Sounds like something a dictator would say to ban free speech
Joe Rogan and Spotify
- Thread starter antijoke
- Start date
Sounds like something a dictator would say to ban free speech
Yeah it probably did come across like that so I apologise if it did.
then put forward a better argument ... it's too late the damage is done
if people had put forward evidence on Saville would have been fine to discuss it.
on health critical subjects, if contradictory facts are known, which are not disclosed, yes ....... that was Brand's argument ?
if people had put forward evidence on Saville would have been fine to discuss it.
No, it's the right thing to bloody do !!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Free speech doesn't mean people should be immune from criticism. Cant see the issue with labelling something as potentially peddling misinformation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 8,955
Very. The same scientists who were vocal in denying lab leak theory were discussing it privately as a possible smoking gun. The concept that somehow Big Tech, NGO's or Government can be relied on to have an authorative truth is is contrary to the last 200 years of democratic progress and the 4th Estate has been a major element in holding power to account. I don't approve of limiting that in what would likely be a highly partisan way. The consensus view is often out their for anyone to hear it's not like dissenting views hold a monopoly on dissemination.
Most probably but Neil Young is a bit strange considering how quickly he struck up a deal with Amazon
Leftists with TDS don't work like that, they cannot be rational in a discussion.
You're changing the argument, no one is against criticism, if you want to criticise the content of Joe Rogan's podcast then start a discussion. What you want to do is label speech as "misinformation" and effectively cancel/deplatform people you perceive to be guilty of doing it, when pointed out that something can be misinformation today and fact next week you say "oh well that's not the case most of the time", like it's difficult to debate with people who are so uneducated they don't understand the value of free speech despite 20th century history being quite clear on why it's important
society has a duty of care for the vulnerable is something you think a dictator would say. Jesus.
If we were actually talking about caring for the vulnerable then that might be a bit different. When used as an excuse to curb free speech it's less acceptable.
nobody is using it to curb free speech.
They are all still butt-hurt over POTUS 45 and now need a fresh target.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,381
- Location
- ST4
Most probably but Neil Young is a bit strange considering how quickly he struck up a deal with Amazon
Ironic really, especially when you take into account that the people that own his music are responsible for some serious deforestation of the Amazon.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
“a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
Even more true today, people shouldn't have to be debating misinformation.
Even with debate and debunking people still believe the lies.....stolen US election, vaccine guff, 350 million a week....
Even more true today, people shouldn't have to be debating misinformation.
Even with debate and debunking people still believe the lies.....stolen US election, vaccine guff, 350 million a week....
Society can do much better to care for the vulnerable let’s be honest it’s not about the elderly or homelessness, it was implied that the more intelligent of fella need to guide the dim witted and gullible aka Rogan and Brand viewership 
.
.Could you just not reply to my posts unless you have something constructive to say