 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
WrongSpeak leads to WrongThink
Whoopie Goldberg has been temporarily suspended from her show, and Joe Rogan (so far) has not.
Whoopie Goldberg has been temporarily suspended from her show, and Joe Rogan (so far) has not.
I am 100% against cancelling Goldberg. She was not denying the Holocaust or expressing anti-Semitism--she was expressing a point of view, which we know, differs depending on where you stand and what your life experiences are.
Our public discourse needs a big dose of charity, candor and goodwill.
I also am totally opposed to the corporate censorship of any Covid information that does not conform to Doctator Fauci's "Le Science c'est moi" bureaucratic imperialism.
Wuhan Lab Leak Theory was "disinformation" a year ago, but the cat's out of the bag and we're allowed to talk about it now.
Saying cloth masks were only marginally effective was "disinformation" a year ago, but the CDC is now saying it, so we're all allowed to say it now.
Science is advanced by many people contributing information to the topic at hand; not by censorship.
If we lose free speech, we lose everything. It saddens and angers me that supposed "liberal, free spirits" like aging hippie Neil Young are calling for global corporations to be the arbiters truth and lies, information and disinformation, of what can and cannot be said.
Please read this excellent essay by Glenn Greenwald and tell us what you think.
I certainly concur that free speech should be paramount and uncensored by the State. I want asshats and jackwagons of all stripes to be able to out themselves for what kind of person they are.
ReplyDeleteBut I also support the Liberty of a Citizen or private company, to regulate speech on their platform or in their venue, as they see fit. It's beyond irritating at this point, to keep hearing grown men and women complaining about the 'free speech rights' when the State is not a party to their 'censorship'.
Way to go CI. Yu just killed the internet as a communications medium.
Deletebtw - I'm sure that your design of a "woke" browser will make trillions from ass-hats that don't want to see anything insulting or offensive to their worldview.
DeleteI wonder if Qualcomm routers should automatically drop the n-*-g-g-e-r bits every time they try and flow through them.
DeleteIn order for paradigms to change, their "disciplinary matrix's" must be permitted to change.
DeleteIn Kuhn’s postscript to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," he uses the term “disciplinary matrix” to clarify what he initially meant by “paradigm.” Like paradigms, disciplinary matrices describe groups of scientists with a shared set of beliefs. But Kuhn specifies three crucial pillars of a disciplinary matrix: first, scientists must have a shared set of symbols and definitions. Second, scientists must have a shared set of metaphysical beliefs about the world. Third, scientists must have a shared set of values.
Your Society of Control will never change.
Bill Gate's Woke-check for MS Word should soon be released. It'll prevent "wrongthink" from ever being digitized and/or transmitted.
DeleteAll we need now are woke-spyders to search the net for wrongthink, and then hack the contents to make it all PC.
DeleteOh, wait... we call those thing "progressives".
CI. Free speech is a concept, not a narrow constitutional or natural right. When corporations own the public square, they become a public accommodation, and they need to respect the rights of all.
Delete@SF - So, your solution is to empower the State to regulate business, to allow speech that is contrary to their wishes or business model?
DeleteYet, I would presume [like me] you oppose the penalization of 'hate speech'?
Free speech is exactly a Constitutional Right. It's time we remembered that.
Free speech is a natural right that precedes and supersedes the constitution, but is protected by it.
DeleteSocial media giants now form a de facto cartel. It would take a very light government touch. Whatever is allowed in an actual public square would be a good starting point for on-line standards. No slander, no libel, no provoking speech or fighting words or gestures that are covered by existing law. Add in vulgarity, profanity, etc based upon the audience of the forum. It's not complicated.
Having said that, if the forum is restricted to the topic of fishing, it is obvious that off-topic comments could be deleted.
A good rule of thumb: If someone advocates a position, others are free to rebut and advocate a different opinion. As I said earlier, this isn't rocket science and it is vitally important because a cartel of corporations own the digital public square.
Social media are private businesses. Libel and slander are already covered by law. What you seem to be searching for is a rather nebulous and inconsistent version of a 'fairness doctrine'.
DeleteI really don't see the problem here. One can find a social media platform that caters to their needs and desires. It's not in the public interest if a platform cannot achieve the same level of popularity as others.
The words of CI and the responses of JC illuminate the problem we face.
ReplyDeleteCI makes a distinction between government and private, siding essentially with the freedom of the market to determine how a business can choose to operate.
JC immediately charged him with hastening the apocalypse.
But that chasm is where we are.
Should government force business to accept what those businesses believe will be bad for their bottom line and investors?
Should we not have any guard rails?
When Germany, Israel and many other countries made Holocaust denial a crime, were they wrong?
If a guy walks into a coffeehouse and calls the barista a motherf#@ker everyday, can the business deny him entry?
And then, how do we make those decisions? Consistently and legally?
I ain't got no answers. But we seem to need some middle ground between wide open and full stop.
The problem is that there is no "public" sector forum/ arena anymore. The internet has "privatized" it and they "lease it back" to us through software licenses.
DeleteWe pay "tribute" to Microsoft and Apple for the "privilege" of speaking over "their" medium.
DeleteSlavoj Zizek, "Why Julian Assange is Hated"
DeleteLet’s take the case of Bill Gates. How did he become one of the richest men in the world? His wealth has nothing to do with the production costs of what Microsoft is selling — you can even argue that Microsoft is paying its intellectual workers a relatively high salary. Gates’ wealth is not the result of his success in producing good software for lower prices than his competitors, or in more exploitation of his hired intellectual workers.
Why, then, are millions still buying Microsoft? Because Microsoft imposed itself as an almost universal standard, (almost) monopolizing the field. In this, it’s similar to Jeff Bezos and Amazon, Apple, Facebook, etc. In all these cases, the commons themselves are privatized. This puts us, their users, into the position of serfs paying a tithe to the owner of a commons, a feudal master.
Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen recently told British MPs that Mark Zuckerberg “has unilateral control over three billion people.” The big achievement of modernity, the public space, is thus disappearing. Days after the Haugen revelations, Zuckerberg announced that his company would change its name from “Facebook” to “Meta,” and outlined his vision of “metaverse” in a speech that is a true neo-feudal manifesto.
Now do you understand the origin's of sociology's latest new fashionable term..."corporate feudalism"?
DeleteIt's Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" and the reason Slavoj Zizek still calls himself a "Communist"....as the "myth of the administrators of the commons" has largely come true.
DeleteEROSION OF THE MYTH OF ADMINISTRATORS OF THE COMMONS
Delete"Indeed, the process has been so widely commented upon that one writer postulated a common life cycle for all of the attempts to develop regulatory policies. The life cycle is launched by an outcry so widespread and demanding that it generates enough political force to bring about establishment of a regulatory agency to insure the equitable, just, and rational distribution of the advantages among all holders of interest in the commons. This phase is followed by the symbolic reassurance of the offended as the agency goes into operation, developing a period of political quiescence among the great majority of those who hold a general but unorganized interest in the commons. Once this political quiescence has developed, the highly organized and specifically interested groups who wish to make incursions into the commons bring sufficient pressure to bear through other political processes to convert the agency to the protection and furthering of their interests. In the last phase even staffing of the regulating agency is accomplished by drawing the agency administrators from the ranks of the regulated."
Link to Hardin if anyone's interested.
Delete...anyone else remember the promise...?
Deletebetting on tomorrow.
DeleteThe phone company never once tried and censor my telephone conversation.
Dave, apologies, but when you people on the left start employing libertarian arguments, watch out. Your example of calling a barista names when you walk in is not valid. That is provoking speech.
DeleteSilver, I'm not employing anyone's arguments. I'm generally a centrist, but in today's atmosphere that's not a place people generally appreciate.
DeleteAs for my barista question, yes, it is provoking speech. I agree with you. But I can also see where some of the speech of a guy like Joe Rogan, or in the past Rush Limbaugh has also been "provoking speech."
What's the objective method for determining when speech moves from something that might be protected and allowed into the realm of provoking.
I'd argue that line is subjective, and moves to and fro depending on the person.
So how do we make those calls?
Joe makes a reasonable argument through comparing the telephone to the internet. Many lefties have made that argument also, calling it a public utility and thus needing more federal regulation.
DeleteI don't know how we split that atom. But I'm old enough to remember the days of party lines on phones and you did not have carte blanche to say whatever you wanted because others might be listening in and be offended.
The public square in those days demanded a certain level of nicety and decorum that we seldom see today.
Dave, I think under the law, the speech has to be directly threatening so that it is considered an assault. Lesser assaults can be perpetrated without touching someone.
DeleteAnyway, point is, some simple guidelines can be set up. See my comment to CI above.
And yes, businesses should be allowed to enforce their standards, including those of speech and behavior. Again, depends on the forum. Two people sitting in a restaurant are obviously free to discuss whatever they want. When they start talking so loudly it's bugging other customers, that obviously crosses a line. A business like a coffee shop or restaurant or retail store also has a right to tell people who are bugging other to get lost. Common sense.
DeleteWhat we are talking about here are on-line forums designed for people to speak, either in the comments section, or to author content. If the speech is within the law and reasonable standards, it stands. If taken down or banned, there needs to be a reason why in writing provided, and a process to review and attempt to overturn the removal/ban.
The social media cartel and very close to being World Controllers, as described in Brave New World.
Why not just sue these platforms until they bake us all gay wedding cakes?
ReplyDeleteHow deep are your pockets?
DeleteTC,. When Amazon has de facto cornered the bakery market, and they are the only bakery in town, then we can talk.
Delete@(((Thought Criminal))) Ditto!
DeleteWell Silver, in many rural areas there really are only two options... Amazon and Walmart.
DeleteAren't we there already?
We certainly are as it related to industries like banking in many inner cities.
Replace Whoopi Goldberg with Gina Carano ;)
DeleteJust get rid of The View and we will all sleep better!
DeletePlease don't feed the trolls.
DeleteExcuse me? Say whah? ;) The trolls can afford to feed themselves! lol :)
DeleteI think that The View has become the worst show for women being ugly, cruel, and catty. With them around we will never shatter any glass ceiling, just maybe the talking mouths.
I have a cold (no Omicron, did a home test all negative thank God) and not feeling up to snuff, but I wrote on this matter as my blog post is scheduled to publish tonight at midnight. It is a head turner and sorry Silverfiddle I truly understand where you are coming from, but I roll different. I totally disagree with you. I hope you will stop by and read my post Silverfiddle. Just the same it is a good read and noteworthy as always. You are AOW's backup writing Gem! :)
ReplyDelete@Silverfiddle If we lose free speech, we lose everything. It saddens and angers me that supposed "liberal, free spirits" like aging hippie Neil Young are calling for global corporations to be the arbiters truth and lies, information and disinformation, of what can and cannot be said.
ReplyDeleteI believe that depends on the meaning of "free speech." Speech to lift up or degrade? Speech to disparage others as less than human? Speech to belittle their human experience as a group of people?
We will never have our cake and eat it too. There truly is no such thing as really "free speech" - we are held accountable for what we say and speak. As far as I see it, that is not FREE my friend. That is a PRIVILEDGE sadly too often abused.
Elizabeth,
DeleteWe disagree, I see.
The right to freedom of speech is an enumerated right (Bill of Rights) and is therefore not a privilege (like driving, which requires a license. That said, there is also the matter of accountability; unfortunately in this woke atmosphere, the matter of accountability can be abused, too.
Speech to lift up or degrade? Speech to disparage others as less than human? Speech to belittle their human experience as a group of people?
People should use some common sense -- and the Golden Rule. Whatever happened to the Golden Rule as a method for living out lives?
What AOW said. I will add: Speech that degrades? Absolutely. Vile speech, blasphemous speech, idiotic speech. We have "shouting fire in a crowded theater laws" and all laws involve trading a little liberty for some safety. You can't just drive your car anywhere however you want.
DeleteMost importantly, free speech is for criticism, dissent, opposition, rebuttal, refuting official positions and providing information others have quashed or omitted.
That is how we keep the system honest and advance ourselves as a people.
AOW,
DeleteWe do not disagree really.
"The Constitution in the articles and amendments specifically defines many rights enjoyed by the people, such as the right of free speech, religion, etc. Rights that are specifically mentioned are enumerated rights, but other rights not specifically mentioned but which are considered fundamental to the operation of the nation and liberties enjoyed by the people are also protected. These are known as implied or unenumerated rights – Donald Ritchie, Our Constitution"
I agree on common sense, the Golden Rule as you put it. But The View is reprehensible, Whoopie Goldberg is a racist, and they spew hate and lies. This is the time for accountability.
I don't think you will agree with my article tomorrow if you even see it. But the woman should be fired and suffer the consequences of her actions. She is a disgrace. I am sick of her BLM, woke mentality and that if you are "white" it really does not matter.
Her and The View just needs to go. Period.
Elizabeth,
DeleteWhat you are expressing is not rightly-ordered justice for her comment about the Holocaust. You are cheering for a comeuppance, that finally, after all the stuff she has said, she will be fired. I don't say that is illegitimate, but it is spiteful and vindictive borne of schadenfreude.
No matter how much I can't stand The View, I don't want them silenced, unless it is by the marketplace (enough people fed up with their crap tune them out and they no longer have a viable audience).
As a general rule, I don't wish misfortune on anyone. Vengeance belongs to God, not me.
@SF, +1
Delete@Silverfiddle "As a general rule, I don't wish misfortune on anyone. Vengeance belongs to God, not me."
DeleteI do not wish misfortune unto anyone; they sadly bring it upon themself. Yes, vengeance belongs to God, not us. But sir that is spreading misinformation. Jesus said when you break man's law you will suffer the consequences of man. He said God forgives, and we try to forgive but often fail.
Whatever they do with Whoopi or The View, they did it, they brought the vengeance upon themselves, not us, not even God. Whoopi is an evil woman with no good will or intent. You can believe as you choose, I respect that, but I believe what I will, and I hope you can respect that. I do not go for group think, even is most of us would call ourselves conservative.
The Golden Rule is a religious precept.
DeleteThis Republic is only fit for a moral and religious people.
A vanishing species.
Ed,
DeleteThe Golden Rule is a religious precept.
Agreed.
But I well remember a time when secular reading textbooks taught the Golden Rule even if they didn't call it by that name.
Of all things, it is the "Guiding Principle" of my employer, Worthington Industries.
DeleteGoldberg makes a living by sassing out outrageous stuff. (This is not to say I disagree with EVERYTHING she says. I don't.) The fact that she is "not careful" and often not truthful is a calling card that her employer has believed heretofore will, on balance, bring them ratings and sponsors. If her employer believes she no longer does that they can terminate her contract subject to weasel clauses the lawyers surely put in it.
ReplyDeleteThe broad field of 'social media' is more of a public accommodation where all comers weigh in, and some inveigh in. It's up to ABC to decide about their employees. It's not up to YouTube to decide about posts within the bounds of the law. If I were her employer I might have said "enough" long before now. If I were YouTube I'd let her rant.
BAYSIDER
Baysider,
DeleteI see that we largely agree, particularly on the difference between a television network and the broad field of 'social media', [which] is more of a public accommodation.
Good points Baysider.
DeleteI agree with you about her employer's right to fire her. I am against "cancelling" here. I know, its a nebulous term. She should not be banished beyond the warmth of the campfire.
DeleteA common theme in cancelling people is mischaracterizing what the person said or failing to put it into proper context.
Country singer Morgan Wallen was cancelled (for a year) for drunkenly calling one of his buddies the n-word, and he did it in an buddy-buddy manner, not shouting it at him in anger.
There is a spectrum: From using the word academically in a serious discussion, to the absolute disgusting foul of shouting the word a persons of color.
We have lost the ability to put a situation in context and evaluate what happened. Jon Ronson explains it well in his book, "So you've been publicly shamed."
The Holocaust was clearly racially-motivated against Jews. Whoopie, by her own words before she was called out, apparently didn't consider Jews a race. She may be wrong, but I didn't detect any anti-Semitism.
Yes, to clarify, agree about cancelling.
DeleteBAYSIDER
My view on the Whoopi Goldberg matter....Being suspended is not the same as being cancelled (banned altogether forever). Her employer certainly has the right to suspend any employee.
ReplyDeleteWhoopi Goldberg et al around that table on The View shoot off their mouths way too much, so I don't watch The View.
AOW, I agree with you. However, except for when it comes to antisemitic remarks. She should be fired. Considering the history of slavery, I would have thought Blacks in general would have sympathies with the Jews for their long suffering, instead they make light of it to enumerate on their own past sufferings and their so-called inequality today.
DeleteWe agree. See comment above.
DeleteI deleted my comment because after I wrote it, I became confused who you agreed with and thought probably not me so it would AOW of course! :) I'm sick today so excuse my confusion.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is the human tendancy to performative outrage, sticking it to the "trolls" etc., ie social rather than technological or even political. Sure the media (social and traditional) landscape feeds that tendency (and audiences demand more of it, in a feedback loop), but I don't think we overcome it without engaging with each other as humans rather than with tech or legislative bandaids.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't always work out well, but in the past relgion at least had the potential to redirect Jon Ronson's public shaming energy towards something more benign. Relgion is no longer ubiquitous, and I am not spiritual personally, but maybe we need something to fill that hole.
++ Excellent observation. Yes, we are dealing with the timeless human condition. Social media just magnifies it all 1000X
DeleteI am ever appalled that so many Dem women whom I personally know believe that The View is a news show. These same Dem women believe the same about Rachel Maddow's show.
ReplyDeleteSince when are adults --education adults -- unable to discern between fact and opinion? When I taught at a private school (1978-1997), my 6th graders had logic exercises requiring them to discern between fact and opinion. I guess that element of schools’ curricula have flown out the window now!
DeleteIs the view more or less dispassionate than fox & friends? (I've not seen either show.)
DeleteJez,
DeleteThe View has much more screeching than Fox and Friends, although the latter clearly has bias.
Frankly, I cannot abide menopausal women who rant over the top. The View has loads of that.
Full disclosure: I watch Fox and Friends every weekday morning. Some passion, but not too much -- and almost zero screeching.
I have little to add to the story that is an original thought except this irony:
ReplyDelete"The second part of her stage name, Goldberg, was suggested by her mother as she felt using a Jewish last name would help Caryn in Hollywood."
Bunkerville,
DeleteThanks for that detail!
Never pass up an opportunity to conflate private business's legal decisions with those culture cancelling "American liberals obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries".
ReplyDeleteHow many versions of this movie have we seen?
Another Ayn Rand hating progressive invoking private property rights.
DeleteRich!
I can see where a comedian would incorporate “politics” into their schtick. Will Rogers did it successfully, and he made everyone laugh ... even Democrats, who are not known for their sense of humor. Whoopi Goldberg (Johnson) is no Will Rogers. Not even close. But if she’s too dense to be able to figure out what works, comedically, and what doesn’t, then she should prepare herself for inevitable consequences. I don’t watch The View. I don’t watch the comedy channel, either — for similar reasons. I’ve already imposed some censorship of Goldberg/Johnson by choosing not to view, which is my right to do. Since I don’t watch Goldberg/Johnson, I don’t care if her employer fires her or not. But here’s something else I don’t care about: whether Goldberg/Johnson made comments that someone else found offensive. Nope. I don’t care. But it does seem to me that if you happen to be a Jew, or a black, or Hispanic, or trailer-trash white slut and you happen to find some other person offensive, don’t watch them on TV and don’t listen to anything they have to say. That’s why radios and television sets have on and off switches. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, being offended is a state of mind which originates within the mind of the person who is offended. It has no external causes, it originates within, and its causes lie in the person's biases, preferences and fears.
ReplyDeleteIf I become offended after you utter a sentence, it is because I choose to become offended. You do not control my mind. You cannot create my state of mind. You cannot control my emotions. If you dispute this you have a very serious living problem. You are doomed to be incapable of living in society.
You may use language that is designed to make me take offense. You may be deliberately trying to create a certain state of anger or offense in my reaction, but I always have the right not to do what you want me to do. I can respond by NOT being offended. I don't have to become offended just because you want me to.
Secondly, if my peace of mind, my self image and/or my self esteem is dependent on your actions, lack of actions or speech, then I am the worst sort of prisoner. It means I have to control you, which is an utterly hopeless proposition. It means that I have to control each and every person with whom I come in contact. Just stop and think of the sheer insanity of that idea.
Further, it also means that every person who comes into contact with me must be allowed to control my speech and actions to assure their peace of mind, self image and/or self esteem. So we have a society of 235 million people, all frantically trying to control each other. Not really a viable proposition.
What we have is a social fabric of people frantically trying to control everybody else so that they do not have to control themselves.
DeleteJayhawk, I'd argue that this "frantic control" is actually business decisions that effects profit rather than any "Religion of Liberals" from Greenwald that this thread links to.
DeleteWalmart and other large retailers didn't instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas" for control. They did it because their bean counters wanted to welcome atheists, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. in their stores without offending anyone else. Dr Seuss Enterprises wasn't looking at censoring but rather that $33 million they made in 2020.
And I could rattle on and on (seriously, I really could) but in every case, just as with this, the conservative propagandists leap at the chance to stir their culture wars and sew division.
And it works, so much to the point that they even pat themselves on the back by claiming to have put Christ back in Christmas that the obsessives silencing and censoring liberals tried to take out.
And the basket of gulibles slurp it up like a hog slurps slop.
My comment has nothing whatever to do with "business decisions." It has to do with limiting speech because that speech "offends someone."
DeleteI think there's more to this speech lark than just the immediate, direct emotional response to individual utterences. Speech, particularly speech from prominent or official sources, aggregates and forms the context within which people act, and a context where dehumanising or phobic speech is commonplace encourages and enables acts of discrimination, which are a big deal.
DeleteSince we're already talking about it, I hope it isn't crass to invoke the Holocaust as an example: could that most egregious of crimes have occurred in a population which had not been prepared and bathed in rampant expressions of antisemitism such as flourished in central Europe after WW I? While it was the holocaust itself which was criminal, not the expressions which preceeded it, does it behove us as a society to overlook the dangers that can arise from such a poisonous context? I accept Voltaire's word that he would have sacrificed his own life in defence of the right to say contemptible things, but I'm not quite sure he would be so quick to sacrifice the life of several million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and assorted dissidents and disabled people to that cause.
We don't have to go as far as genocide (although it is a depressingly routine occurance in human history, a fact which we should not let our determination to remember the Holocaust obscure), lighter forms of discrimination, such as are still suffered in Britain and America, are affected by context too.
So I can see the argument that as Rogan has gained prominence, so has his obligation to be more circumspect in his podcast -- in fact I think that's an argument that Rogan himself has advanced. I am comfortable with a smaller podcasts being more careless and unguarded in their metaphorical/literal basements, but I think we need to expect more from spotify's flagship $100M offering. I don't think you can legislate it, but I think it's a really important idea. And meanwhile, artists are free to seek to dissocciate themselves and protest as they wish (I myself wouldn't want to be on the same platform as eg. Steve Bannon). But if I were Neil Young, I'd be more concerned about who owns (and who launders money through) his record label.
Jayhawk,
DeleteBrilliant comments!
"It has to do with limiting speech because that speech "offends someone"."
DeleteKinda like the leader of the free world cancelling Colin Kaepernick because his message offended him?
Jez, All valid points. However, free speech says Joe Rogan can be as frivolous or stupid as wrong as he wants to be, within the bounds of the law. Regardless of audience size.
DeleteA telling aspect of this Joe Rogan hysteria, is the fact that all of these people are screaming disinformation and misinformation, but they never provide any examples.
I don't need to tell you, but to counter dangerous disinformation, you first clearly state what that dangerous disinformation is, and then you rebut it. No one is doing that. This is theatrical couch fainting hysterics
Ronald, your comment on Colin Kaepernick is asinine. He has a multi-million dollar commercial deal with Nike, and he basks in public adulation. He speaks out whenever he wants and people listen and he is published and reported on. That is not canceled
DeleteThe complaints I heard about were specific regarding some of his covid guests. From what I have heard, Rogan recognises those criticisms; also he accepts the responsibility associated with his increasing prominence - of course that's a moral point, not a legal one.
DeleteSilverfish, Kaepernick was fired by the 49ers and shunned from the NFL for his messaging.
DeleteWouldn't Whoopie, Rogan, et al have the same options to speak out other than on the platform that fired them?
And on top of that, he had the leader of the U.S. who took the initiative of shutting this famous black United States citizen the hell up.
Ronald Wart,
DeleteHe was fired because he wasn't putting up the numbers.
Can you explain how Trump kept Kap from speaking? I'd love to see some actual examples of where that happened... Because it didn't.
On the other hand, the voters cancelled Donald Trump, and if you are a Trump supporter, you are trash not worthy of a platform in the eyes of pop culture and media.
You really went stupid on this one.
Jez, Rogan comes out and issues his pro-forma "I'm just a dumb jock..."
DeleteMeanwhile, can you provide an example where someone stated what they deemed disinformation along with the quote.
Detractors I have read and seen are short on facts and long on performative histrionics.
No, because I'm not that interested. I know I've heard clips though. And I know that rogan has a wide range of guests.
DeleteSilverfiddle (the above "Silverfish" btw, was an unintended auto spellcheck), to claim Kaepernick was fired and blackballed by the NFL because of his athletic performance is utter nonsense and I suspect you know that.
DeleteNo, Trump's actions and statements didn't produce some gag order or put superglue on Kaepernick's lips so again, you're being intentionally evasive (I can see where the usual "hey, they all do it" wouldn't apply in this case). When a sitting president states live on stage "‘Get that son of a bitch off the field right now, out, he’s fired", that certainly carries some weight with the NFL and its 32 franchise all white owners. It also went out to all athletes to shut up or else.
The point that you skirt around and don't want to confront is that a famous black man was shut down by his employer, the system and "The Man" when they didn't like his message.
In the arguments of encroachments on the freedom of speech or expression, I think the Kaepernick ordeal comes closer than what The View allows or doesn't or Neil Young taking his business elsewhere
If a player can bring the victories, he can beat up the wife/girlfriend, be serially accused of sexual assault (Ben Rothlisberger) and all other bad behavior that doesn't put him in jail.
DeleteRead this to help yourself out:
https://www.sportscasting.com/how-good-was-colin-kaepernick-when-he-left-the-nfl-in-2017/
Ronald, You've regurgitated some rancid leftwing just-so fables, so I'll try to help you back to realityville with some facts.
DeleteThe Superbowl champion Eagles (none of whom kneeled their 2017 superbowl year, but did engage in other forms of protest) continued their demonstrations in 2018 with no evil white owners punishing the poor oppressed millionaire black men.
https://theundefeated.com/features/why-eagles-took-a-different-approach-to-national-anthem-to-start-season/
Kaepernick had already quit when El Donaldo issued his "get that SOB off the field" rant, so your timeline doesn't work.
https://theweek.com/speedreads/726627/trump-kaepernick-that-son-bitch-field
2015-2016 was his worst year on record, and he started his protests the following season, his last.
If Kap had gone 10-1 instead of 1-10, 2016-2017 would not have been his last year, even if he had lit a US flag on fire on the field.
The NFL has left a long string of promising QBs (mostly white) on the junk heap because they didn't perform (win), perhaps most famously, Tim Tebow, who took the Broncos to an AFC West championship, then lost to New Englad. Tebow could not find a home in the NFL. Anti-Christian bias? No. No coach could fit his unorthodox style into their system.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1126774-50-top-college-football-quarterbacks-who-didnt-pan-out-as-pros
So, in summary, Ronald, your argument is incredibly weak. It is evident you have based your embarrassingly incorrect statements on leftwing propaganda rather than your own investigation of the facts. Do you even watch football???
Please Ronald, investigate for yourself before barfing out stupidities, you're embarrassing yourself.
Get your copy of MAUS while rethugs allow it.
ReplyDeleteHave they removed it from Amazon and all booksellers? Has the publisher removed it from sales?
DeleteWait, no. That was progressives throwing Dr Seuss books on the fire.
Weak one, Ducky. I remember when you could really throw a punch. Taking a book off a middle school reading list is a far cry from burning it.
That was Dr. Seuss's publishing firm that threw those books 'on the fire'.
DeleteMost of Dr Seuss' books remain in print, and those that were retired are not IMO his essential works. It's not like kamala harris has got a warrant to confiscate your personal childhood copy of green eggs and ham.
DeleteIf like me you've read to your children from old books, you've probably run across material which has become less appropriate over time (Enid Blighton, I'm looking at you). That's a risk I knowingly accept when I pick up a dusty book, but I'd feel let down by the publisher if I came across eg. an image of an uncomfortable asian stereotype in a newly printed book, especially one which is presented as suitable to be read by an unattended child. As a father with children in that demographic, I am the target audience here; and as a fan of Dr Seuss, but not familiar enough with his catalogue to know which titles to avoid, I appreciate that they've done the work of retiring the problematic ones for me.
But, but, Ayn Rand.........
DeleteI think it was Orwell who observed that self-censorship is the most dangerous form of censorship
DeleteGotta love ducky. He's chairman of the "Middle Schoolers for more Maus" organization!
Delete...e-r-r-r-r. erratum: Mouse.
DeleteQuite frankly, I was a big fan of Comix -underground comics- in the 70s and I read several "Maus" comix. They were obviously the work of someone deeply emotionally disturbed. They were not something that I would encourage a middle schooler to see. Certainly not as required reading.
DeleteOn FJs second link; all I can say is...
DeleteOmpa Ompa Ompa Ompa. :)
I think I've seen that a time or hundred.
Jez, valid point. I don't have a problem with a private publisher making such decisions, and I agree with your comments about content.
ReplyDeleteI brought it up to but duckies comment. This is a common thing here in the US now. A school makes decisions on age appropriate content, and of course there were always be disagreements, but then the screaming left who loves the sensor their enemies, will scream that the school is burning books. Our national dialogue is a nuthouse.
The Zuckerberg "Get Woke Go Broke" business model.
ReplyDeleteAdvice to investors "The Woke Short".
DeleteI'm bullish on Spotify.
DeleteFB was massively overvalued, as is Google etc. They're just advertisers, but they've managed to convince their clients that they can predict their users' shopping choices. It's smoke and mirrors.
DeleteWhereas Spotify is not particularly reliant on advertising. I think you're making a good choice.
DeleteSpotify is very reliant on advertising. During Joe Rogan, you cannot skip past the ads like you can in many other podcasts.
DeleteSure but most of their revenue is from subscriptions.
Delete@jez,
DeleteIn 2020, Spotify made, (in million euros) 7,135 in premium subscriptions and 745 in adds.
Nothing to sneeze at in either case.
Pretty soon you'll be talking real money. I think meta (Facebook) makes well over 90% of its income from ads, and promises their targeted ad customers all sorts of special AI driven insight into their users' mood and preferences (which I don't think they really have).
DeleteAnyone who watches "The View" probably needs to sign up to work in a daycare center. I agree regarding freedom of expression. Whoopi is an obese, aging, fairly average intelligence female, who earns $96,000 a week. What does that say about our society that we care what the hell she thinks from day to day? Who earns that kind of money for being insignificant? sigh
ReplyDelete