Re:Spotify deletes 70 Joe Rogan episodes
by dns_snek on Saturday February 05, 2022 @04:51AM
(#30219569)
> What is free speech denialism?
Belief that opposing viewpoints don't deserve to be protected under free speech (excluding the obvious, like inciting violence).
> Propaganda hae nothing to do with free speech, and hasn't really moved either way (there's as much as there was before).
I don't have any numbers to back it up, but even if it's not more common, it's certainly more impactful with all of the "wrongthink" being silenced.
> Overt racism, antivax anti-science shouldn't be excused with free speech
Your second claim is more interesting, because I keep seeing people repeat the claims that Joe Rogan is "antivax & anti-science". Keep in mind, I don't follow his podcast, but I watched the full episode with Robert Malone after the social media outcry started.
The conclusion that I came to is that he's not "anti-science" - that would imply that he doesn't believe in the scientific method. What people really mean when they say that he's anti-science is that he came to different conclusions than they did after considering the evidence (or lack thereof), therefore he's wrong, and since his critics view themselves as "pro-science", Joe must be anti-science.
But whether or not he's wrong, it doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. If you do believe that he's wrong, call him out publicly, write a blog post detailing why he's wrong, record your own podcast and debunk any claims he or his guests made, with evidence. Be the opposing voice and present rational counter-arguments.
Bad research gets published all the time and "science" is not some singular entity that only consists of homogeneous ideas, and that's not even taking into account all of the conflicts of interest that exist for the pharma industry in publishing research that stands to make them $billions.
This is why it's important to allow an open and free discussion of opposing viewpoints, it's the only way of advancing human knowledge and widespread acceptance of your ideas in an open and free society. Censoring someone because you disagree with them is not going to change their (or their viewers') mind.
> which doesn't in any way impact wether or not and who can criticise what
If I risk getting censored, "cancelled", having my livelihood taken away for voicing my opposing views (which aren't violent nor bigoted, just a simple disagreement on the topic of scientific research), I would argue that very much impacts who can criticize what.
Belief that opposing viewpoints don't deserve to be protected under free speech (excluding the obvious, like inciting violence).
> Propaganda hae nothing to do with free speech, and hasn't really moved either way (there's as much as there was before).
I don't have any numbers to back it up, but even if it's not more common, it's certainly more impactful with all of the "wrongthink" being silenced.
> Overt racism, antivax anti-science shouldn't be excused with free speech
Your second claim is more interesting, because I keep seeing people repeat the claims that Joe Rogan is "antivax & anti-science". Keep in mind, I don't follow his podcast, but I watched the full episode with Robert Malone after the social media outcry started.
The conclusion that I came to is that he's not "anti-science" - that would imply that he doesn't believe in the scientific method. What people really mean when they say that he's anti-science is that he came to different conclusions than they did after considering the evidence (or lack thereof), therefore he's wrong, and since his critics view themselves as "pro-science", Joe must be anti-science.
But whether or not he's wrong, it doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech. If you do believe that he's wrong, call him out publicly, write a blog post detailing why he's wrong, record your own podcast and debunk any claims he or his guests made, with evidence. Be the opposing voice and present rational counter-arguments.
Bad research gets published all the time and "science" is not some singular entity that only consists of homogeneous ideas, and that's not even taking into account all of the conflicts of interest that exist for the pharma industry in publishing research that stands to make them $billions.
This is why it's important to allow an open and free discussion of opposing viewpoints, it's the only way of advancing human knowledge and widespread acceptance of your ideas in an open and free society. Censoring someone because you disagree with them is not going to change their (or their viewers') mind.
> which doesn't in any way impact wether or not and who can criticise what
If I risk getting censored, "cancelled", having my livelihood taken away for voicing my opposing views (which aren't violent nor bigoted, just a simple disagreement on the topic of scientific research), I would argue that very much impacts who can criticize what.