5 ms·

We just live in a world now where propagating false and dangerous misinformation is merely offering a differing point of view. We were happy to let subject-mat

We just live in a world now where propagating false and dangerous misinformation is merely offering a differing point of view. We were happy to let subject-matter experts help build the modern world, but then turn on them as we seek out the information that comports with the way we wish the world to be. It's good to be skeptical, but a very significant portion of the population has serious epistemic deficiencies.

honeybadger1 4y ago
I am not interested in engaging on identity politics.
- Apocryphon 4y ago
  Just turn off your internet services if you don't want to engage with differing points of view.
  - honeybadger1 4y ago
    Luckily,I am fine with people having different points of view, even when they are wrong. I have the right to see them but not engage or to point and laugh and move on, they don't reserve the right to force me to engage. This person wishes to take the right away from people to even know of the differing point of view, never allowing dissent or support. Good effort though.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic. Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and to characterize it as such goes against the very ethos of consumerist-oriented postwar capitalist America.
      - honeybadger1 4y ago
        It's worth noting that a business, just like any other organization or individual, should not be held responsible for the views or actions of every individual or group associated with it. A business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders and stakeholders, not to moralize consumers. Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that censorship and restriction of speech goes beyond consumer choice and has much broader implications for society as a whole. It is crucial that platforms like Spotify provide a space for a diverse range of voices and perspectives, even if they may be controversial or unpopular, in order to foster open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. As a consumer, one has the right to make their own decisions, but businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views. I do not see the irony.
        Apocryphon 4y ago
        On principle I get it but who cares, canceling a subscription is such a minute act it’s like getting mad at a third party voter. It’s a quixotic act of protest that outside of an organized mass movement is unlikely to bankrupt Spotify. So perhaps you being so zealous about your stance is, appropriate enough, mirroring that same poster’s beliefs. That you cannot see the irony is telling, indeed. > businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views. If consumers cannot voice their expression via consumer choices they will attempt to do it at the legislature, courts, or the ballot box, and I doubt that state regulation is something you’d prefer. Free market choice is the purest form of American expression, outside of over-litigation, and the fact that you denounce it marks you as naive about the alternatives that people will pursue instead if they are denied such.
paulcole 4y ago
I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about here. My point was that you can think Elon Musk is a jackass and not buy a Tesla even if you do think Jeff Bezos is a jackass and still shop at Amazon.
- popularrecluse 4y ago
  I responded to a comment upstream from yours on your comment, because yours was the last I read and I was continuing the train of thought. Sorry for the confusion.
overgard 4y ago
Ah "misinformation". (Which seems to be far-left speak for "has a different opinion and I'd rather censor them than argue with them".) Rogan is a comedian and has never claimed any special expertise. If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?
- popularrecluse 4y ago
  There will always be an acceptable range of discourse in any society, and those that in their own ignorance and confusion spread ideas that hurt the stability and well-being of that society can expect pushback. Sorry if you wanted to say whatever bullshit you want without a challenge. If you don't like it disconnect your internet, as you'd say.
  - overgard 4y ago
    Never said it should go unchallenged. What a lovely strawman you've built. Free speech is great, and if someone says something incorrect, the solution is more speech to counteract it. I think part of why Rogan is so popular is because legacy media and woke activists have such a bad reputation for trying to control the narrative rather than engage in discourse, which is what he does. I just said I don't have a problem with him stating his opinion and I'm sick of people trying to censor a goddamn comedian because they're jealous he built a large audience. I fail to see how Rogan threatens the stability of society. I mean, it's hilarious other than that you're actually serious about that. I'm far more afraid of censorship than I am of Rogan talking to some goofball. (BTW, you haven't even stated why Rogan threatens the stability of society or what he's done). I think I'll keep my internet connection friend.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do? It says absolutely nothing about the "legacy news media". It just means that many people are incredibly gullible. Joe Rogan does not have more credibility, but some people THINK he does, and that's the problem.

honeybadger1 4y ago

I am not interested in engaging on identity politics.

Apocryphon 4y ago
Just turn off your internet services if you don't want to engage with differing points of view.
- honeybadger1 4y ago
  Luckily,I am fine with people having different points of view, even when they are wrong. I have the right to see them but not engage or to point and laugh and move on, they don't reserve the right to force me to engage. This person wishes to take the right away from people to even know of the differing point of view, never allowing dissent or support. Good effort though.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    The original post you were responding to was talking about making an individual, private choice not to fund something they dislike. It was voting with their wallets. That is completely in the same voluntary spirit as you have, (it just happens to be a differing opinion from yours), which makes your overreaction all the more ironic. Choosing to not patronize a business is not “taking the right away from people”, and to characterize it as such goes against the very ethos of consumerist-oriented postwar capitalist America.
    - honeybadger1 4y ago
      It's worth noting that a business, just like any other organization or individual, should not be held responsible for the views or actions of every individual or group associated with it. A business's primary responsibility is to its shareholders and stakeholders, not to moralize consumers. Furthermore, it's important to keep in mind that censorship and restriction of speech goes beyond consumer choice and has much broader implications for society as a whole. It is crucial that platforms like Spotify provide a space for a diverse range of voices and perspectives, even if they may be controversial or unpopular, in order to foster open and honest dialogue and the exchange of ideas. As a consumer, one has the right to make their own decisions, but businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views. I do not see the irony.
      - Apocryphon 4y ago
        On principle I get it but who cares, canceling a subscription is such a minute act it’s like getting mad at a third party voter. It’s a quixotic act of protest that outside of an organized mass movement is unlikely to bankrupt Spotify. So perhaps you being so zealous about your stance is, appropriate enough, mirroring that same poster’s beliefs. That you cannot see the irony is telling, indeed. > businesses also have the right to make their own editorial decisions without being pressured by consumers to conform to their moral or political views. If consumers cannot voice their expression via consumer choices they will attempt to do it at the legislature, courts, or the ballot box, and I doubt that state regulation is something you’d prefer. Free market choice is the purest form of American expression, outside of over-litigation, and the fact that you denounce it marks you as naive about the alternatives that people will pursue instead if they are denied such.

paulcole 4y ago

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about here. My point was that you can think Elon Musk is a jackass and not buy a Tesla even if you do think Jeff Bezos is a jackass and still shop at Amazon.

popularrecluse 4y ago
I responded to a comment upstream from yours on your comment, because yours was the last I read and I was continuing the train of thought. Sorry for the confusion.

overgard 4y ago

Ah "misinformation". (Which seems to be far-left speak for "has a different opinion and I'd rather censor them than argue with them".) Rogan is a comedian and has never claimed any special expertise. If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do?

popularrecluse 4y ago
There will always be an acceptable range of discourse in any society, and those that in their own ignorance and confusion spread ideas that hurt the stability and well-being of that society can expect pushback. Sorry if you wanted to say whatever bullshit you want without a challenge. If you don't like it disconnect your internet, as you'd say.
- overgard 4y ago
  Never said it should go unchallenged. What a lovely strawman you've built. Free speech is great, and if someone says something incorrect, the solution is more speech to counteract it. I think part of why Rogan is so popular is because legacy media and woke activists have such a bad reputation for trying to control the narrative rather than engage in discourse, which is what he does. I just said I don't have a problem with him stating his opinion and I'm sick of people trying to censor a goddamn comedian because they're jealous he built a large audience. I fail to see how Rogan threatens the stability of society. I mean, it's hilarious other than that you're actually serious about that. I'm far more afraid of censorship than I am of Rogan talking to some goofball. (BTW, you haven't even stated why Rogan threatens the stability of society or what he's done). I think I'll keep my internet connection friend.
Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
> If you're worried that people listen to him over the legacy news media, well, what does it say about them that somehow a comedian has more credibility than they do? It says absolutely nothing about the "legacy news media". It just means that many people are incredibly gullible. Joe Rogan does not have more credibility, but some people THINK he does, and that's the problem.