Neil Young: "I am not censoring anyone." Spotify: "Except yourself."

[El Paso Eagle]

There are a lot of shows who views I do not share, but I would not like to see any of them shut down. I am pretty sure not many of us are forced to listen to any particular shows against our will.  Seems if were going to embrace the 1st amendment we need to stick up for all sides.

[ADLER]

9 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Joni Mitchell has jumped on the Young's bandwagon.  Another I had forgotten about. 

What gives these geriatric foreigners the right to play cancel-culture f-f games in our country?

Why not instead protest against the 18-wheeler drivers in their own country? 

[Censored by Laurie]

16 hours ago, El Paso Eagle said:

There are a lot of shows who views I do not share, but I would not like to see any of them shut down. I am pretty sure not many of us are forced to listen to any particular shows against our will.  Seems if were going to embrace the 1st amendment we need to stick up for all sides.

the old example used to be can you falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater...basically asking are lies that cause harm considered protected speech? 

[Censored by Laurie]

9 hours ago, ADLER said:

What gives these geriatric foreigners the right to play cancel-culture f-f games in our country?

Why not instead protest against the 18-wheeler drivers in their own country? 

you understand that both Spotify and Covid exist outside the US, right? 

[LongJim]

4 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

the old example used to be can you falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater...basically asking are lies that cause harm considered protected speech? 

This is not a comparable example.

The theatergoers do not control the messenger.  The theatergoers are a captive audience.  They did not freely choose to hear the shout--and in fact, do not want to hear a shout of "fire", because there is possible immediate danger of death or injury.  But they cannot avoid the message.  Based on the undesirable but unavoidable message, they must decide to leave or stay immediately.   

The Spotify listener can decide beforehand whether to listen at his leisure, because he is in no danger of immediate death or injury, and he controls the messenger.  He does have the same option as the theatergoers--leave or stay. 

The Spotify listener is not a captive audience, and makes the choice to listen in the first place.  He does not control the message, but he can avoid it because he controls the messenger.  The theatergoers cannot.

Edited February 1, 2022 by LongJim
Grammar.

[Censored by Laurie]

5 minutes ago, LongJim said:

This is not a comparable example.

The theatergoers do not control the messenger.  The theatergoers are a captive audience.  They did not freely choose to hear the shout--and in fact, do not want to hear a shout of "fire", because there is possible immediate danger of death or injury.  But they cannot avoid the message.  Based on the undesirable but unavoidable message, they must decide to leave or stay immediately.   

The Spotify listener can decide beforehand whether to listen at his leisure, because he is in no danger of immediate death or injury, and he controls the messenger.  He does have the same option at the theatergoers--leave or stay. 

In addition, the Spotify listener is not a captive audience, and makes the choice to listen in the first place.  He does not control the message, but he can avoid it because he controls the messenger.  The theatergoers do not.

I'll grant you it's not an exact apples-to-apples...but our grandfathers didn't have idioms for how to deal with misinformation in a modern age, regrettably. 

however, if you're going to run on the idea that the Spotify listener isn' a captive audience, then I'd reply that neither is the theater-goer...the theater-goer can chose to ignore the shout and remain seated...perhaps 40% of the theater patrons even listen to Joe Rogan's podcast and believe they've built up a "natural immunity" to fire. 

the issue isn't whether the message is avoidable, but whether it's true or not...and if not, what then people do with that information and how it effects society.

I clearly don't listen to Joe Rogan's podcast (and love the irony that the dude who once fed people worms on camera is now a trusted medical advocate to some for de-worming medication), but from what I know I don't believe he is insidiously promoting false information, ala an Alex Jones type...that's why I think I support what Spotify is doing by at least adding disclaimers ahead of his episodes with, let's say, "alternative" medical advice. 

 

[LongJim]

2 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I'll grant you it's not an exact apples-to-apples...but our grandfathers didn't have idioms for how to deal with misinformation in a modern age, regrettably. 

the issue isn't whether the message is avoidable, but whether it's true or not...and if not, what then people do with that information and how it effects society.
 

Yeah, I've never listened to the guy. 

Our grandfathers told us:  "Don't listen to that guy.  He's a fool."  I think that still applies today.  At some point, people have to have some agency in their own lives.

I disagree completely about the actual "issue", but I get where you're coming from.

[Tom McKrackin]

7 minutes ago, LongJim said:

Yeah, I've never listened to the guy. 

BS man.  You can't have owned a radio or heck been in an elevator or grocery store with having heard Heart of Gold at least a couple of times. 

[Cr1028]

48 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I'll grant you it's not an exact apples-to-apples...but our grandfathers didn't have idioms for how to deal with misinformation in a modern age, regrettably. 

however, if you're going to run on the idea that the Spotify listener isn' a captive audience, then I'd reply that neither is the theater-goer...the theater-goer can chose to ignore the shout and remain seated...perhaps 40% of the theater patrons even listen to Joe Rogan's podcast and believe they've built up a "natural immunity" to fire. 

the issue isn't whether the message is avoidable, but whether it's true or not...and if not, what then people do with that information and how it effects society.

I clearly don't listen to Joe Rogan's podcast (and love the irony that the dude who once fed people worms on camera is now a trusted medical advocate to some for de-worming medication), but from what I know I don't believe he is insidiously promoting false information, ala an Alex Jones type...that's why I think I support what Spotify is doing by at least adding disclaimers ahead of his episodes with, let's say, "alternative" medical advice. 

 

Why does it have to be “you can agree with me or you can be wrong”?

I don’t remember seeing Rogan being the voice of medical advice but he has had some “experts” on his show who disagree with the mainstream “experts”.

Obviously, they have a much smaller following than Dr. Fauci but why has it become so paramount to silence the voice of those in the minority?

There was a time where we would allow people to look at the cases made on both sides of an argument and let the individual decide for themselves what they believe is right.

These days it is as if we have to force everyone to have identical beliefs, walk in lockstep, and snuff out any differing views. I find it sad.

I’m not going to go out and take ivermectin (horse dewormer as you refer to it in pejorative terms) or anything but I am not threatened by either set of “experts” expressing their views.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Cr1028

[LongJim]

39 minutes ago, Tom McKrackin said:

BS man.  You can't have owned a radio or heck been in an elevator or grocery store with having heard Heart of Gold at least a couple of times. 

Cinnamon Girl is my jam.

[LongJim]

2 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

There was a time where we would allow people to look at the cases made on both sides of an argument and let the individual decide for themselves what they believe is right.

These days it is as if we have to force everyone to have identical beliefs, walk in lockstep, and snuff out any differing views. I find it sad.

It's un-American.

For me, it boils down to--do you want to be in control of the information you take in and the ability to act on that info as you wish, or do you want someone else to be in control of that information, and what you do with it?

[Censored by Laurie]

4 hours ago, Cr1028 said:

Why does it have to be “you can agree with me or you can be wrong”?

I don’t remember seeing Rogan being the voice of medical advice but he has had some “experts” on his show who disagree with the mainstream “experts”.

Obviously, they have a much smaller following than Dr. Fauci but why has it become so paramount to silence the voice of those in the minority?

There was a time where we would allow people to look at the cases made on both sides of an argument and let the individual decide for themselves what they believe is right.

These days it is as if we have to force everyone to have identical beliefs, walk in lockstep, and snuff out any differing views. I find it sad.

I’m not going to go out and take ivermectin (horse dewormer as you refer to it in pejorative terms) or anything but I am not threatened by either set of “experts” expressing their views.

lots here, but I'm just gonna go with this...

seeking out a "second opinion" does not mean intently going out to find a dissenting opinion...or worse, it does not mean ignoring 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th opinions until you find one that validates your belief. and the reason that "minority" opinions can be dangerous here is that your person decision can have broad effects to other people because covid is an infectious and deadly disease.

if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow and had multiple visits with oncologists who consistently recommended chemotherapy...but you didn't "trust the science"...I promise you could find yourself plenty of "alternative" treatments and you may or may not beat cancer without "mainstream" medicine. but you also can't sneeze and give someone your cancer. in the end that is your decision bc it only affects you. 
 

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

lots here, but I'm just gonna go with this...

seeking out a "second opinion" does not mean intently going out to find a dissenting opinion...or worse, it does not mean ignoring 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th opinions until you find one that validates your belief. and the reason that "minority" opinions can be dangerous here is that your person decision can have broad effects to other people because covid is an infectious and deadly disease.

if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow and had multiple visits with oncologists who consistently recommended chemotherapy...but you didn't "trust the science"...I promise you could find yourself plenty of "alternative" treatments and you may or may not beat cancer without "mainstream" medicine. but you also can't sneeze and give someone your cancer. in the end that is your decision bc it only affects you. 
 

I don’t believe it affects anyone but the person making that healthcare choice. We can agree to disagree on that point but it has been proven that immunization does not eliminate transmissibility as it pertains to covid. Post-infection immunity has been ignored by our medical experts from the beginning which has been a disservice to many Americans. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by Cr1028

[Censored by Laurie]

59 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

I don’t believe it affects anyone but the person making that healthcare choice. 

that's actually a really shocking statement. you're ostensibly denying the existence of the pandemic entirely. 

no...vaccines have not eliminated covid. Salk's polio vaccine was developed in 1952...polio was eradicated in the states by the early 90s. that's not really a realistic bar. the initial vaccines were developed before significant variations in the virus...proven to slow contraction and thus transmissibility...and greatly limit the severity and hospitalizations/deaths. 

Post-infection immunity...so you were that e-vite I got for the covid party back in May 2020? well...you can definitely get covid multiple times...and given the fact that hospitalization and death rates are significantly higher among the unvaccinated, I'd say the idea of promoting some sense of "wild immunity" would be incredibly dangerous. 

[Cr1028]

20 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

that's actually a really shocking statement. you're ostensibly denying the existence of the pandemic entirely. 

no...vaccines have not eliminated covid. Salk's polio vaccine was developed in 1952...polio was eradicated in the states by the early 90s. that's not really a realistic bar. the initial vaccines were developed before significant variations in the virus...proven to slow contraction and thus transmissibility...and greatly limit the severity and hospitalizations/deaths. 

Post-infection immunity...so you were that e-vite I got for the covid party back in May 2020? well...you can definitely get covid multiple times...and given the fact that hospitalization and death rates are significantly higher among the unvaccinated, I'd say the idea of promoting some sense of "wild immunity" would be incredibly dangerous. 

It is uncalled for to suggest I would go out licking doorknobs to get covid. I am talking about people that got the virus before the vaccine was available, not intentionally getting the virus to avoid vaccination. You are being flippant here.

I would never want to dictate whether someone should or should not get vaccinated for covid but I believe to my core that they should be able to make that decision of their own free will and not under duress. It should be treated just as the flu shot is. I also wouldn’t discourage anyone from getting the shot whether it be the flu or covid shot regardless of my own choice.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Cr1028

[Censored by Laurie]

39 minutes ago, Cr1028 said:

It is uncalled for to suggest I would go out licking doorknobs to get covid. I am talking about people that got the virus before the vaccine was available, not intentionally getting the virus to avoid vaccination. You are being flippant here.

I would never want to dictate whether someone should or should not get vaccinated for covid but I believe to my core that they should be able ti o make that decision of their own free will and not under duress. It should be treated just as the flu shot is. I also wouldn’t discourage anyone from getting the shot whether it be the flu or covid shot regardless of my own choice.

my flippancy is directed at society. that you personalized it is still a problem, though. 

maybe you wouldn't try to intentionally catch covid...other people did. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_party
maybe you wouldn't self prescribe hydroxychloquine...other people did. https://www.pharmacypracticenews.com/Covid-19/Article/03-20/Man-Dies-Wife-Hospitalized-From-Ingesting-Fish-Tank-Cleaner-to-Prevent-COVID-19/57707
maybe you wouldn't go to the local Grainger to get Ivermectin...other people did https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/pharmacy/new-mexico-links-2-deaths-to-ivermectin-misuse.html

how about this...what if rather than the flu shot, you attempted to view the covid vaccine more akin to the MMR vaccine...which up until a completely fraudulent paper and celebrity endorsement (seriously, Jenny McCarthy and Joe Rogan are some people's medical canon)...was non-controversial but yet required for enrollment in public schools. 

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:what if rather than the flu shot, you attempted to view the covid vaccine more akin to the MMR vaccine...which up until a completely fraudulent paper and celebrity endorsement (seriously, Jenny McCarthy and Joe Rogan are some people's medical canon)...was non-controversial but yet required for enrollment in public schools. 

I am all for the MMR vaccine because it is highly effective and it isn’t an annual or semi-annual proposition. The covid vaccine matches neither of those statements.

[denton_days]

Joe Rogan has bad opinions and will intentionally put people on his show that spread false information. Here's a recent example of him getting corrected, and not believing it with the facts right in front of him.

 

He's like your friend's older brother growing up who tells you crazy stuff while you're hanging out, except Spotify gave him 100 million dollars, while paying every other artist like poo. 

 

[Cr1028]

1 hour ago, denton_days said:

Joe Rogan has bad opinions and will intentionally put people on his show that spread false information. Here's a recent example of him getting corrected, and not believing it with the facts right in front of him.

 

He's like your friend's older brother growing up who tells you crazy stuff while you're hanging out, except Spotify gave him 100 million dollars, while paying every other artist like poo. 

 

Maybe he is thinking in terms of probability. If the 15 year old gets the covid shot, then they have x probability of getting myocarditis from the vaccination. On the flip side, to determine the 15 year old’s risk of myocarditis from covid you must multiply the probability of getting covid by the probability of getting myocarditis once they get covid.

Example: not real data, the people in group A that choose to get X-shot have a 50% chance to get Y-side effect. Also, the people in group A have a 50% chance of catching the UNT virus without X-shot. Of the people in group A that contract the UNT virus, 50% of those get Y-side effect. In this example, you would have 50% of 50%, or a 25% chance of getting Y-side effect as a member of group A without X-shot. So it would be fair to say that the UNT virus and X-shot lead to Y-side effect at the same rate of 50%. The difference is those with X-shot have a 100% chance of facing that 50% probability while the others only face a 50% chance of facing that 50% probability. I hope that makes sense. I guess to be more precise you’d also have to add in the ones that got x-shot and still got the UNT virus that experienced Y-side effect but I don’t want to go that far.

I haven’t done the numbers on myocarditis and don’t care to, Im just speculating on why he might of thought those numbers didn’t make sense to him.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Cr1028