Conversation

These artists have a right to remove content in protest. But make no mistake, their intent is to force Spotify to censor Joe Rogan so that you and I can no longer choose for ourselves whether to listen. They’re on the wrong side of history. Truth persuades. It doesn’t coerce.

3,093

17.2K

91.4K

Aella

@Aella_Girl

Replying to

@BretWeinstein

I assume there are 'some' circumstances where you would consider it good to boycott something you disagree with, if you found that thing sufficiently horrific? Or rather, where you would find coercion (in the sense of boycotting) a better option than persuasion?

6:29 PM · Jan 29, 2022

Replying to

Sure. But the idea of boycotting to shut down discussion is, to me, absolutely upside-down. In any case where a boycott is warranted, open discussion is vital.

417

Show replies

Replying to

and

"sufficiently horrific"... care to describe what's "sufficiently horrific" to you and how is it reason enough for censorship... and how is it any different from the classic emotional blackmailing known as "cancel culture"? Because I don't see any boycott here.

Show replies

Atticus_of_Amber

Replying to

and

Isn't someone giving up an income stream rather than be associated with dangerous disinformation a form or persuasion?

Replying to

and

I feel like a direct boycott (I won't associate) is much more ethically defensible than an indirect one (I won't associate with those who do). That is, Neil Young not going on Rogan instead of demanding Spotify deplatform him.

Show additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content

Show