3 ms·

The primary issue is being uncomfortable with other people making free associations (Rogan and his audience). One's product being carried in the same store as s

The primary issue is being uncomfortable with other people making free associations (Rogan and his audience). One's product being carried in the same store as someone else's product is a tenuous "association" at best. Don't get me wrong, freedom cuts both ways; some hindrances to free speech are perfectly legal, and would ironically be violations of the First Amendment to prevent! But let's not pretend that these kinds of boycotts are simple discomfort or preference: they're an attempt to change what is permissible to say, because "won't somebody think of the children?"

Kaze404 5y ago
I don't understand why that's a problem to some people. Isn't the whole point of the "free market" that I'm allowed to cancel my subscription if I disagree with whatever Spotify is doing? From my perspective it is a very obvious double standard when people consider not wanting Spotify to air anti-trans rhetoric an attack on free speech, but calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse is not a problem at all. Is it not a form of censorship when someone tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people to an audience of millions?
- lukifer 5y ago
  > calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse > tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people At the risk of taking the bait: this is clear evidence you've never listened to the show. If you want to take issue with his specific opinions on trans women in fighting sports, or specific choices of guests, fair enough; but the "guilt by association" and "indictment by meme" is exactly why we all benefit from free and open discourse, including being tolerant and charitable to opposing views. Witness the "cancellations" of trans-ally voices like ContraPoints or Lindsay Ellis (the latter of whom was so traumatized that she quit YouTube permanently). If you want to draw a line somewhere, and withdraw your participation by boycott, or even ostracize other participants, that's your right; but don't pretend you're not attempting to influence societal discourse, and prevent third-party conversations and associations.

Kaze404 5y ago

I don't understand why that's a problem to some people. Isn't the whole point of the "free market" that I'm allowed to cancel my subscription if I disagree with whatever Spotify is doing? From my perspective it is a very obvious double standard when people consider not wanting Spotify to air anti-trans rhetoric an attack on free speech, but calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse is not a problem at all. Is it not a form of censorship when someone tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people to an audience of millions?

lukifer 5y ago
> calling the acceptance of trans people a sign of societal collapse > tries every tactic in the book to discredit a group of people At the risk of taking the bait: this is clear evidence you've never listened to the show. If you want to take issue with his specific opinions on trans women in fighting sports, or specific choices of guests, fair enough; but the "guilt by association" and "indictment by meme" is exactly why we all benefit from free and open discourse, including being tolerant and charitable to opposing views. Witness the "cancellations" of trans-ally voices like ContraPoints or Lindsay Ellis (the latter of whom was so traumatized that she quit YouTube permanently). If you want to draw a line somewhere, and withdraw your participation by boycott, or even ostracize other participants, that's your right; but don't pretend you're not attempting to influence societal discourse, and prevent third-party conversations and associations.