6 ms·

> I don't think anyone is saying Neil Young or Joni Mitchell shouldn't be allowed to do this. The GP of your post says that this censorship. Another person who

by kdtsh 5y ago

> I don't think anyone is saying Neil Young or Joni Mitchell shouldn't be allowed to do this. The GP of your post says that this censorship. Another person who replied to me earlier said that this is immoral and possibly illegal. So no, there are in fact some people who are saying that Young and Mitchell either should not do this or should not be allowed to do this. > doing the bidding of the powerful. What a silly idea. There is nothing ironic, hysterical, or childish about people who stood against _real_ oppression (the struggles of the Civil Rights movement, conscription into a liar’s war in Vietnam) refusing to associate 50 years later with a business which provides a platform to people telling tales about _fake_ oppression (antivax sentiment, public health measures). Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of. It’s entirely on you if you think there is any hypocrisy here. Maybe you just don’t understand what values were espoused by (some) people in the 60s counter culture. There are counter cultures and counter cultures, and while the counter culture of today in the USA might be simple contrarianism, the same cannot be said for that of the 60s, and there is no straight line from one to the other.

cloutchaser 5y ago
> Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of. Let me give you a quote, you can guess who said it. Hint, he also had 3 different views on masks depending on what suited him: “ When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.” It takes a special type of ignorance of human nature and history to think that questioning authority is not always something that is important, whether you agree with it or not. I have a lot more respect for liberals like glen greenwald to stand up to authority whoever they are, rather than sing about it for 30 years and then try and shut up someone who’s doing it currently. Btw there’s nothing childish about the 70s counter culture, good for them at the time. What they are doing now is childish and hypocritical.
- kdtsh 5y ago
  I’m stumped, tell me who said this quote. As for questioning authority: the notion that COVID is more harmful to the elderly than the young is generally true - but then a line is drawn through some alchemy from this to the notion that COVID is not dangerous for most young people, which regardless of how completely dubious a statement it is, still leads to a host of bad public outcomes. We know that vaccines reduce the incidence of infection and the the severity of infection, and also that masks effectively reduce the incidence of infection. There is a popular sentiment that these things are either generally wrong (or lies), or that they should only apply to people with underlying health conditions making them more susceptible to infection. I don’t agree with the people who claim the latter, but I can’t and wouldn’t say they are lying or being dishonest - it’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold (and after all, it’s not illegal or immoral to be wrong :-) ). It’s the former case which is much more concerning, when people deny or contort the facts to suit their own agenda. The concerns that people like Neil Young have is that bogus science from bogus professionals is being peddled to large audiences of platforms they share. It is their right to withdraw such association and, if they desire, to give an explanation for doing so. You have to really stretch the issue here to culture-war proportions to make this a matter of pro-government censorship etc.
  - cloutchaser 5y ago
    Fauci. Here we have someone in a position of authority literally admitting to lying or adjusting figures based on public sentimen. That is not science. That is politics, and people are literally saying things Fauci and others say about the pandemic are unquestionable. Yet this guy is literally admitting to not telling the truth to manipulate the public. If I were you I would at least question why you didn’t know about this, and whether trusting public health officials and politicians (on any side) is the truthful and scientific way to live. And why these people want to censor, if they are so right.
    - kdtsh 5y ago
      I’m interested - pass on a source.
telxosser 5y ago
It is so bizarre to believe we have epistemological certainty in what we currently know that anyone should be shut up about anything. It is literally the feature of our system that lays the golden eggs that there is no such thing as a heretical thought. Nonsense like qanon are the waste products of 100% open mindedness but you can't have it both ways. You will just end up with endless super hero movies in all realms of thought. A process that is already well under way.
josephcsible 5y ago
> there are in fact some people who are saying that Young and Mitchell either should not do this or should not be allowed to do this. It's disingenuous to lump these two things together. There's a bunch of things that people should be allowed to do, but that they shouldn't do.
- kdtsh 5y ago
  It wasn’t my intention to lump these two things together and treat them as one in the same. I know that legality and morality are two entirely separate concepts. I just happen to believe he is acting morally within the bounds of law, while others believe he is acting immorally and possibly also illegally. Though I think most of us would agree that ultimately what is most important is the morality of the issue - if the law contradicts this, the law is wrong.
kcplate 5y ago
> It’s entirely on you if you think there is any hypocrisy here I like Neil Young, and I don’t care what he chooses to do with his music. Pull it from Spotify, it’s going to hurt him financially more than hurt his fans, we have already purchased his music. If I can’t stream it, no biggie. If I really want to listen to NY, I’ll dust off the vinyl. I am sure he has a sincerely held belief that to him that allows him to carve out an authoritarian pro-government exception that satisfies his own moral values. He has done it on a couple of songs. However, I personally feel like a person who made his fame on anti-authoritarian, free speech, anti-government themes in his art should not be surprised at people drawing a conclusion that he is a hypocrite when he takes a public position that is pro-authoritarian, pro-government, and requesting corporate suppression of another person’s opinion.
- kdtsh 5y ago
  You and other people have said that he is being pro-government, pro-authoritarian, doing the bidding of the powerful, etc. - without qualification. But I just don’t see what exactly taking an active stance against misinformation concerning COVID is any of these things. What am I missing here?
  - kcplate 5y ago
    Basically he is taking the official US government informational position and the government has gone as far as trying to mandate and force their will regarding the topic. Therefore it has a political and also a corporatist connotation in that there a few companies making billions on the number of vaccines that are distributed and some of those companies despite government help in fast tracking and help financing the development, are holding on to the IP. Like I said…I don’t care what he does with his art, or whatever his opinion may be on a given subject, but he is literally known for activism and protest…and a focus on freedom, freedom of speech (Literally had a tour called “The Freedom of Speech Tour”), and anti-corporatism. In this case it appears that he attempted to financially force a corporation to silence someone who’s ideas and speech he didn’t like. It’s at the very least thematically out of character for him, and a bit contrary to one of the reasons I was a fan.

by kdtsh 5y ago

cloutchaser 5y ago

> Humour me and tell me more about the powerful figures they are doing the bidding of. Let me give you a quote, you can guess who said it. Hint, he also had 3 different views on masks depending on what suited him: “ When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85.” It takes a special type of ignorance of human nature and history to think that questioning authority is not always something that is important, whether you agree with it or not. I have a lot more respect for liberals like glen greenwald to stand up to authority whoever they are, rather than sing about it for 30 years and then try and shut up someone who’s doing it currently. Btw there’s nothing childish about the 70s counter culture, good for them at the time. What they are doing now is childish and hypocritical.

kdtsh 5y ago
I’m stumped, tell me who said this quote. As for questioning authority: the notion that COVID is more harmful to the elderly than the young is generally true - but then a line is drawn through some alchemy from this to the notion that COVID is not dangerous for most young people, which regardless of how completely dubious a statement it is, still leads to a host of bad public outcomes. We know that vaccines reduce the incidence of infection and the the severity of infection, and also that masks effectively reduce the incidence of infection. There is a popular sentiment that these things are either generally wrong (or lies), or that they should only apply to people with underlying health conditions making them more susceptible to infection. I don’t agree with the people who claim the latter, but I can’t and wouldn’t say they are lying or being dishonest - it’s a perfectly valid opinion to hold (and after all, it’s not illegal or immoral to be wrong :-) ). It’s the former case which is much more concerning, when people deny or contort the facts to suit their own agenda. The concerns that people like Neil Young have is that bogus science from bogus professionals is being peddled to large audiences of platforms they share. It is their right to withdraw such association and, if they desire, to give an explanation for doing so. You have to really stretch the issue here to culture-war proportions to make this a matter of pro-government censorship etc.
- cloutchaser 5y ago
  Fauci. Here we have someone in a position of authority literally admitting to lying or adjusting figures based on public sentimen. That is not science. That is politics, and people are literally saying things Fauci and others say about the pandemic are unquestionable. Yet this guy is literally admitting to not telling the truth to manipulate the public. If I were you I would at least question why you didn’t know about this, and whether trusting public health officials and politicians (on any side) is the truthful and scientific way to live. And why these people want to censor, if they are so right.
  - kdtsh 5y ago
    I’m interested - pass on a source.

telxosser 5y ago

It is so bizarre to believe we have epistemological certainty in what we currently know that anyone should be shut up about anything. It is literally the feature of our system that lays the golden eggs that there is no such thing as a heretical thought. Nonsense like qanon are the waste products of 100% open mindedness but you can't have it both ways. You will just end up with endless super hero movies in all realms of thought. A process that is already well under way.

josephcsible 5y ago

> there are in fact some people who are saying that Young and Mitchell either should not do this or should not be allowed to do this. It's disingenuous to lump these two things together. There's a bunch of things that people should be allowed to do, but that they shouldn't do.

kdtsh 5y ago
It wasn’t my intention to lump these two things together and treat them as one in the same. I know that legality and morality are two entirely separate concepts. I just happen to believe he is acting morally within the bounds of law, while others believe he is acting immorally and possibly also illegally. Though I think most of us would agree that ultimately what is most important is the morality of the issue - if the law contradicts this, the law is wrong.

kcplate 5y ago

> It’s entirely on you if you think there is any hypocrisy here I like Neil Young, and I don’t care what he chooses to do with his music. Pull it from Spotify, it’s going to hurt him financially more than hurt his fans, we have already purchased his music. If I can’t stream it, no biggie. If I really want to listen to NY, I’ll dust off the vinyl. I am sure he has a sincerely held belief that to him that allows him to carve out an authoritarian pro-government exception that satisfies his own moral values. He has done it on a couple of songs. However, I personally feel like a person who made his fame on anti-authoritarian, free speech, anti-government themes in his art should not be surprised at people drawing a conclusion that he is a hypocrite when he takes a public position that is pro-authoritarian, pro-government, and requesting corporate suppression of another person’s opinion.

kdtsh 5y ago
You and other people have said that he is being pro-government, pro-authoritarian, doing the bidding of the powerful, etc. - without qualification. But I just don’t see what exactly taking an active stance against misinformation concerning COVID is any of these things. What am I missing here?
- kcplate 5y ago
  Basically he is taking the official US government informational position and the government has gone as far as trying to mandate and force their will regarding the topic. Therefore it has a political and also a corporatist connotation in that there a few companies making billions on the number of vaccines that are distributed and some of those companies despite government help in fast tracking and help financing the development, are holding on to the IP. Like I said…I don’t care what he does with his art, or whatever his opinion may be on a given subject, but he is literally known for activism and protest…and a focus on freedom, freedom of speech (Literally had a tour called “The Freedom of Speech Tour”), and anti-corporatism. In this case it appears that he attempted to financially force a corporation to silence someone who’s ideas and speech he didn’t like. It’s at the very least thematically out of character for him, and a bit contrary to one of the reasons I was a fan.