Who in this thread or any other is advocating stoning (or any official/legal sanction)? All I see is the right to criticize. Who is saying Joe Rogan, or anyone else, doesn’t have the right to say odious things? He certainly does. And I, and many others, have the right to urge Spotify to drop him, collectively or independently or in any other way. Freedom of expression includes our right to criticize Rogan, Spotify, or anyone else, and for any reason at all.
Was he being racist though? And if music theory and being on time is racist then who isn’t racist?
Throughout our history, humanity has progressed in civilization and tolerance. And most of this progress has been a long struggle against entrenched conservative opposition. To suggest that the “censorious scold” is inappropriate when faced with evil ideology is quite ridiculous when we have gone to war to settle such matters in the past.
There is no absolute principle of freedom of expression. You would seek to portray this as the right on the virtuous side of freedom of expression, and the left on the side of censorship. But, in fact, all of us agree that certain ideas are beyond the pale. We just disagree about what constitutes an ideology so evil that it should not be part of civilized discourse. Those on the left, especially the young and idealistic, are not always blameless about where they draw the line. But the principal problem is simply that so many on the right have moved overtly and unashamedly beyond that pale. The problem is not some culture war over freedom of expression, the problem is that so much of U.S. “mainstream” right wing ideology is simply evil and has no place in civilized discourse.
Saying that being around a lot of black people is like going to the Planet of the Apes seems pretty racist to me, yeah.
Liking Ann’s post for its examply-richness.
The cynic’s take on CC/VS: “I want to be a good person. But more importantly I want to be seen as a good person. Visibly good people require there be visibly bad people. So let’s find them!”
I miss Jenna Marbles and Lindsay Ellis, and I’m convinced the clout-grabbing sentiment above is what removed them.
Going way back, big talents like Kingsley Amis, Graham Greene and Saul Bellow were dragged for, essentially becoming cranky old men. Greene deserved it for saying Salmon Rushdie had asked for it. Bellow was put on blast for ignorantly asking “who is the Zulu Shakespeare?” But instead of responding with “glad you asked. Here is an introduction to the richness of Zulu culture,” it was easier to just roll Bellow off the cliff along with his considerable contribution to modern literature.
What do music theory, math, and being on time have to do with cancel culture? Math is a fundamental property of reality, even more fundamental than physics. Being on time is about being courteous to those you have an appointment with. I don’t know enough about music theory to state what it’s about, but I’ve never heard the term associated with cancel culture.
I think it’s a matter of “Do you want to counter rudeness with more rudeness, or with kindness?” For me, it’s sometimes one and other times the other. Bellow was being an asshole in phrasing his question like that, as opposed to “Do cultures I am ignorant of, such as Zulu culture, have their own literary giants, and if so, can you tell me about them?” Seems fair enough to zing him rather than kiss his ass.
That was “Salman” and “Tolstoy,” respectively.
That proofreader’s mug comes in handy when the mod one is on the wash 
The right wing press did their usual head explosions about some article or op-ed piece written somewhere with someone (probably out of context) saying that music theory, etc., reinforces European culture. I vaguely remember some bullshit threads on it here or somewhere.
What is “Buy American” but anti-foreigner cancel culture?
I disagree. I especially disagree with the ridiculous notion that the vast majority of what censorious scolds of the left disagree with is beyond the pale.
Well, obviously we disagree. I was highlighting exactly what we disagree about, and it’s not (principally) some abstract principle of freedom of expression.
Disagreement is just fine! You are free to disagree, as is anyone else. And everyone is free to criticize, including calling for boycotts or even “canceling” (and others are free to comply or not, as they choose). Ain’t freedom of speech grand?
To argue that freedom of expression means that we must engage in civilized discourse however overtly evil the ideology is like arguing that physicists are implementing scientific “cancel culture” if they refuse to engage with Flat Earthers. If you find that civilized people are exercising their freedom by refusing to give you a platform for your ideas or by ignoring you, find better ideas.
“Cancel culture” and “virtue signaling” are both useful concepts, but the right wing has repurposed them as conversational escape hatches.
Cancel culture is a real thing. Someone misspeaks on the internet, and the consequence is to utterly deplatform them, shame them, possibly even cost them their job. Conservatives think that nobody should ever face consequences for speech, while liberals display an alarming lack of concern for the permanence and haphazardness of the cancellation process.
Virtue signaling is a real thing. You speak some fact that’s less about the truth, and more to signal the virtues you hold. Virtue signaling is good, it’s how we get virtue! Liberals tend to overemphasize it over substance. Conservatives use it as an abominably lazy way to discredit people they disagree with, to suggest that they’re more interested in seeming like good people.
Conservatives virtue-signal as much as liberals, maybe even more. They are jealous that most sane people see conservative virtues as vice.
Every thing is open to debate though. Who are you to decide what is civil or not? We are at the point where people can’t comment on music theory not being racist without being professionally sanctioned and that is due to this regressive notion that some people are the ultimate arbiters of civility.
Instead of accusation of blasphemy, witchcraft, or sacrilege the modern zealots have appropriated the notion of virtue or anti-______ism as an excuse to censor, punish, and ostracize any and everybody they wish. And the sad thing is the scolds engage in the very behavior they falsely accuse others of.
So, can I pull my music from Spotify (not that I have any) if they continue to host Rogan? Can I cancel my membership? Can I tell people I’ve canceled my membership? Can I tell people they should cancel theirs?
Which one of those is “encouraging people not to listen to him” (OK) and which one is firing the poor Black factory worker (not OK)?
Why not? Why can’t the pressures of ostracism, intimidation, and financial ruin be employed by anybody? Why not find supporters of a political party you don’t like and make their and their families lives a living hell? It’s not the government doing it so it should be fine.
Who and what are you responding to?
I’m still not clear on your position. Are you saying it’s wrong to criticize Rogan or Spotify? Or that certain criticism is wrong? Or that it’s wrong for musicians to criticize them? Or wrong for musicians to stop business with Spotify? If not any of that, what are you saying?