We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple. Now you don’t dare say something that could potentially offend someone.
I could be fired if I said what I really think about some controversial issues and linked it to my identity. That’s not a world I enjoy living in.
Make of that what you will.
Now what I've been wondering after hearing that advice multiple times is: What do Americans talk about at dinner and other occasions? Because here political issues is about half of a typical dinner conversation, the other half being recounting recent news and events. Even most of the jokes we make are political... I probably wouldn't know what to talk about.
Here's a post about it: https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/nev...
This advice is more about protecting Europeans from an uncomfortable experience on vacation because of exposure to political views they will find objectionable, than about some fundamental inability to talk about politics in the U.S.
Though calling political views you disagree with "objectionable" as in "offensive" is starting on the wrong foot already. You can't convince someone of your POV by acting offended.
I have a few fun colleagues that tell jokes all the time. If they get fired for this, I'm instantly quitting.
I'll grant you that social media and current climate created a new phenomenon of "mob justice" for inappropriate opinions or comments, but in the opposite direction people are less afraid of management/ownership than they were before (the victims of which are sometimes today's mob).
I'm genuinely interested to know what the net result is.
I'm not trying to negate your experience. I'm just adding context about other people's experience in a recent past.
Here's my anecdote. I look back at films from the 80s and 90s where free speech was discussed or otherwise a component of the plot. It was unthinkable to censor thoughts, or allow the government to spy and collect data on the citizens.
Both of these notions seem to have disappeared.
Regardless, information is shared as such a rate now that comparing them to anecdotes from the 80s isn't even applicable. I'd have trouble believing a radio talk show host from the 80s would host self-proclaimed neo nazis like Joe Rogan has. If anything, speech is so free now that we see opinions that wouldn't have seen the light of day a few decades ago. Which is why content hosters are having to tackle the question of what they allow, and hopefully they make the right decision.
BTW, who are those millions you want to protect? Are you afraid otherwise sensible people will be infected by some opinions expressed on media? Isn't this a bit paternalistic?
It's better to fight the enemy in the open field; let's have people talk and show who they are and what they actually mean by what they say. Let's criticize what is wrong with what they say and not just said by somebody that got lumped together in the same camp. Let's have an open a tolerant society, in which intolerance itself is exposed for what it is openly and not given ammunition by being intolerant of any people.
You're coming at this based on the idea that everyone is rational and sensible and (re)evaluates their views based on logic. Our brains don't work like that; literally all it takes for someone to warm up to an idea is being repeatedly exposed to it [4], and that's before you even get into things like confirmation bias/pleas to emotion/peer pressure/etc.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/study-finds-reddits-contro...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/04/technology/alex-jones-inf...
[3] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/bjbp9d/do-social-media-ba...
And yeah, it sucks that people on the margins of that such as sex workers get hurt, which is why we need to push to change those stigmas. But the alternative is letting open pedophiles teach your kids, or asking Jews to defeat their genocide-preaching Nazi coworkers in the “marketplace of ideas”. So all things considered it’s a fair trade.
Of course not. Media and narratives matter. Fascism has succeeded in the past at murdering millions of people. There is no fundamental reason why it couldn't happen again.
Letting people talking about things even if we don't like them, doesn't mean suddenly you have to bend to their narrative and make them control all of the media. But you should return the favour and not fully control the media too.
And I'm saying you should speak to some historians about this claim.
Always interesting that stifling the fascists and Nazis is so popular* but no one ever mentions the ongoing need to silence the communists, who are in the same "ideology with a 7-figure body count" category. Why is that?
*Also in thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24515338
> "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers".
This fear of saying the wrong thing seems to say a lot more about the expanding reach of both corporations and individuals (and for individuals, the growing scale of memetic behavior) rather than some change in attitude towards free speech.
> We have lost our minds: the ability to freely and discuss literally any topic was an American staple.
On Spotify specifically, though? I don’t remember a time in America when I was getting paid to post whatever I felt like saying into a microphone to Spotify.
He has that. He's free to post whatever he wants on his website where many people will see it.
Sex, breasts, swearwords? As far as I can remember the American staple was and is to bleep every fucking thing that could potentially be connected to a nipple.
I mean, Joe signed the contract and choosing what to exclude was more than likely discussed in negotiations, or even written into the contract. He opted to take this route.
Now, I don't know what you actually believe, but it's worth noting that you currently have all the free speech you want and have always had. What you're arguing for is free speech AND no consequences, which isn't and was never guaranteed.
I don't really disagree with your specific example (or that there have always been things that you can't really say in america), but in general it's a shitty way for the world to work. we should seek to change it.
If somebody's going to commit an act of violence based on a radio host's statements then they already have serious issues, and it's only a matter of time before something sets them off.
At various times in the history of the US specifically, but analogues exist in most other places, you could have been fired or otherwise pariah'ed for:
Freely discussing the conditions and rights of laborers
Discussing political ideologies like communism
Discussing various sects of Christian belief
Discussing Non-Christian beliefs
Being for or against political popular movements
Being against police authority
Discussing or demonstrating opposition to wars
Simply being one of a set of ethnicities
Being, or discussing, being gay
Being, or discussing, being an atheist
While I personally think that Joe Rogan's podcast, the conversations of a pedestrian comedian and self-professed moron who sometimes lands interesting guests, is a strange hill for Spotify to be fighting on, there was no time in US history that such "unfortunate and unacceptable" events weren't happening.
McCarthyism and the blacklisting of many otherwise wealthy entertainers is usually the textbook case of this and that is within living memory. This sickness is rooted deeply in American culture, and we only think there was some reprieve due to the academic freedoms and immense prosperity of a post-WW2 boom era that ended 40 years ago, followed by a brief period of online semi-anonymous expression that lasted until around 2000 when the great masses finally found it and brought it back to the baseline awfulness of the rest of the culture
He does. Nobody forced him to choose a contract with Spotify.
He does: he can put up his own website and host his videos. No company is required to host and promote his content if they don't agree with it.