6 ms·

Remember all those times you have seen gaslighting ideologues saying "nobody is actually calling for [canceling/deleting/censorship]", remember how they couch a

Remember all those times you have seen gaslighting ideologues saying "nobody is actually calling for [canceling/deleting/censorship]", remember how they couch any argument with "private company can do what it wants". I don't care about Joe Rogan in particular, but you're deluding yourself if you think there isn't some relevance here. A lot of people now suddenly hate Joe, the same way they hate Jordan Peterson, the same way they hated Trump. Every comment will have a preface or disclaimer: "I'm not a fan" in so many words. I did it above. In a short time that will turn from "I don't support him but..." into something akin to "I see you referenced him, therefore I disregard anything else said"

tedd4u 5y ago
So, it’s pretty serious. Spotify is paying Joe Rogan to broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed. I think it’s okay in this case if people have a sudden change of opinion or a newly formed strong opinion. He didn’t crack an off color joke.
- Covzire 5y ago
- apolymath 5y ago
- jonnyone 5y ago
  >broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed. A statement many people appeal to that nobody can substantiate.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- ouEight12 5y ago
  > that is getting people killed. Twice as many people died in the US last year from Heart Disease than from COVID, but I'm pretty sure we don't (yet) ban youtubers who extol the awesomeness of gluttonous fast food in weekly videos. At some point, people need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and also allow others to do the liberty to do the same. If someone is an adult, in the US, and not vax'd by now, that's on them. Period. Not anyone else. To put it another way, I owned not one, but two separate copies of "The Anarchists Cookbook" over the years growing up.. the number of governments I have, to date, attempted to overthrow? Zero. Why? Because I was capable of reviewing the offered material and going "yeah, not today prison, not today."
  - assbuttbuttass 5y ago
    It is on other people though, because unvaccinated people have a higher chance of spreading COVID to others. We've been over this shit since the beginning of the pandemic, it's surprising and disappointing to see people still framing it as a purely individual decision.
    - lowkey 5y ago
      I’m genuinely curious what your source is for the claim that the unvaccinated have a higher chance of spreading COVID? According to this UC Davis/UCSF study [0] both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals carry similar viral loads. The study found that while vaccinated individuals had fewer symptoms on average, both groups had similar viral loads. “There was no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between asymptomatic and symptomatic groups.“ [0] https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim...
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        Viral load does not have anything to do with chance of spread. This is actually very easy to look up, if you put in the effort to do it correctly. I find that HN is really creaking under the weight of "I'm genuinely curious for you to look something up for me, I looked for werewolf shoes and I didn't find anything about this" This form of walrusing pretends to be diligent interest in factual information, but it's actually sloth, attempt to control others, and a giant "I don't know how to use search engines skillfully" sign around the neck
        YATA0 5y ago
        >This form of walrusing Sealioning[0]. The term is sealioning... Your poor attempt at sounding smart has backfired and instead you sound like a dumbass. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
scarface74 5y ago
This is a private company paying him $100 million dollars to be exclusively on their platform. If he had kept doing his podcast instead of whatever you call what he does now podcast in name only he couldn’t have been banned. Even if he was removed from the popular podcasts directories, all of the real podcast players allow you to subscribe by entering a URL to an RSS feed. He took the money. He knew what he was getting into.
- Talanes 5y ago
  Exactly. Strip away all of the usual Rogan drama, and this situation is a case study on the strength of podcasting's distributed nature, and the danger that comes with giving that up to cash out.
Dylan16807 5y ago
> In a short time that will turn from "I don't support him but..." into something akin to "I see you referenced him, therefore I disregard anything else said" Depends on what you mean by 'reference', but if someone treats an awful source like an authority then that's not a terrible response.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
Everybody is calling for cancelation. Nobody is calling for censorship. Your morals are confused.
- xdennis 5y ago
  If cancellation is done for the purpose of silencing, then it is censorship. That's the very definition of censorship: suppression of speech. Contrary to popular misconception (usually just in the US) it has nothing to do with the government.
  - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
    > If cancellation is done for the purpose of silencing, then it is censorship. That's the very definition of censorship No, it isn't. It's so tedious explaining this over and over
    - lowkey 5y ago
      Please explain it one more time for our sake? How is cancellation different from censorship in practice or in theory?
      - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
        It's simple. Censorship is to imitate the Roman Censors. I see that you've tried to turn it into your smurf word for "being controlled," and that since you know you're wrong, you're pre-loading with "in practice" Why? Because it's not like it in practice either, but "in practice" it's like what you want it to mean, and that's where you'll try to draw the metaphor from To be censored is to be told that you cannot publish something at all No, it does not mean "you cannot publish it here." You can still go publish somewhere else? Not censored. The Food Network doesn't want to publish your physics thesis? You're not censored. Facebook doesn't want your love letter to Nazis? (oh who are we kidding, of course they do.) But that's not censorship either. YouTube wants to take down your anti-vax stuff? Still not censored. UK Government says Starship Troopers cannot be published? Oh. Well that's actual censorship. This isn't challenging, nobody's learning from your struggle, and you're boring the adults. Stop.

tedd4u 5y ago

So, it’s pretty serious. Spotify is paying Joe Rogan to broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed. I think it’s okay in this case if people have a sudden change of opinion or a newly formed strong opinion. He didn’t crack an off color joke.

Covzire 5y ago
apolymath 5y ago
jonnyone 5y ago
>broadcast disinformation that is getting people killed. A statement many people appeal to that nobody can substantiate.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ouEight12 5y ago
> that is getting people killed. Twice as many people died in the US last year from Heart Disease than from COVID, but I'm pretty sure we don't (yet) ban youtubers who extol the awesomeness of gluttonous fast food in weekly videos. At some point, people need to grow up and take responsibility for themselves, and also allow others to do the liberty to do the same. If someone is an adult, in the US, and not vax'd by now, that's on them. Period. Not anyone else. To put it another way, I owned not one, but two separate copies of "The Anarchists Cookbook" over the years growing up.. the number of governments I have, to date, attempted to overthrow? Zero. Why? Because I was capable of reviewing the offered material and going "yeah, not today prison, not today."
- assbuttbuttass 5y ago
  It is on other people though, because unvaccinated people have a higher chance of spreading COVID to others. We've been over this shit since the beginning of the pandemic, it's surprising and disappointing to see people still framing it as a purely individual decision.
  - lowkey 5y ago
    I’m genuinely curious what your source is for the claim that the unvaccinated have a higher chance of spreading COVID? According to this UC Davis/UCSF study [0] both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals carry similar viral loads. The study found that while vaccinated individuals had fewer symptoms on average, both groups had similar viral loads. “There was no significant difference in viral load between vaccinated and unvaccinated, or between asymptomatic and symptomatic groups.“ [0] https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-similar-between-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-people https://www.ucdavis.edu/health/covid-19/news/viral-loads-sim...
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      Viral load does not have anything to do with chance of spread. This is actually very easy to look up, if you put in the effort to do it correctly. I find that HN is really creaking under the weight of "I'm genuinely curious for you to look something up for me, I looked for werewolf shoes and I didn't find anything about this" This form of walrusing pretends to be diligent interest in factual information, but it's actually sloth, attempt to control others, and a giant "I don't know how to use search engines skillfully" sign around the neck
      - YATA0 5y ago
        >This form of walrusing Sealioning[0]. The term is sealioning... Your poor attempt at sounding smart has backfired and instead you sound like a dumbass. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

scarface74 5y ago

This is a private company paying him $100 million dollars to be exclusively on their platform. If he had kept doing his podcast instead of whatever you call what he does now podcast in name only he couldn’t have been banned. Even if he was removed from the popular podcasts directories, all of the real podcast players allow you to subscribe by entering a URL to an RSS feed. He took the money. He knew what he was getting into.

Talanes 5y ago
Exactly. Strip away all of the usual Rogan drama, and this situation is a case study on the strength of podcasting's distributed nature, and the danger that comes with giving that up to cash out.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> In a short time that will turn from "I don't support him but..." into something akin to "I see you referenced him, therefore I disregard anything else said" Depends on what you mean by 'reference', but if someone treats an awful source like an authority then that's not a terrible response.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

Everybody is calling for cancelation. Nobody is calling for censorship. Your morals are confused.

xdennis 5y ago
If cancellation is done for the purpose of silencing, then it is censorship. That's the very definition of censorship: suppression of speech. Contrary to popular misconception (usually just in the US) it has nothing to do with the government.
- JohnHaugeland 5y ago
  > If cancellation is done for the purpose of silencing, then it is censorship. That's the very definition of censorship No, it isn't. It's so tedious explaining this over and over
  - lowkey 5y ago
    Please explain it one more time for our sake? How is cancellation different from censorship in practice or in theory?
    - JohnHaugeland 5y ago
      It's simple. Censorship is to imitate the Roman Censors. I see that you've tried to turn it into your smurf word for "being controlled," and that since you know you're wrong, you're pre-loading with "in practice" Why? Because it's not like it in practice either, but "in practice" it's like what you want it to mean, and that's where you'll try to draw the metaphor from To be censored is to be told that you cannot publish something at all No, it does not mean "you cannot publish it here." You can still go publish somewhere else? Not censored. The Food Network doesn't want to publish your physics thesis? You're not censored. Facebook doesn't want your love letter to Nazis? (oh who are we kidding, of course they do.) But that's not censorship either. YouTube wants to take down your anti-vax stuff? Still not censored. UK Government says Starship Troopers cannot be published? Oh. Well that's actual censorship. This isn't challenging, nobody's learning from your struggle, and you're boring the adults. Stop.