4 ms·

A lot of people in this thread are correctly pointing out the Neil Young is within his rights to only allow his music to be played on censorious platforms. What

A lot of people in this thread are correctly pointing out the Neil Young is within his rights to only allow his music to be played on censorious platforms. What's missing is anyone saying that he isn't. A racist is within their rights to publically discuss their views. I will happily argue that that is the way it should be until the heat death of the universe. But, importantly, you will never catch me saying the they're a decent person or they're doing the right thing. Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent.

manuelabeledo 5y ago
> Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian". By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.
- vba616 5y ago
  "Authoritarian", like a lot of words, can have multiple meanings. It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people. I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan. However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means. This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
- Stupulous 5y ago
  No one is asking Young to acknowledge Rogan's existence, much less engage with him. He is refusing to associate himself with an entity because they are not censoring his idealogical adversaries. If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?
vanusa 5y ago
But being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.
- vba616 5y ago
  This is getting meta. You're assuming everybody agrees on an authority that defines the word "authoritarian". But do we?
- Stupulous 5y ago
  Googling "define authoritarian" defines it exactly as I've used it: >favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
  - vanusa 5y ago
    If someone is "authoritarian" that means they are consistently bullying or dominating in some situation with a power structure already in place -- like a boss, or of course a tyrannical head of state. You know, someone like Mussolini or Stalin. These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it." That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.

manuelabeledo 5y ago

> Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian". By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.

vba616 5y ago
"Authoritarian", like a lot of words, can have multiple meanings. It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people. I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan. However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means. This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
Stupulous 5y ago
No one is asking Young to acknowledge Rogan's existence, much less engage with him. He is refusing to associate himself with an entity because they are not censoring his idealogical adversaries. If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?

vanusa 5y ago

But being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.

vba616 5y ago
This is getting meta. You're assuming everybody agrees on an authority that defines the word "authoritarian". But do we?
Stupulous 5y ago
Googling "define authoritarian" defines it exactly as I've used it: >favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom. So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
- vanusa 5y ago
  If someone is "authoritarian" that means they are consistently bullying or dominating in some situation with a power structure already in place -- like a boss, or of course a tyrannical head of state. You know, someone like Mussolini or Stalin. These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it." That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.