do to fix things, we're just going to complain that you did a thing, take our ball, and go home. If the goal is to have them change, not to kill them, you have to tell them what they need to change.
      - afavour 5y ago
        That might be your personal definition of activism but it isn’t any accepted one. Think about the anti-apartheid boycott movement against South Africa. Effectively they said “you can have Apartheid or you can have us buy your products”. Was that bullying? Was that exploiting a position? In what world was it not activism? (as a side note the idea that an artist the likes of Neil Young even has the capability of bullying an company like Spotify is kind of funny in and of itself. The power dynamic between the two skews very, very heavily towards Spotify) > It wasn't "I'll leave because I disagree with people on this platform" ?!? That’s exactly what it was. According to the source you just posted that’s exactly what he did. He asked for his music to be removed, he did not issue an ultimatum. You’re quoting a rhetorical flourish he made and ignoring his actions.
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    > This is just wokeness and cancel culture He didn't "cancel" anyone. He opted out of a business relationship. Who do you think was canceled? Spotify? Rogan?
mkmk3 5y ago
thank you, engage in discussion before threatening to take your ball and go home. I think it's a little dramatic to call it bullying, but from the other side it looks pretty pathetic. Joe Rogan has changed his stance on a lot of topics over the years. And his listeners aren't all idiots. Some people, despite what we occasionally see here, and what some believe by default, are still open to hear whatever good points might be made. Everyone has an agenda, but it's not always diametrically opposed to what's decent. In the past when I listened to his show, he's said some stupid shit, but he's also admitted being wrong, and agreed to hold conversations with people he disliked or disagreed with, and was able to take something positive from it. But sure, people can think he's harmful to society, but I think that kind of grandstanding/absolutism is pretty harmful in itself. And as a final note I guess I just want to know why people are still here if they think discussion won't change the mind of Rogan, or his listenership, or other people in general. Is it that you think his listeners are uniquely stupid or malevolent? Is the idea that at a certain point, shouting opinions you like and hiding/distracting from opinions you don't is the only way?

kahrl 5y ago

Seriously. He's playing the culture war and identity politics game for his own benefit. People who are downvoting you think it is "principled" to bully an open platform to moderate content and censor voices inconsistent with their own beliefs. Insanity.

lostcolony 5y ago

Pulling one's business from sources you disagree with is 100% activism. Hell, it's the entire idea behind economic sanctions. Going to talk to Joe Rogan isn't going to change anyone's mind, and is just providing him more attention and validating him as a 'platform', and thus perpetuating the problem.

systemvoltage 5y ago
I completely disagree. Activism is "Pull", not "Push". You need to put your points forth so as to rally people behind you, not beat them into submission. This is just wokeness and cancel culture. It is top-down attempt for censorship, absolutely not activism.
- qbasic_forever 5y ago
  > This is just wokeness and cancel culture. What? How? Neil decided on his own to pull all his music. No one bullied him, no one called him out on twitter, etc. This isn't even a 'woke' issue. Neil decided he doesn't want to share a platform with disinformation spreaders, period.
- afavour 5y ago
  That doesn’t match any dictionary definition of activism that I know. Boycotts are activism. Always have been.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    > He wrote: “They can have Rogan or Young. Not both.” [1] So he wanted Joe Rogan removed. It wasn't "I'll leave because I disagree with people on this platform". He insisted to remove Joe Rogan and threatened. That, in my book, ain't activism. It is bullying and exploiting his position in the industry. I would be fine with Gandhi's approach towards boycotts (Salt March). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/business/neil-young-spotify-remove-music.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/25/business/neil-young-spoti...
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      He didn't threaten and wait until they blinked; he wasn't trying to bully them. It was simply "I do not want to do business with you while you support and provide a platform to that guy". His letter -specifically asked his music be removed-, with that explanation as to why. Your book is wrong. No one just boycotts something without also explaining why to the thing being boycotted; that -might- achieve in the business or whatever folding, if enough people do it, but it won't lead to them changing. -That- would be "cancel culture"; we won't tell you what you can do to fix things, we're just going to complain that you did a thing, take our ball, and go home. If the goal is to have them change, not to kill them, you have to tell them what they need to change.
    - afavour 5y ago
      That might be your personal definition of activism but it isn’t any accepted one. Think about the anti-apartheid boycott movement against South Africa. Effectively they said “you can have Apartheid or you can have us buy your products”. Was that bullying? Was that exploiting a position? In what world was it not activism? (as a side note the idea that an artist the likes of Neil Young even has the capability of bullying an company like Spotify is kind of funny in and of itself. The power dynamic between the two skews very, very heavily towards Spotify) > It wasn't "I'll leave because I disagree with people on this platform" ?!? That’s exactly what it was. According to the source you just posted that’s exactly what he did. He asked for his music to be removed, he did not issue an ultimatum. You’re quoting a rhetorical flourish he made and ignoring his actions.
- hamburglar 5y ago
  > This is just wokeness and cancel culture He didn't "cancel" anyone. He opted out of a business relationship. Who do you think was canceled? Spotify? Rogan?

mkmk3 5y ago

thank you, engage in discussion before threatening to take your ball and go home. I think it's a little dramatic to call it bullying, but from the other side it looks pretty pathetic. Joe Rogan has changed his stance on a lot of topics over the years. And his listeners aren't all idiots. Some people, despite what we occasionally see here, and what some believe by default, are still open to hear whatever good points might be made. Everyone has an agenda, but it's not always diametrically opposed to what's decent. In the past when I listened to his show, he's said some stupid shit, but he's also admitted being wrong, and agreed to hold conversations with people he disliked or disagreed with, and was able to take something positive from it. But sure, people can think he's harmful to society, but I think that kind of grandstanding/absolutism is pretty harmful in itself. And as a final note I guess I just want to know why people are still here if they think discussion won't change the mind of Rogan, or his listenership, or other people in general. Is it that you think his listeners are uniquely stupid or malevolent? Is the idea that at a certain point, shouting opinions you like and hiding/distracting from opinions you don't is the only way?