|
|
Post by tinpot on Jan 14, 2022 18:20:43 GMT
Personally I'm more fucked off about Starbursts not being called Opal Fruits any more.
|
|
|
|
Post by foxtrot777 on Jan 14, 2022 18:30:55 GMT
Personally I'm more fucked off about Starbursts not being called Opal Fruits any more. Marathons to Snickers was bad enough can't believe it's 30 years since they changed names. |
|
|
|
Post by tinpot on Jan 14, 2022 18:31:22 GMT
They have indeed and its mystifying. Must account for such a small proportion of the population but their influence and power is incredible nowadays. Literally everyone kow tows to them including politicians, the police, the army, businesses, sports, media, celebs... We live in an environment of fear akin to what it must have been like under medieval religious intolerance 600 years ago. You wont be burned at the stake anymore for ( woke ) heresy , but your career and reputation will be. Don't you think though that what you're saying proves my point? There's really nothing new under the Sun. There has always been a form of political correctness around that can ruin or kill you if you cross it. It might be driven by the King, the Lord of your manor, the factory owner or liberals in academia with nothing better to do. But some group or other always shuffles its way to the top & starts to make a lot of noise about something & threatens those who don't comply. I think what is different this time over & above other times is that this kind of agenda has arisen from a broad background of free speech. In the past, if I was a peasant & put a message on whatever the equivalent of Middle Ages Facebook was saying Lord McBastard has upset me by stealing my cabbages, I wouldn't get 100 likes & an apology from My Lord. In truth, we are (if anything) experiencing the consequences of a century or so whereby free speech was broadly the norm & 40 or 50 years where our law-makers have been influenced to some extent by moral drivers as well as political expediency or vested interest. If you like, what we actually have is free speech on acid. So all that our Professor of Finding Nasty Words has done is to exercise her free speech. Either people agree with her, raise they eyes at her or disagree with her. The fact that we can all moan about it in a very public environment shows that there is no threat to free speech. I suspect that many people with dwarfism would say to your face that they don't like that word. If, for example, there had been a black chewy sweet in the 50s called n**ger gems or something, that name would have quietly changed a long time ago. I don't deny it's a tricky issue, & every time something like this crops up there is a Pavlovian response. I also think that there are people who are actively seeking out issues for public attention & that probably a lot of people with dwarfism might never have given a second thought to what the sweets are called. Many maybe even joked about it. Until I hear from a wider group of people, it still seems to me to be more about attention-seeking & less about language, and I remain worried about erosion of language in the wider sense, but I suppose time will tell.
I broadly agree with you (& for all my facetious comments about Opal Fruits I genuinely don't think the changing of the name of a brand of mass produced confectionery is a big story in itself.). Intolerance of alternative views is nothing new, and probably just a (regrettable - imo) part of the human condition. I suppose my own take on this is that against a background of (relative) freedom of speech being the norm, regardless of what went on in the middle ages we're seeing something that we've only ever known in our lifetimes being eroded. To see that tolerance, empathy, kindness & respect being flushed away in the name of tolerance, empathy, kindness & respect (ironic, eh?) is incredibly jarring & actually quite frightening. From my own perpective, for all that I can be quite "vocal" on here - in real life or on any forums where I can be identified (e.g. Facebook) I now keep my views to myself. The backlash & venom just isn't worth the grief. Of course, silencing alternative opinions means that people only ever hear one side of the story. I wonder what George Orwell would make of it all. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Jan 15, 2022 10:45:21 GMT
Don't you think though that what you're saying proves my point? There's really nothing new under the Sun. There has always been a form of political correctness around that can ruin or kill you if you cross it. It might be driven by the King, the Lord of your manor, the factory owner or liberals in academia with nothing better to do. But some group or other always shuffles its way to the top & starts to make a lot of noise about something & threatens those who don't comply. I think what is different this time over & above other times is that this kind of agenda has arisen from a broad background of free speech. In the past, if I was a peasant & put a message on whatever the equivalent of Middle Ages Facebook was saying Lord McBastard has upset me by stealing my cabbages, I wouldn't get 100 likes & an apology from My Lord. In truth, we are (if anything) experiencing the consequences of a century or so whereby free speech was broadly the norm & 40 or 50 years where our law-makers have been influenced to some extent by moral drivers as well as political expediency or vested interest. If you like, what we actually have is free speech on acid. So all that our Professor of Finding Nasty Words has done is to exercise her free speech. Either people agree with her, raise they eyes at her or disagree with her. The fact that we can all moan about it in a very public environment shows that there is no threat to free speech. I suspect that many people with dwarfism would say to your face that they don't like that word. If, for example, there had been a black chewy sweet in the 50s called n**ger gems or something, that name would have quietly changed a long time ago. I don't deny it's a tricky issue, & every time something like this crops up there is a Pavlovian response. I also think that there are people who are actively seeking out issues for public attention & that probably a lot of people with dwarfism might never have given a second thought to what the sweets are called. Many maybe even joked about it. Until I hear from a wider group of people, it still seems to me to be more about attention-seeking & less about language, and I remain worried about erosion of language in the wider sense, but I suppose time will tell.
I broadly agree with you (& for all my facetious comments about Opal Fruits I genuinely don't think the changing of the name of a brand of mass produced confectionery is a big story in itself.). Intolerance of alternative views is nothing new, and probably just a (regrettable - imo) part of the human condition. I suppose my own take on this is that against a background of (relative) freedom of speech being the norm, regardless of what went on in the middle ages we're seeing something that we've only ever known in our lifetimes being eroded. To see that tolerance, empathy, kindness & respect being flushed away in the name of tolerance, empathy, kindness & respect (ironic, eh?) is incredibly jarring & actually quite frightening. From my own perpective, for all that I can be quite "vocal" on here - in real life or on any forums where I can be identified (e.g. Facebook) I now keep my views to myself. The backlash & venom just isn't worth the grief. Of course, silencing alternative opinions means that people only ever hear one side of the story. I wonder what George Orwell would make of it all.We can't say he didn't warn us. |
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Jan 31, 2022 12:26:54 GMT
It's sad to see people trying to cancel Rogan. It's wrong. He's a beacon for free speech, hence his incredible success.
|
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Jan 31, 2022 15:12:08 GMT
Joni Mitchel and Neil Young used to be a bit anti-establishment didnt they?
As far as I know this Rogan bloke has merely said that healthy young people dont need the vaccine for their own health benefits.
Other than that he accepts them being vaccinated is to help stop the spread to older or frail people who are vulnerable.
So im not sure what he's said thats wrong anyway. Hes just stating a fact as far as Im concerned.
But even if you think he is wrong, what has happened to the world where he now hasn't got the right to say it??
At least those privacy seeking, hide away from publicity royals , Harry and Megan have stated that theyre still prepared to take $75m from Spotify for their 'story' , though they will be having a quiet word about all this Rogan thing to them first apparently.
I loath the way these spineless, gutless celebs and artists feel the need to be seen to fall in behind this censorship for fear of falling foul of the thought police.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deep Space on Jan 31, 2022 15:54:38 GMT
Joni Mitchel and Neil Young used to be a bit anti-establishment didnt they? As far as I know this Rogan bloke has merely said that healthy young people dont need the vaccine for their own health benefits. Other than that he accepts them being vaccinated is to help stop the spread to older or frail people who are vulnerable. So im not sure what he's said thats wrong anyway. Hes just stating a fact as far as Im concerned. But even if you think he is wrong, what has happened to the world where he now hasn't got the right to say it?? At least those privacy seeking, hide away from publicity royals , Harry and Megan have stated that theyre still prepared to take $75m from Spotify for their 'story' , though they will be having a quiet word about all this Rogan thing to them first apparently. I loath the way these spineless, gutless celebs and artists feel the need to be seen to fall in behind this censorship for fear of falling foul of the thought police. I have slightly mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I completely agree that he has every right to say whatever he thinks if he believes it to be true, but on the other I'm not convinced that everyone always has an exactly equal right to be broadcast on equivalent terms, especially when (& I know plenty of people will jump down my throat on this) the established, mainstream science points to that position as potentially being dangerous.
To use perhaps a slightly less contentious example, evolution is broadly accepted by the vast majority of scientists who have studied it as being a viable & realistic explanation of...well...evolution. But the religious lobbies in some parts of America (& it's not unheard of here) want the biblical explanation given at least equivalent time in schools & elsewhere. They have a very vocal (a sort of woke equivalent we might say) lobby demanding this. Likewise, & not entirely unconnected, Flat Earthers have demanded equivalence for their, in truth, easily disproved beliefs.
So I don't know really...I don't want free speech curtailing but nor do I want to see anything that could put lives at risk.
And please don't turn this into another covid thread!
|
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Jan 31, 2022 16:00:26 GMT
Joni Mitchel and Neil Young used to be a bit anti-establishment didnt they? As far as I know this Rogan bloke has merely said that healthy young people dont need the vaccine for their own health benefits.Other than that he accepts them being vaccinated is to help stop the spread to older or frail people who are vulnerable. So im not sure what he's said thats wrong anyway. Hes just stating a fact as far as Im concerned. But even if you think he is wrong, what has happened to the world where he now hasn't got the right to say it?? At least those privacy seeking, hide away from publicity royals , Harry and Megan have stated that theyre still prepared to take $75m from Spotify for their 'story' , though they will be having a quiet word about all this Rogan thing to them first apparently. I loath the way these spineless, gutless celebs and artists feel the need to be seen to fall in behind this censorship for fear of falling foul of the thought police. I don't think he actually said that, other than to maybe clarify what the person he was interviewing had to say. That person being Dr Malone, the guy credited with inventing (or at least playing a very big part in) the invention of mRNA vaccines. Malone is pro-vaccine, what with being an expert on them, but voiced his opinion that the vaccines were intended for vulnerable groups. This is considered controversial by the true believers. Rogan is successful precisely because he allows his guests to talk, and asks them intelligent open-ended questions. He interviews people from a wide variety of backgrounds, from mainstream guys like Brian Cox, to UFO guys like Bob Lazar. Just the very thought of censoring him his beyond the pale, and I have no time for anyone who offers support for it, tacit or otherwise. |
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Jan 31, 2022 16:34:37 GMT
Joni Mitchel and Neil Young used to be a bit anti-establishment didnt they? As far as I know this Rogan bloke has merely said that healthy young people dont need the vaccine for their own health benefits.Other than that he accepts them being vaccinated is to help stop the spread to older or frail people who are vulnerable. So im not sure what he's said thats wrong anyway. Hes just stating a fact as far as Im concerned. But even if you think he is wrong, what has happened to the world where he now hasn't got the right to say it?? At least those privacy seeking, hide away from publicity royals , Harry and Megan have stated that theyre still prepared to take $75m from Spotify for their 'story' , though they will be having a quiet word about all this Rogan thing to them first apparently. I loath the way these spineless, gutless celebs and artists feel the need to be seen to fall in behind this censorship for fear of falling foul of the thought police. I don't think he actually said that, other than to maybe clarify what the person he was interviewing had to say. That person being Dr Malone, the guy credited with inventing (or at least playing a very big part in) the invention of mRNA vaccines. Malone is pro-vaccine, what with being an expert on them, but voiced his opinion that the vaccines were intended for vulnerable groups. This is considered controversial by the true believers. Rogan is successful precisely because he allows his guests to talk, and asks them intelligent open-ended questions. He interviews people from a wide variety of backgrounds, from mainstream guys like Brian Cox, to UFO guys like Bob Lazar. Just the very thought of censoring him his beyond the pale, and I have no time for anyone who offers support for it, tacit or otherwise. I understood that was the gist of it. Seems like thats the gist of what this Malone thinks too. But its not exactly outlandish nonsense is it, even if you dont agree with it... not if we're comparing it to say flat earthers or creationists . Its ironic thats its just the sort of anti-establishment viewpoint that the likes of Mitchel and Young would have been fully behind when they were at their prime,.. if not the content, the right to platform it. We've gone so far backwards over freedoms of speech that censorship is actually 'cool' now. Doubt even Orwell would have imagined that! |
|
|
|
Post by chedtippington on Jan 31, 2022 16:37:31 GMT
Spotify paid rogan 100 million that's there choice. Neil Young took his songs down thats his choice people will choose if they want to keep using Spotify and Spotify will make decisions based on their bank ballance that's not censoring its a free market isn't it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Jan 31, 2022 16:42:09 GMT
the efforts to get Spotify to take this Rogan bloke off their platform is censorship though. Well an attempt at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by chedtippington on Jan 31, 2022 16:49:56 GMT
If they feel bad about people who they think are killing people they have the right to take there music somewhere else that's free choice isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by captslapper on Jan 31, 2022 18:10:14 GMT
It is. Accept that.
Personbally think its an attempt to put pressure on Spotify to ditch this rogan bloke. But maybe Im looking at it wrong and its just a protest on their part.
|
|
|
|
Post by londontown on Jan 31, 2022 18:42:45 GMT
the efforts to get Spotify to take this Rogan bloke off their platform is censorship though. Well an attempt at it. This is about Cancel Culture, plain and simple. It's another pile on to silence those some do not agree with. Freedom of speech is about defending the rights of others to speak their minds, whether you agree with them or not. Furthermore, the controversial guests in question are unquestionably experts in their respective medical fields. Joe Rogan is not killing or endangering anybody, despite what some loons attempt to infer. |
|
|
|
Post by Wilsonwilson on Jan 31, 2022 19:09:32 GMT
|
|
