4 ms·
Imo he shouldn’t pull it. If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of
by gonehome 5y ago
Imo he shouldn’t pull it.
If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication.
- pseudalopex 5y ago> Imo he shouldn’t pull it. Why not? > If he is uncomfortable sharing the platform so wants to remove his music fine, I’d just say that without the “you can’t have both of us” implication. The 1st part implies the 2nd.
- gonehome 5y agoI don’t think pulling his music is effective in persuading people he wants to persuade (likely this stunt has the opposite effect), but I also think it’s better to engage in good faith than just argue to suppress speech. You can’t always if the other party won’t engage in good faith, but from what I’ve seen of Rogan he does. Harder with cases like Brett Weinstein where I think engaging is a waste of time imo. So there’s a pragmatic argument here about getting the outcome you want. For the latter rather than pulling with a “me or him” framing. It is possible to reaffirm the shared freedom of speech yet saying you disagree and don’t want to share the platform directly (because it indirectly helps fund it). That’s probably what I’d do in that situation.