4 ms·

> Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. Refusing to participate

> 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"?

4 ms·

> Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent. Refusing to participate

by manuelabeledo 5y ago

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"?