Of Phil Donahue and Joe Rogan: Leaning into the Shrug and Carrying On

Jennifer Worrel

Jennifer Worrel is a transplant from the Great Plains raising two sons and a husband in Metro Atlanta. Extremely likable until you get to know her, she remains a great invite to a dinner party. She prefers peeing in the woods to peeing on private planes and was once told by her husband that she is “way funnier online.” Writes about whatever interests her, she knows a little about a lot. For fun, she enjoys cooking from scratch and watching old Milton Friedman videos on YouTube. Jennifer's thoughts are her own and do not represent the views or position of any firm or affiliate she is lucky enough to associate with.

Related Post Roulette

214 Responses

  1. Eric Cramer
    Ignored
    says:

    Let’s not mince words. Joe Rogan and the platforming controversy are about the fact that Joe Rogan doesn’t toe the liberal line politically. He’s a libertarian. If he kotowed to the left as Howard Stern does, there would be little or no controversy.
    John McWhorter of the New York Time had an interesting column this week in which he pointed out that there is a difference between using “the N-word” and MENTIONING the N-word, and that difference used to make a difference when commentators, of any hue, voiced the word.
    It is one thing when a Klansmen or other racist uses the word as a way of diminishing other human beings in the name of racism. It is another when it is offered as a negative example. The actor Vigo Mortenson accidentally stumbled into this same sort of controversy when he said, “For example, no one say (N-word) anymore.” He wasn’t using the word, he was mentioning it.
    The inability to mention it also extends to quotations whether those quotations are from Shakespeare (not the N-word bout its Elizabethan equivalent), Mark Twain, Harper Lee, the comedy of Richard Prior, and rap music. Can a non-African-American quote any of these things, all of which contain the offensive noun — or do we have to “deplatform” all of them in the name of some sort of linguistic impurity?
    This may simply be a symptom of more polarized times and with good fortune eventually calmer heads will prevaila and we will settle into a new normal. Despite a large-ish hue and cry on the topic in the ’60s and ’70s, “miss and Mrs.” didn’t die out completely with the introduction of “Ms.,” and now everyone is accustomed to what was once a fairly controversial usage. We never had to excise “Mrs.” from books, movies and other venues.
    Of course, “Mrs.,” lacks the history of slavery, but it does include a history of sexism that remains deplored and deplorable. And of course no one knows what the new normal will look like. We can hope it doesn’t eliminate every reference to the racist (not by the standard of their times) founding fathers, doesn’t erase key pieces of American culture (Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird) and has some concept of reasonable free speech — and the concept that one shouldn’t seek offense if no offense is being offered.Report

  2. Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    Well said.Report

  3. DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    “[I]t tricks people into assuming everything they’re presented with is legitimate simply because its presented…”

    The same idea about how if you don’t teach children about self-defense then nobody will ever attack them.

    The reason that so many people are worried about “debating” being “platforming” is that they have recognized how they are actually not good at debate and worry that they can’t make a decent showing against an opponent. They’re too used to playing in a hugbox, too used to clapter, too used to seeing a thousand likes on the tweets that use the right words, and don’t remember that sometimes there are people who don’t think that a crying female-presenting person is always right.Report

    • dhex in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      a larger question here is about asking what the function of debate actually is – at least as envisioned by the speaker. debate can be about any number of things (again, as understood by the speaker):

      – an attempt to arrive at a greater understanding of a topic via dialogue
      – an attempt to win over converts to one’s view by being more persuasive than one’s opponent
      – a sort of psychosexual pugilism in which to hurl verbal abuse at each other (e.g. vidal + buckley)
      – a formalized method of argumentation (e.g. debate clubs)
      – a misdirection designed to launder unwholesome ideas in a flurry of words

      this last one is a very popular definition of the moment, but is only invoked in the negative. but why?

      I think it’s because everyone can easily launder their media intake, and even epistemic (woot woot) scope, via our devices. there are entire controversies/”controversies” which are driven – or ignored – by constituents outside of the intended audiences. and then tend to be used within other bubbles/scopes/epistemic stances/whatever as an example of the perfidy and generally evil-ness of the other – and are often culture war style clickbaity routines, and much more rarely an actual essay or investigation of some kind. (a classic example is drag queen story hour, but you can find all sorts across various fields of reality-experiencing.)

      as such, exposure to contrary ideas (of various degrees of offensiveness) in a non-formalized context (e.g. rather than “these people are bad and this is why” they’d get from their own filters) it’s very destabilizing.politics replacing religion means that the morality assigned to each action and reaction takes on new realms of identity and worth.

      add this to the entirely broken theory of mind – something which i continue to shout about because in large part because it both explains and prolongs the contamination model of information competition which has become the dominant public understanding of the world as we all become cyborgs (of a sort). if you hold a debate, and a bad person with bad ideas shows up, because you have a contamination (or harm+contamination) model as your understanding of how people absorb information, you are going to be much more worried that someone (who is stupid) will hear these bad persons with bad ideas and become converted over to the side of evil (because they are stupid and possibly also latently evil themselves).

      basically, remember how in the 80 and 90s kids was going to be made gay by popular culture not being butch enough? (now they’ll be made trans, or white nationalists, or trans white nationalists e.g. the centrist solution) yeah, that dumb model – but for every possible information interaction.Report

  4. InMD
    Ignored
    says:

    I think the unstated aspect here is the spineless nature of corporate and public institutional America. If I owned Spotify I’d look at people like Neil Young and just laugh. I think demands for various deplatformings are lamentable but also just sort of a fact of life in the marketplace of ideas. It’s the absurd levels of deference given to various paper tigers by people with absolutely no reason to do so that blows air into the sparks.Report

  5. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    It is only a matter of time before Neil Young’s statements, behavior, and past associations offend someone. While Young is at best guilty of situational inconsistency, he’s at worst advocating for the marketplace of ideas to be cleansed of ideas he personally finds intolerable.

    You are aware of all the bills currently underway in Republican’s state legislatures that seek to ban teaching anything to kids that “might” cause them discomfort? If you really support thoughtful engaged debate then, yes, the Joe Rogan debate is a complete misdirection.

    I think that is what I miss: the restraint of my upbringing and a decades-gone society. The ability to resist weighing in with agreement, condemnation, outrage, or judgement, and discovering a certain virtue through apathy.

    That same period of restraint saw women, Blacks, Hispanics, and LGBTQ+ people treated – at best – as second class citizens. That restraint allowed racism, sexism, misogyny and whole host of other moral degradations to grow and flourish in the US. That restraint laid the foundations for today’s growing anti-democratic crisis in the US precisely because not all opinions, beliefs or experiences had an equal seat at the table. Back in that day you, as a woman, wouldn’t have been encouraged, much less platformed, to write opinion pieces.

    We can’t and shouldn’t, stuff that genie back into any bottle.Report

    • Eric Cramer in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      Well said.Report

    • Brandon Berg in reply to Philip H
      Ignored
      says:

      You are aware of all the bills currently underway in Republican’s state legislatures that seek to ban teaching anything to kids that “might” cause them discomfort?

      Once again, I’ve read several of these bills, and none of them specify any such thing. If there is such a bill, cite the state, bill number, and the text of the relevant clause.Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Brandon Berg
        Ignored
        says:

        The problem with these bills is that they hardly “specify” anything at all. They are deliberately vague, and, if enacted, will be all the more effective for it.Report

        • dhex in reply to CJColucci
          Ignored
          says:

          so philip is shorthanding the bill contents in a way that’s mildly misleading, as the provisio tends to be formulated as “no one will be made to feel uncomfortable, guilty, uneasy, etc etc etc *because of* their race, sex, religion” etc.

          now, these are still inane things to put in fundamentally flawed bills concerning education for any number of reasons, most of which exist outside of partisan desires or ideological demands.Report

          • Brandon Berg in reply to dhex
            Ignored
            says:

            Every bill I’ve read stipulates that teachers may not be teach that individuals should feel guilt/discomfort/whatever on account of race or sex. The “should” is key, because it’s a restriction on preaching of norms rather than on teaching of facts.

            Philip’s claim about this clause is more than mildly misleading. Eliding the “should” allows him to smuggle in the claim that it’s a prohibition on teaching facts, which is much easier to criticize than a prohibition on preaching norms. This is a fairly consistent pattern I’ve seen from the media, activists, and a handful of the regulars here.

            I’m not sure I agree with the claim that the provisions of most of these bills are too vague—I think that the most common bullet points do a decent job at outlining normative claims that public school teachers have no business promoting to students on the taxpayer dime—but that’s a claim that can actually be argued, whereas Philip et al are just lying.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              This is a case where your defense is more damning than the accusation.

              Taking your assertion- that conservatives are opposed to the preaching of norms- and then looking at their list of books they want to remove shows clearly what sort of norms the conservatives oppose.Report

              • Douglas Hayden in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                And then you read the “Moms For Freedom” approved textbook and suddenly you start hearing “Zippidie-Do-Dah” in your head for some reason.Report

              • Brandon Berg in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Old business before new business. Are you conceding that your repeated claim that these bills, and this clause in particular, bans the accurate teaching of history was not in fact correct?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
                Ignored
                says:

                The accurate teaching of history will, by its nature, make people feel uncomfortable, guilty and perhaps ashamed. The Florida bill is clear – as I note in its text below, that any teaching that causes students to feel those emotions will be illegal under the bill.Report

              • dhex in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                that seems like a crappy way to teach history, generally. discomfort makes sense – a lot of even the recent past was fairly horrible, and a few centuries ago seems downright barbaric from a to z. but guilt? shame? for jr and high school students?

                that seems a lot more like the effects of bad pedagogy (or the half-baked attempt to build a replacement civil religion) more than the illuminating power of truth.

                none of which would be addressed by these nonsense bills, mind you.Report

              • InMD in reply to dhex
                Ignored
                says:

                It is a crappy way to teach history and not one grounded in any sort of empirical approach to the subject.Report

              • Philip H in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                Teaching of factually correct history, especially in context, will elicit a lot of emotional responses no matter how the lessons are delivered. Some people will feel guilt or shame, others will be angry – many will be discomforted. A good teacher will recognize this and help students work through it – bad politicians will try to prevent it by removing the truth of the subject.Report

              • dhex in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                you seem to indicate above that the very act of teaching “history” (which i don’t know if professional historians would broadly dig this framing, given how in flux the field can be, hence my scare quotes) will necessarily give rise to, specifically, guilt, shame, and discomfort.

                this is a stance that feels kinda nuts to me, but i’m assuming you’re thinking of “american history from slavery to the modern day” rather than the albigensian crusades. (protip: don’t feel bad about crusades you didn’t engage in!)

                so your focus on the moral and emotional impact of facts is thematically appropriate: the desired response is some degree of disgust, both personal and social.

                i obviously think it’s kinda nuts to feel guilt or shame for actions which were not your own, but there’s a strong moral component to this whole debate – consider nhj’s public focus on the american mythmaking goals of the 1619 project, replacing earlier myths with newer ones. (it’s a shame they can’t quietly excise her from the project, as most of the essays are very good and don’t deserve to be tarred by her egomaniacal trumpiness)

                this attitude is deeply poisonous to actual study, but tremendously vital to political struggle. the thinking likely goes – and forgive me for making even more assumptions – that these feelings of disgust, shame, etc, will produce more voters who support policies you like? conversely, this is why these gibberish-laden bills focus on a constellation of penumbras of these intense feelings in the presumed audience. and why there are so many weasel words used – feelings, not “facts”, as it were.

                the loudest voices here assume a certain kind of path dependency based on school teaching that leads to political support in one direction or another.

                which, in addition to not likely being entirely true*, is amorally cynical from a certain point of view (mine!) but i am in the minority on this particular topic, no doubt. i can only hope to inculcate my child with enough information from very opposed sources that they are forced by necessity into thinking for themselves. time will tell if i have been successful at this, if at all.

                *the general lack of deviation from the politics of the parental home for students attending colleges is, i think, a nail in this magical thinking coffin. and certainly something which should calm the minds of legislators looking to remove various texts from schools – were they not cynical snakes in human clothing. or at the very least, a warning to avoid putting too many eggs (the presumed minds and futures of children) into one basket (the short-term end goals of political operatives).Report

              • Philip H in reply to dhex
                Ignored
                says:

                Several clarifying points –

                My father is a historian who taught at university. The how of teaching history both fed me (literally) as a kid and was indeed dinner table conversation. I number among my mentors and role models dozens of women and men whose professional work spanned broad swaths of that profession, as well as archeology and anthropology. My mother was an public elementary 5th grade teacher. And again I number among my mentors and role models similar men and women, many of whom had to “teach history” as part of their classroom pedagogy. So when I refer to “teaching history” i am referring to the delivery of historical fact couched in some form of context in a formal educational setting.

                You are also correct that I am primarily focused – in this thread – on American history, though my lens personally goes much further back then the formal founding of the nation by its revolution against the British.

                Where you start veering off my path is the notion that I want or desire said teaching to create or elicit a certain emotional, political, or other response. I don’t. I have a whole series of life experiences, however, that tell me that well formed historical instruction will elicit emotional responses, which may later translate into political actions. The fear of some politicians of this outcome not keeping them in power has driven them to subscribe to, and advance, legislation at the state level which seeks to alter the factual pedagogy in such a way as to prevent those natural human responses. I believe those laws are wrong, and not only will prevent the teaching of demonstrable facts, but will render yet another generation ill equipped emotionally to deal with the world it finds itself in. That is a huge educational disservice, especially if it is conducted by the use of local, state and federal tax dollars.

                Which is why I endorse your last paragraph whole heartedly.Report

              • dhex in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                that’s fair – i apologize for reading too much into the initial comment, as it seemed to be leaning in that direction.

                i think we largely agree on the – at kindest interpretation possible – erroneous assumptions behind most of these bills. i think these pols have thus far found it to be a winner with narrow but loud parts of their constituencies, rather than because of any genuine faith that they’ll succeed at either accomplishing what they claim to want to do or even surviving court challenges. some of this is likely driven via parents having close contact with the curriculum via the pandemic, and the remainder from the war of political identity, which carries with it that sweet, sweet frisson of $$$ and human capital.Report

              • InMD in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                My BA is in history and I started down the road to teaching it, but ultimately took a different path. Obviously I can’t tell you what you have felt or should feel about any subject. However trying to elicit personal emotions was never part of any instruction I got, at what I believe is a well regarded public school (go terps, etc.). The kind of highly personal projection of self into these things was, at the time anyway, discouraged as a bad way to understand the subject. Instead of looking carefully at what can be well established by primary and secondary sources it muddies the water with subjectivity and results in interpretations that are poorly founded and don’t make sense.

                Inspiring interest in the subject is of course good for any teacher that can manage it. But the idea that the study of history is supposed to evoke some correct or any emotional reaction at all? That’s really a personal or political sentiment, not an academic one. It’s also one that, ironically, is more likely to put on blinders, by omitting critical context and detail. And this gets at the heart of the matter, which is the view that there is supposed to be some ‘right reaction’ by public school students. That’s a problem not just with these reactionary bills but also with the DEI spin on everything provoking them.Report

            • dhex in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              “Every bill I’ve read stipulates that teachers may not be teach that individuals should feel guilt/discomfort/whatever on account of race or sex. The “should” is key, because it’s a restriction on preaching of norms rather than on teaching of facts.”

              you are correct (in theory), but also point out why i see these bills as rube bait and fundraising opportunities disguised as “doing something”. vagueness is a tool here as well.

              they’re describing something that, while has probably happened with a few teachers (and certainly more than a few poorly designed trainings for teachers), is far from widespread when it comes to k-12. the vagueness is where it gives away the game, i think. by leaving that huge wiggle word of “should” in there, it provides a fig leaf to fill that gap with complaints, lawsuits, etc.

              and yes, a lot of these bills won’t pass, and those that do are going to get chewed up when challenged in court, but that’s not the overall point. the core point is to use the current moment to display virtue to their supporters, point to the overreactions of their detractors, and sit back while the $$$ rolls in.Report

            • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              The “should” is key, because it’s a restriction on preaching of norms rather than on teaching of facts.

              Because this isn’t language directing the teaching of norms:

              (8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of
              45 employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing,
              46 or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any
              47 other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances,
              48 inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the
              49 following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race,
              50 color, sex, or national origin under this section:
              51 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
              52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
              53 national origin.
              54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
              55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,
              56 whether consciously or unconsciously.
              57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
              58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
              59 race, color, sex, or national origin.
              60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin
              61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to
              62 race, color, sex, or national origin.
              63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
              64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be
              65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,
              66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,
              67 color, sex, or national origin.
              68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
              69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
              70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
              71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or
              72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or
              73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
              74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,
              75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or
              76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,
              77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,
              78 color, sex, or national origin.

              or this:

              3. The health education curriculum For students in grades 6
              204 through 12, shall include an awareness of the benefits of sexual
              205 abstinence as the expected standard and the consequences of
              206 teenage pregnancy.

              https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/148/BillText/Filed/HTMLReport

  6. Douglas Hayden
    Ignored
    says:

    The inflection point for the whole brouhaha, and where I think Rogan breaks off from Donohue, was when he was recently confronted by a guest/regular on his show questioning his anti-vax views. Joe doubled down.

    (If anyone has the link to the video, I can’t find it at the moment.)

    The responses I caught were full of Rogan listeners lamenting how Joe used to keep an open mind, and now here’s closed it up for reasons. Once it was apparent this wasn’t the same show anymore, then came Neil Young and the pile-on commenced.

    Now one thing ol’ Phil and even Rogan do is they don’t let their guests hide their intentions. Donohue got his guests to show up with their white hoods and all, never letting them obfuscate their positions behind nebulous calls of ‘cancel culture’ and ‘debate’. Cancel what? Debate what? When I see guys walking their dogs freely shouting n-bombs at the black family’s house across the street, well, I’m just a little curious why those questions rarely get answereReport

  7. CJColucci
    Ignored
    says:

    If Neil Young doesn’t want to share a platform with Joe Rogan (or vice-versa) and is willing to forego the revenue from the arrangement, that’s Neil Young’s (or Joe Rogan’s) business. If Spotify has to choose between Young and Rogan, well, that’s their business, in both senses of the word “business.” Either way, neither Young nor Rogan need fear a lack of outlets as long as they can attract an audience. And if they no longer can, they have no more claim to an outlet than, say, you or I do.Report

  8. Kristin Devine
    Ignored
    says:

    Great piece, thanks for sharing it.Report

  9. Brandon Berg
    Ignored
    says:

    Some important context here is that Neil Young had a bad case of polio shortly before mass vaccination began, and as I understand it still has a weak leg as a result.

    I have mixed feelings on the whole thing, since I think both misinformation and silencing of dissent can be legitimately dangerous—not to mention that I’ve spent a grand total of under an hour listening to Rogan—but it’s totally understandable that Young wants to take a stand over this.Report

    • Douglas Hayden in reply to Brandon Berg
      Ignored
      says:

      One thing I’ve noticed, especially as of late, is that it’s easier for some circles to defend Rogan than it is to, say, defend the January 6th rioters or Donald Trump’s latest bout of “If Hillary Can Get Away With It, So Can I.” A tactic that makes Rogan and his defenders today’s continuing main character of the discourse, while yet another Trump crime slips off the radar. I’m reminded of a good old fashioned Kansas City Shuffle.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Brandon Berg
      Ignored
      says:

      I have mixed feelings on the whole thing, since I think both misinformation and silencing of dissent can be legitimately dangerous

      Where this debate – and many others – cross the line is misinformation has been rebranded by certain parts of the media as dissent or opinion. From there it’s a lot easier to scream about being deplatformed or cancelled.Report

  10. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    A significant difference between Donahue and Rogan is that Donahue’s body count is zero.

    Rogan is a part of a massive anti-vax propaganda campaign that has caused the needless death of hundreds of thousands of people in a single year.

    If someone wants to assert that Rogan has a right to host anti-vax liars, at least start by acknowledging the objective truth that the pandemic is now concentrated almost solely among people who have willingly refused the lifesaving vaccine and that Rogan bears responsibility for some portion of this.Report

  11. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    I’d still rather listen to CSNY So Far than a Joe Rogan podcast. Drug-addled music can be good or bad; drug-addled interviews are usually a mess.Report

  12. Chris
    Ignored
    says:

    Interesting to read a piece comparing Donahue to Rogan that doesn’t mention that only one of these two has actually been canceled for his political views.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Chris
      Ignored
      says:

      “Accountability Culture”Report

      • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        Hardly:

        But if I had to pick a date when commercial television decided amassing corporate money and providing entertainment were its central mission, when it consciously chose to become a carnival act, it would probably be Feb. 25, 2003, when MSNBC took Phil Donahue off the air because of his opposition to the calls for war in Iraq.

        https://billmoyers.com/2013/03/25/the-day-that-tv-news-died/Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          Corporations can do whatever they want and arguments about a growing culture of speech suppression don’t apply to them.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Yes they can. Or so our legal system tells us.Report

            • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              “I never thought corporations would eat MY face!”

              The difficulty conservatives have is that they are an unpopular minority, but want to govern as if they enjoy a supermajority.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                A good number of them are also deeply aware of their unpopularity and it drives them even madder and crankier.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m seeing the indignant tweets about the the halftime show from the Charlie Kirk’s and Ben Shapiros, and they just gotta know, right, how ridiculous they sound?

                Like, on some level they know that everyone is pointing and laughing at the young boys who are channeling the spirit of John Lithgow in Footloose, but without the mitigating soul of kindness.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I think those two do not honestly know how absurd they sound. Kirk might know it more than Shapiro.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Always be both siding might as well be the message for liberdudes.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw
                Ignored
                says:

                There’s not really a “both sides” from where I’m sitting Saul.

                I’m merely the guy being told “you can’t read that/listen to that” over and over and over again. It’s not that “both sides” are telling me what I can’t read or listen to, it’s that those freakin’ people are doing it again and again and again and again.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                um no. What you are being told is some of this is cr@p, some of this is pernicious lies and some of it needs to be moved on from because the world has changed, and you keep throwing up your hands and saying you can’t tell what’s true and what isn’t. And that telling is, generally coming from one side of the aisle.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “you keep throwing up your hands and saying you can’t tell what’s true and what isn’t”

                While I ain’t perfect, I am actually willing to trust myself more than I’m willing to trust those people who want to censor what I can and cannot hear/read.

                And that’s *WITHOUT* getting into the whole “you’re not my mom” thing.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “I’m merely the guy being told “you can’t read that/listen to that” over and over and over again.”

                Who told you what you can’t read/listen to? Please be specific.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                No we must keep it at a level of abstraction where being sued for libel is no different than being jailed for criticizing the government, where being ridiculed is the same as being silenced.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                The people who are going out of their way to make something unavailable to me are doing this.

                Is there a book that I used to be able to buy but now I cannot? Is there a radio show that I used to be able to listen to but now I cannot?

                “Oh, you can, you just have to go through a bootlegger or private collecter or maybe break the law to get it!” as a counter-argument strikes me as weak. “We didn’t burn the books! We just made sure that they were much harder to get than they used to be and were much more expensive!”

                “You can still get your hands on the files, you just have to torrent them from a Russian torrent site!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Publishers aren’t willing to create books with racial slurs” isn’t any more persuasive the umpteenth time than the first.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, specifics please. Which people? Which books? Which radio show?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy, we’ve discussed this sort of thing in the last month.

                Seriously.

                The Dr. Seuss books have been yanked from online stores (though, granted, not all of them) and from public libraries (though, granted, not all of them) and in the very case of Joe Rogan, about 100 episodes have been yanked from Spotify.

                If you wanted to listen to them, you probably couldn’t. I mean, maybe you could find a Russian torrent site with them (same for PDFs of the Dr. Seuss books).

                I’ll grant: It’s not *IMPOSSIBLE* to find them.

                But you can also purchase Dixie Chicks CDs and nobody is stopping you from listening to them whenever you want.

                (Though I understand that they have recently dropped “Dixie” from their name. You know how it is.)Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And what solutions do you propose to any of those issues?

                Also, is Rogan prohibited from releasing those podcasts on his own?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                One of them is normalizing the whole “your private entertainments aren’t under my jurisdiction” attitude that used to be a lot more ubiquitous than it is today.

                Oh, Frank Zappa. (Though I suspect that Zappa would be down with the current zeitgeist. Ironic.)

                Barring that (and, let’s face it, it’s barred), I’d probably push for solutions involving the public domain.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “One of them is normalizing the whole “your private entertainments aren’t under my jurisdiction” attitude that used to be a lot more ubiquitous than it is today.”

                Can you point to when this was so ubiquitous?

                Was it when they wouldn’t show Elvis’s hips on television? Or when they couldn’t show black and white actors kissing? Or when they went after gangster rap? Or when there was blacklisting?

                When was this period of ubiquitous recognition that people were entitled to their private entertainments free of scorn or objection?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Can you point to when this was so ubiquitous?

                I would point to the period of time somewhere around the PMRC.

                That was probably the recent zenith.

                Now, you raise a good point. It only took about 10 minutes after the 1st Amendment was ratified to pass the Alien and Sedition laws and so the Enlightenment values have been betrayed far, far more often than upheld.

                I don’t see this as a reason to abandon them, though.

                I mean, if someone argued “we shouldn’t be racist!”, would you see “can you name a year in which we were not racist?” as a particularly strong gotcha?Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So we have a history of rejecting the Enlightenment values behind the 1st Amendment but THIS TIME is different?Report

              • Philip H in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Of course it is because Jaybird is impacted personally. Or believes he is. Or thinks he should be.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, we have a history of not living up to our ideals.

                I don’t see this as a reason to abandon our ideals, any more than I see the existence of racism as a reason to try to not be racist.Report

            • CJColucci in reply to Philip H
              Ignored
              says:

              And it isn’t just corporations. This blog, for example, can do what it wants. If its proprietors decide that you or I don’t belong here, we’re out. That’s free speech for you.Report

        • Douglas Hayden in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          But Donahue was a part of the carnival act!Report

      • Chris in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        When I saw the title, I really thought that’s what it would be about, not that Donahue had controversial guests. The comparison between the two shows is about as informative as, say, comparing Joe Rogan to Bill McNeal, but at least talking about how one was cancelled, and how that was bad then and perhaps we should learn a lesson from it, would have given us something to work with and think about.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          For what it’s worth, I’m now in a place where I assume that any attempt to censor/silence a popular speaker that is saying things that the government doesn’t agree with has a handful of various government folks feeding various editorial departments.

          There’s an official line and it’s *HERE* (paraphrased).

          It’s a lot easier to oppose when it’s bad people doing it for bad reasons.Report

  13. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    How is it that the terms cancel and/or Joe Rogan bring out the middle-aged (or older) brodudes of libertarianism so well? Creaking Gen Xers pushing or just past 50 who are shocked, shocked, shocked to discover that not everyone agrees or likes the “edgy” stuff of their youth.

    As others have pointed out,

    1. Joe Rogan has not been cancelled and the chances of him being deplatformed are miniscule. He brings more listeners to Spotify than Neil Young did probably and the C-suite is well aware of this. This is why they paid him lots of money to bring everything over to Spotify.

    2. Even if Spotify does decide to cut ties with Joe Rogan, someone else will snatch him up.

    3. Phil Donahue actually lost his show because of his political views which were much braver and more correct than anything that ever came out of the mouth of Joe Rogan.Report

  14. Greg In Ak
    Ignored
    says:

    If you want to muddy up an issue using trendy highly politicized attack terms like cancel culture is a good way to do that. If there is a problem with censorship there has always been some of it from both left and right and even the middle. It’s not new.

    Rogan appears to be pretty damn dim bulb but people find him charismatic. He is also of course as elite as anybody can get but plays the common dufus well i guess. To much of the push back against rogan conflates criticism with whatever cancel culture means. Which if you are against censorship seems a really bad look.

    I would gladly drop Spotify if paid for it over rogan for giving a large audience to terrible people. That is using my 1st amendment rights of course. So good for me right????

    Rogan brought on chuck johnson, racist scumbag IMHO, so he could spew his “black people have a violent gene” sewage. F rogan to hell for giving that dbag a platform. Why? I await the long running ep from Rogan on the Protocols of the Elder of Zion. That’s coming right? No of course not. It seems to be that the N word and racist crap about blacks is always the goto for Rogans of the world.

    Rogan has the right to speak and if he gets paid for it that is the market working. If debate is good ( it isn’t) or national conversattions are a thing we have ( they aren’t) then criticism and saying some ideas are bad is actually part of all that. I want some ideas to die a quick death. Anybody who continues to peddle some of the racist sleaze that rogan has decided to do i will be against. That is what discussion of ideas is supposed to lead to. Advancing thought to become smarter and leave the worst crap behind. America would be a better place is we weren’t still having people with giant audiences peddling a lot of what rogan does. Certainly ive heard many black people say they are just a wee bit tired of still having to defend the concept that they aren’t genetically inferior.Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak
      Ignored
      says:

      If there is a problem with censorship there has always been some of it from both left and right and even the middle

      Both siders gonna both side.

      Welcome to liberdudism.Report

      • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        People who care about free speech have been seeing some of the same damn things for 40 years so yeah. Lots of this isn’t new nor did it ever lead to (insert your fav boogieman) here. We would better off if Free Speech Warriors weren’t so often absolutely blind to the wrongs of one side. Cause the “both sides people” always see themselves as above and different and better while typically being warmed over culture warriors.

        Or to be clear (lol) the “both sides” are bad is one of the key mistakes that people make. It’s crap. The country isn’t as neatly divided as that and the people aren’t aligned with one side are no better then people aligned with one party. heck most of the “both sides” peeps end up being hardcore partisans.Report

  15. Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    Just so we’re clear…

    People loudly disagreeing with one another in the public sphere and voting with their feet and/or wallets = bad

    People pushing arms of the government to make decisions about what language is considered acceptable = good

    Do I have that right?Report

    • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      The Dixie Chicks == Good
      The PMRC == Bad

      I think that part of the problem comes in with stuff like “China wants Finn to be smaller on the Star Wars posters because Chinese people don’t like dark skinned people”. Is there a problem with this?

      A bunch of people don’t like that TLC was running a show called “All-American Muslim” and called the companies advertising on the show threatening a boycott if they didn’t withdraw their support. Is there a problem with this?

      The problem that there is with this (and I assume that there is a problem with this) is it addressed by pointing out that powerful people can do whatever they want?Report

      • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        There are always problems. Some significant, some not. Problems are part of a large group of people communicating. In and of itself noting problems is nothing.Report

      • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        The “problem with this” is that free speech is a door that swings both ways. If enough people hate a TV show that I like, and say so, the show will be cancelled and I will be out of luck. Sucks to be me, then, since I can’t get what I want. But short of shutting up the haters or making the producers say things they no longer wish to say, there’s nothing to be done about it. At least nothing consistent with free speech principles.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
          Ignored
          says:

          For me, the problem is the distinction between “I ain’t gonna watch that” (WHICH IS FINE AND AWESOME!) and “You ain’t gonna watch that.”

          Like Yogi said “If people don’t want to come out to the ball park, nobody’s gonna stop ’em.”

          I can’t remember the last time that I sat down to watch a television show and it wasn’t part of a communal thing without at least one other person there. Personally, I would probably resent being made to watch a television show unless the order was given from a very small list of people.

          But I cannot comprehend telling you to not watch something… let alone an entire group of people.

          And if there is an entire group of people out there saying “don’t watch this”, I suppose that that’s fine… so long as it stays there. But the second it becomes a bunch of people calling Wendy’s and saying “We’re going to boycott your restaurant unless you stop advertising on this show I don’t want other people to watch”, it becomes something that I see as a problem.

          Yes, free speech allows it. But that is very much a variant of free speech that I think that it is very important to criticize and loudly.Report

          • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            So there is nothing to be done about it, at least nothing consistent with free speech principles, other than saying loudly that you don’t like it? Well, that’s free speech too, so have at it. With predictable results.Report

            • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
              Ignored
              says:

              If nothing else, we can get a bunch of people to explain that they see nothing wrong with powerful people doing illiberal things on their own behalf.

              Maybe see if they furrow their brow a little bit once they realize that this is an iterated game.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                As I mentioned, what libertarians and free-speech advocates have long championed, is happening.

                The marketplace of ideas has decreed that some ideas like racial slurs are unpopular, so producers have switched to other, more popular ideas.

                Everyone is free to criticize this choice, loudly, and does.

                Yet somehow, people who describe themselves as “free speech advocates” are still unhappy.

                It appears to me (when I furrow my brow) that this is an iterated game, and that these unhappy people just assumed that any game they lose is rigged somehow.

                That, in a free marketplace of ideas, their ideas would somehow always be the winners.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                They call it grievance politics for a reason I guess. Conservatives and liberdudes seems to be always upset by the fact that people disagree with them and are willing to do so. Sometimes quite loudly.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I did not (and do not) expect my ideas to always “win”. There is no “win” state. The game is iterated, it doesn’t end with a win or a loss.

                But censorship is one of those things that tends to start with the best of intentions and ends up with a bunch of bad apples spoiling the whole barrel and future iterations of the game will be more unpleasant for having these censors enthusiastically doing their jobs.

                When it comes to me? Personally? I’m pretty sure that I’ll be fine.

                I’m not opposed to censorship because I think that I won’t be able to get my paws on my reading or listening materials. (They sound better on vinyl anyway.)Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You keep saying “censorship” when what you really mean is “changing social mores”.

                No one censored the Dr. Seuss book, it fell victim to changing norms.

                You’ve been asked repeatedly to articulate what a solution to the Dr. Seuss book is, but you can’t because it would be “Society needs to be more accepting of racial slurs so as to make publishers willing to issue them.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I have given solutions but they’ve been waved away.

                One is stuff like “once a book is officially no longer published, it enters the public domain”.

                I would honestly see that as an acceptable solution.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                One is stuff like “once a book is officially no longer published, it enters the public domain”.

                After March 1, 1989, all works (published and unpublished) are protected for 70 years from the date the author dies. So, for example, the unpublished works of an author who died in 1943 are in the public domain as of January 1, 2014.

                https://copyright.universityofcalifornia.edu/use/public-domain.html

                So the Suess book becomes public domain on September 24, 2061.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird wants more than that. He wants to strip the author of the ability to assert copyright — whatever the term of copyright might be (and I think most of us agree it is now too long) — when the author is no longer actively flogging the book. So if we, reduce the copyright term to, say, 20 years, and in year 5 the author no longer wants to sell the work, it becomes public domain. That’s certainly a possible intellectual property regime, but we have for a long time, and for good reasons, protected the author’s right not to publish. Applying Jaybird’s rule to your example, if an author dies, anything he chose not to publish at all in life would instantly become public domain. There may be reasons to curtail so drastically an author’s right to his own property other than, well, dammit, I want the stuff, bit I’m not aware of any.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d be fine with copyright belonging to an estate rather than an author for the allotted time. If someone writes a best-seller and dies after a few years, the estate should be able to go on asserting copyright.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And that’s exactly the way it is now. But the issue is the right of the copyright holder, during whatever appropriate period of copyright, to decline to publish, or to decline to continue to publish. As far as I can understand you — and it isn’t easy — you want someone else to be able to publish copyrighted material if the author decides not to publish it — even within the copyright term. Is that right?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                If the author says “I am no longer going to publish this!”, I’d have to say that I’d need it explained why other people ought to be able to prevented from doing it.

                (I could see maybe demanding that the author’s name be changed to Alan Smithee or something.)Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Because it’s his, with the usual incidents of ownership. I have a shirt I haven’t worn in years. That doesn’t create a right in someone else to take it and profit from it.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Does the cake shop owner not own the ingredients and cake pans and ovens?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Indeed he does. And, therefore, no one can take them away from him and put them to what someone else considers a better use. Just as no one can take away the intellectual property of a copyright holder who doesn’t want to publish and put that property to what someone else considers a better use.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                So why must a cake shop owner make a cake they don’t want to make with the things they own?

                If the heart of the argument is that the business exists to serve the public, and that no personal beliefs should impact the conduction of said business, then why should a business that holds the copyright of a work be allowed (for any non-fiduciary reason) to withhold the publishing of the work?

                I mean, one could say that a given book has moved enough physical copies to make it worth printing or using valuable real-estate to store. But in the digital age, the CBA for removing a work entirely is much, much lower (PDFs take up very little space on servers).Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                A commercial baker doesn’t have to bake cakes at all. A copyright holder doesn’t have to publish a book at all. And nobody can make either do it. That’s general property law. But there are other laws. A commercial baker who chooses to bake cakes can’t bake cakes for white people and not for black people, and a copyright holder who chooses to publish a book can’t sell books to white people and not to black people. I know there are some people here that object to those kinds of laws on general principles. I have heard them argue the point for over 50 years, and have no interest in relitigating it with them again.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                This is why I’ve grown tired of the abstracted philosophizing that we see mostly on the right, but often on the left as well.
                Most of the time, they are attempts to discover or invent “general principles” which are designed to produce the outcome we like, while disclaiming any responsibility for it.

                “Abstract principles” are always just assumed to be high minded and superior to “outcome oriented” principles, but I don’t think that anymore.

                No one really is unaware of where those abstract principles lead, and nearly everyone will ditch them the moment they stop producing results so why bother with the charade?

                For example, I want to produce a world in which gay people are able to live the same free and engaged lives as everyone else.

                If that is accomplished by social norms, great. If free markets do the trick, terrific. If it takes a court order, then so be it.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Actually, I’m looking for a concrete, objective principle, not an abstract one. I believe that legal action against wedding service providers who refuse to provide creative services to gay weddings is wrong. This is something for the marketplace to deal with, or voluntary private action (e.g. boycotts).

                Honestly, I suspect I could draw a line from cases like this to the more recent attempts to allow for private lawsuits against abortion providers. I mean, if it’s A-OK to sue one set of service providers whose legal behavior you object to, why not another?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                My principle would be that there is a compelling public interest in having as many people free to participate in civic and public life as possible.

                And this compelling interest overrides the interest in allowing commercial entities to manage their client base.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Even though this would result in a a ProudBoy demanding a Jewish bakery make them a “Happy Birthday KKKake!”Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Indeed, if we are intolerant of intolerance, are we not becoming intolerant ourselves?

                Such a paradox!Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s a lovely non sequitur, but it doesn’t actually address my point.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                Its the “compelling interest” part.

                We have a compelling interest in gay people being tolerated.

                We don’t have a compelling interest in hate groups being tolerated. Tolerance of intolerance is a bad thing.

                Could we craft laws and social norms which encourage “Happy Birthday Chad and Steve” while discouraging “Happy Birthday KKKAke”?

                Yes of course we can, and should.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’ll give you the norms (we absolutely should encourage social norms accepting gay marriage and rejecting intolerance).

                You have way too much faith in our ability to craft laws to do something similar. Was it in this post or the FedEx post where people are talking about the laws being crafted to make teaching history that invokes negative feelings or tort, and how it’s a bad thing?

                Once again, your ideal depends too heavily upon politicians or public officials doing the right thing, rather than what will be easy and most beneficial to their self-interest.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                It’s dangerous that you’ve lost interest in defining principles, particularly defining limiting principles.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Again, IIRC, the cake shop did not refuse to sell them a cake. The refused to sell them a custom cake. I.E. They could have chosen a standard design from the cooler, or from the book, and added their own details later. So if it was a cake they wanted, they could have bought a cake.

                Should an author be required to write on spec just because they have previously?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Oscar Gordon
                Ignored
                says:

                That would be a useful line of inquiry in a discussion about the rights of cake bakers who don’t want to sell their cakes, custom or not, to certain types of people, though that topic has been run into the ground several times before around here. The distinction between custom and standard cakes is interesting in that context, not so much here.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I only bring it up because you were talking about not selling a book to black people that is being sold to white in the context of the cake shop case. He never refused to sell them a cake, just refused to create a custom cake celebrating their marriage. I think that is a very salient point (i.e. custom work on spec versus selling stock items, especially custom work that involves specific messaging).

                Also, IMHO, a copy right holder absolutely should have the right to not publish their work for whatever reason.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If the author says “I am no longer going to publish this!”, I’d have to say that I’d need it explained why other people ought to be able to prevented from doing it.

                Because the author might change her mind. Or the actual statement is not “I am no longer going to publish this!” so much as “I am no longer going to publish this because no publisher will agree to my price. But one might next year.” Or the author dies and the estate has a different idea of what they should be paid.

                So long as there are no legal encumbrances — say, a contract with a publisher that runs for some term not yet expired — the author always has the freedom to place the book in the public domain before the copyright expires. But it’s the author’s choice, not yours.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                You know what? That’s a good explanation.

                I don’t like how it will result in multiple orphaned works (there are waaaay too many orphans out there that are being lost) but the explanation makes sense.

                I also don’t like how the whole “presumptive public domain unless someone authorized to request it stay under copyright” has some horrid edge case incentives…

                So maybe a pre-Sonny Bono Act world is the best solution…Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                How are you using “orphan” here? The most common usage that I see is “I know this is a copyrighted work but I can’t easily identify who holds the copyright, so would like to treat it as public domain.”

                For archivists, my advice is always, “You have a copy. Digitize it and put the file in escrow until the copyright expires.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Michael Cain
                Ignored
                says:

                Yeah, the “I can’t easily identify who holds the copyright and so the copyright is presumptively held”.

                Or, like, the author is dead and has no estate and we have to treat it like it’s under copyright anyway.

                That’s good advice. I wish more archivists knew about it.Report

              • Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                That’s good advice. I wish more archivists knew about it.

                I suspect most archivists can figure it out. But: (1) most archivists want credit now, not in 30 years, where credit means “everyone can make all the copies they want”; (2) a digital escrow is always going to be tricky, since a good one involves multiple copies, an ability to read the physical medium, support for the coding, etc; and (3) given (2), there’s ongoing expenses associated with holding the copy in escrow that have to be paid.Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Since I yield to no one in my leftist desire to appropriate the factors of production to the people, I’m actually ok with Jaybirds position here.

                But need to point out once again, that the people who yelp the loudest about private property rights, or democracy, or social norms, are the first to scorn them when they fail to deliver the desired outcomes.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                That copyright law is abusive and should not exist. That’s some insane Jack Valenti stuff, right there.

                (And I believe that the death of the author occurs with the first book coming off of the printing press.)Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Do you really have difficulty differentiating between a descriptive and a normative statement? I haven’t bothered to say what I like and don’t like about the choices free speakers make because I don’t think anyone cares, and don’t see why they should care. But I have described what I think is the reality of the situation, and the difficulty in doing anything about it consistent with free speech principles. Do you disagree with my description? It doesn’t seem so, but you’re not always easy to understand.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                My statement was a descriptive one, not a normative one.

                Why did it upset you so?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Upset? Reading comprehension again? I didn’t say your statement was normative rather than descriptive. It’s far from clear what it was, but if it was descriptive, it was describing something other than what I said. (I suppose it’s much more fun arguing with the voices in your head.) You were the one who brought up someone or other saying he or she or they “see nothing wrong” with people doing what they have a right to do. I didn’t say that, and I don’t see anyone else who did. Kazzy, for example, was quite clear that he thought people did wrong things that they had a right to do, but raised the sensible point that there was nothing to be done about it consistent with the rights of speakers to speak, or not to speak, that wouldn’t make matters worse.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                You said that there was nothing to be done about it (excepting normal free speech stuff).

                I gave examples of short term outcomes that would follow from making things explicit.

                Seriously, it’s right up there. I honestly think that establishing those things would be better than not establishing them (given that other, better outcomes are unlikely).Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                So do you say there is something to be done other than “normal free speech stuff”?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Some might qualify as “uncommon free speech stuff”, sad to say.

                But it used to be normal free speech stuff.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Such as?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Getting a bunch of people to explain that they see nothing wrong with powerful people doing illiberal things on their own behalf.

                Maybe see if they furrow their brow a little bit once they realize that this is an iterated game.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                How is this — whatever it is, and maybe you’ll put it into plain English rather than simply repeat yourself — not “normal free speech stuff”?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                My quibbling was not with “free speech stuff” but the use of the qualifier “normal”.

                My position is it’s no longer “normal” but “uncommon”.

                Though, I’ll grant, it used to be “normal”.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                How is what not “normal free speech stuff”?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                The realization that it’s bad to have powerful people be illiberal on your behalf and that it’s probably bad to do that.

                That used to be something that was common enough to be “normal”.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, so you’re repeating yourself. If you don’t want to be understood, I can’t help that, and I have only so much energy to waste.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Because it is, apparently, no longer common.

                And being no longer common, it is no longer normal.

                And if you want to say that the important words that you care about are the “free speech stuff” words, I’ll have to go back and say that my quibbling was not with “free speech stuff” but the use of the qualifier “normal”.Report

              • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                “Getting a bunch of people to explain that they see nothing wrong with powerful people doing illiberal things on their own behalf.”

                You are actively misrepresenting what people are saying. It’s bullshit. Just stop.

                Lots of us have acknowledged the issues with how these things played out while also acknowledging that any solution is worse than the current problem.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                “You are actively misrepresenting what people are saying. It’s bullshit. Just stop.”

                kazzy?

                It’s nice that you think this, but I hope you remember that you think it the next time you talk about “dogwhistles” and “coded language” and “we all know what they’re really saying“.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I know what they’re *SAYING*. But they’re misrepresenting what they’re *DOING*.

                Lots of us have acknowledged the issues with how these things played out while also acknowledging that any solution is worse than the current problem.

                Kazzy, I have not seen the acknowledgment that there are issues with, say, the Dr. Seuss situation. It’s mostly seen as some variant of “There is nothing wrong with getting rid of a book that uses slurs.”Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And, if not misrepresenting, from my perspective they are severely mistaken.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Kazzy, I have not seen the acknowledgment that there are issues with, say, the Dr. Seuss situation. It’s mostly seen as some variant of “There is nothing wrong with getting rid of a book that uses slurs.”

                That’s because there is nothing wrong with a publisher, who owns the rights, withdrawing a book voluntarily from circulation because it uses racial slurs and tropes. The book’s contents are offensive to a great many people, its sales had tanked, and it stopped publishing it.

                Why do you keep flogging the dead horse that the publisher should be required to keep publishing a book that is offensive?Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Phil, don’t tell me! Tell Kazzy! He’s the one who is arguing that lots of people have acknowledged issues with how things played out!

                I agree with you that they haven’t but have, instead, asserted that they’re right!

                Why do you keep flogging the dead horse that the publisher should be required to keep publishing a book that is offensive?

                I don’t. I have offered an alternative above. The original publisher need do *NOTHING*.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                “OK, so you’re repeating yourself.”

                he’s repeating himself because you keep saying “what”

                this is like that case where the guy held up a trial court for three days because he kept arguing that the opposing counsel did not give a full and complete definition of the word “photocopier” every time they used itReport

      • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        You won’t but I’d ask you to define “problem.”

        I remember the “All-American Muslim” brouhaha. I didn’t like it happened. Does that mean I considered it a problem? If someone had asked me about it, I’d have said I thought TLC did the wrong thing. I’d even have said it was a bad thing. But… beyond that… what ya gonna do? Maybe organize a counter-boycott, which I believe there were calls for (I vaguely remember Lowe’s hardware stores getting caught in the cross hairs of a boycott on both sides… not sure what ever came of it).

        I mean, what’s the alternative? We tell people they can’t call companies and threaten to boycott? We outlaw boycotts? We require TLC to air the show? All of those to me are MUCH bigger problems than what actually happened.

        There is a big, big, big, big, big difference between, “I don’t think you should do that” and “You should not be allowed to do that.” But these easily get conflated.

        I do not think that TLC should have cancelled All-American Muslim. But I do think they should be able to cancel shows for whatever reason they want.Report

        • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          You won’t but I’d ask you to define “problem.”

          I see no need to deviate from the dictionary. “a matter or situation regarded as unwelcome or harmful and needing to be dealt with and overcome.”

          I mean, what’s the alternative?

          I believe, at the time, I argued that you should go out and purchase a Dave’s Double and call up Wendy’s and say “I really enjoyed that burger and I enjoy that you advertise during my favorite television show: All American Muslim!”

          Even if you’re vegan. Even if you’ve never watched the show.

          There is a big, big, big, big, big difference between, “I don’t think you should do that” and “You should not be allowed to do that.” But these easily get conflated.

          I’m trying to thread a needle and argue that “it’s wrong to do that and if that doesn’t move you, this is one of those things that comes back and bites you on the butt so make sure that you don’t normalize something you don’t want done to you in 15 minutes.”

          I do not think that TLC should have cancelled All-American Muslim. But I do think they should be able to cancel shows for whatever reason they want.

          “The show didn’t make as much money as we are betting this next show will make” strikes me as a fairly innocuous reason to cancel a show. Even when it’s something like Firefly.

          “We showed this show and people called up our advertisers and threatened to go to Home Depot instead so we’re cancelling it and putting up reruns of All American Coptic” strikes me as a bad precedent to set. Certainly it’s something worth arguing against and yelling about unintended consequences and whatnot.Report

          • Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
            Ignored
            says:

            Is your issue with the process (people voting with their wallets) or the outcome?Report

            • Philip H in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              We may never know.Report

            • Pinky in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              Have you thought about clicking the “Ignore” X?Report

            • Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              My issue is with the mindset that says “your reading material is under my jurisdiction and I will police it”.

              Imagine, if you will, me telling you how to raise your kids.

              I’m not asking you to imagine me saying something like “make sure you read to them occasionally and make sure they get fresh air” level-stuff either but me critiquing your attitudes towards nutrition, screentime, and how often they see friends their own age when not in school. Like, getting really granular about it.

              Can you imagine thinking “this is none of your friggin’ business?”

              Again: I’m not talking about me telling you stuff like you should take them to Cedar Point or Disneyworld before they graduate high school but serious stuff about how much seed oil they get in their diet and whether they’ve been exposed to Stephen Universe.

              If you can imagine thinking “this is my jurisdiction, not yours… I appreciate that you want to say stuff like ‘I liked going to Cedar Point when I was their age, you should take them to Cedar Point’ and that’s fine, but I am their father and they are my kids and it’s none of your business whether they get screen time after dinner or not”, then you have an inkling into what my issue is.

              Except your kids are me and I’m also you.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                My issue is with the mindset that says “your reading material is under my jurisdiction and I will police it”.

                And now, how many months in, do we finally get to the issue? This is precisely what I mean by saying you are never clear until, essentially, cornered.

                What you object to is a copyright holder exercising those rights. You object to a podcast license holder exercising their rights. Which means you inherently object to private property rights and the protection of private property rights (which is funny from a libertarian).

                You object to people using their free speech rights to hold other accountable for the impact of their words. And as Chip notes elsewhere, you object to society iterating and changing its mores as the driver for that.

                Which – sure – be the guy standing athwart history and yelling STOP! Just understand that you will inevitably get run over.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Phil, I’ve been a fan of the stew of “Enlightenment Values” for a while, now. I’ve even discussed issues of limits to jurisdiction… but, hey. If you grok what I’m saying, that’s the eventual goal so hurray.

                “What you object to is a copyright holder exercising those rights.”

                I have a handful of issues about copyright and have had them for a while. You know the Sonny Bono Act? I’ve argued against it for a while.

                This is not me objecting to a copyright holder exercising those rights, I’m objecting to a copyright holder abusing privilege extended.

                Which means you inherently object to private property rights and the protection of private property rights

                Slippery slope! (No. That doesn’t follow.)

                You object to people using their free speech rights to hold other accountable for the impact of their words.

                It depends on the nature of the accountability, actually.

                And as Chip notes elsewhere, you object to society iterating and changing its mores as the driver for that.

                I would have a problem with the word “society” in there.

                I don’t think that the US has anywhere *NEAR* one “society”.

                Just understand that you will inevitably get run over.

                Again: I’m pretty sure that I’ll be fine. I’ve just seen this game before and I’m thinking that there will be quite a few folks who won’t be fine as the pendulum starts swinging more vigorously.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Yet when someone actually does try to exercise “jurisdiction” over what someone else reads, like a legislature or a school board, rather than an author or publisher simply deciding not to sell a book, it isn’t a problem because, well, reasons.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Assuming schools, I assume school boards. Assuming school boards, I assume curriculae. Assuming curriculae, I assume that they will change from time to time and will likely reflect local mores.

                As much as I might wish that they shared mine, I am resigned to the fact that they won’t always.

                Any brute force solution that I have for that is one that I would resent if turned against me. As such, I see local control that doesn’t extend farther than locally as a least-bad solution.

                As for legislatures exercising jurisdiction, eff that.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And that leaves who, exactly, “exercising jurisdiction”? Everything else you whine about is either the free market, property rights, or someone else’s free speech. One doesn’t have to like the results of those processes, but they don’t “exercise jurisdiction” over what you can read or see.Report

              • InMD in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I think the parallel is something like a secondary boycott. Can’t stop it in this arena. Can acknowledge it’s an illiberal and destructive activity. Celebrate it at your own risk.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                The individual.

                This is one of those weird “Enlightenment Culture” things that seems to have gone away.

                Like, I find myself confused that you had to ask. Have we fallen so far in so short a time?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                What individual “exercises jurisdiction” over what you read? Any individual can talk to you, if you choose to stay and listen, about what you should or shouldn’t read, or how you raise your kids, for that matter, but as long as you can say “f**k off” and go about your business, it’s just some a*****e flapping his, her, or their gums, not someone “exercising jurisdiction.”
                I find myself confused that you’re confused about this.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I misunderstand what you were asking with your question “And that leaves who, exactly, ‘exercising jurisdiction’?”

                The censorious boobs who call for books to cease publication, songs to cease being played, and podcasts cease to be carried by the licensed podcast distributor.

                I’m fine with “I don’t want to listen to that filth!”
                I’m mostly fine with “I don’t want my kids to listen to that filth!”
                I’m not fine at all with “I don’t want Jaybird to be able to listen to that filth!”

                You’re not my dad.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Of course not. As long as you don’t have to listen, it’s just talk. Anyone can “call for” anything, but unless they have some power, other than persuasion, that’s not “exercising jurisdiction.” Sure, sometimes people who talk get listened to by others and get results you don’t like, but that’s free speech for you.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                It seems like the power to persuade to deplatform is a difference of degree great enough to be a difference of kind.

                See, for example, All American Muslim.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “What you object to is a copyright holder exercising those rights.”

                Like not baking a cake for someone.

                Or is that one of those things where the government should override someone’s private property rights?Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                If I own a book, or the rights to publish a book, I have no legal or moral obligation to publish it.

                If I have a license from the state or county to do business and the state or county has a no discrimination law or clause attached to that permitting scheme I have a legal obligation as a condition of said licensure to serve all customers.

                Apples and ice cubes dude. Apples and ice cubes.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “If I have a license from the state or county to do business…”

                Business like publishing a book?Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Publishers are bound to the same anti-discrimination laws that the cake baker is bound to. Deciding not to publish a book full of racial slurs, for any reason, isn’t discrimination. No matter how much you and jaybird want it to be.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “Publishers are bound to the same anti-discrimination laws that the cake baker is bound to.”

                so if a publisher decided not to publish a book saying “gay marriage is good” then the government could declare “it is a violation of anti-discrimination law to not publish this book”?

                or is it not a sin to be Against Sin?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                so if a publisher decided not to publish a book saying “gay marriage is good” then the government could declare “it is a violation of anti-discrimination law to not publish this book”?

                No. But it would be a violation to refuse to sell it to, say, black people, while selling it to white people. Next question.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                IIRC, the cake shop did not refuse to sell them a cake, it refused to make them a custom cake, or to custom decorate one.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Gay marriage is not sin. Being gay is not sin.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                Being gay is not a sin. Sex outside marriage is a sin.
                Gay marriage is an impossibility.Report

              • Philip H in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Please show me where in Christ’s teachings in the four books of the Gospels any of that is so. Christ’s discussions of marriage as a woman cleaving to man don’t exclude other forms, when rendered in their full context, and Christ is surprisingly silent on sex.

                And as a matter of secular law, gay marriage is quite practical, much less possible.Report

              • Pinky in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                As a Catholic I’m entitled to look at the totality of the Bible, with the aid of thousands of years of saints and scholars.

                I think everyone involved would acknowledge that secular gay marriage exists.Report

              • CJColucci in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Gay marriage is an impossibility.

                Really? I’ve seen it done.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                phil please just answer the question you say that you hate it when jaybird does things like this so please just answer the question please just answer the question please

                if a publisher decided not to publish a book saying “gay marriage is good” then the government could declare “it is a violation of anti-discrimination law to not publish this book”?Report

              • CJColucci in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m sorry. I have to take the blame here for pre-empting what would obviously have been Philip’s response, and putting him in the position of being unduly repetitious if he had responded himself.Report

              • Philip H in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Its alright – my answer won’t satisfy him anyway because it contains informed nuance.Report

              • Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Laws regarding discrimination aren’t the same as laws governing libel. If a publisher decided not to publish a book saying gay marriage is good, they would not be discriminating against anyone because such a book would be denied to the whole public, not just gay people.

                A cake baker who refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding because said baker does not support gay marriage is engaged in discrimination because they are denying service to specific people based on a specific criteria.

                The two situations are not the same, nor are the two sets of underlying legal foundations the same.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to Philip H
                Ignored
                says:

                “If a publisher decided not to publish a book saying gay marriage is good, they would not be discriminating against anyone because such a book would be denied to the whole public, not just gay people.”

                uh

                you may want to do some reading before you roll that one out

                like, you’re not on the side of the angels there

                also, I don’t recall anyone suggesting that the reason they un-published Mulberry Street (and Amazon and eBay deleted listings for it) was that a drawing of a Chinese guy in a coolie hat represented libelReport

              • CJColucci in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                The link is to a dissenting opinion.Report

              • DensityDuck in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                yes, the dissenting opinion from the guy whose arguments did not carry the day

                and that guy is…not really a guy I’d expect someone like Phil H to be quotingReport

              • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
                Ignored
                says:

                Conservative protest, 2022:
                “What do we want?”

                “Pictures of Chinamen with slanty eyes and coolie hats!”

                “When do we want it?”
                “NOW!”Report

  16. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    What I find interesting (as an Old) is how cohesive the American consensus on sexuality in media has become.

    Like, if you had told someone in 1971 that 50 years on, every child would be carrying in their pocket a device that allowed them to watch unlimited hard core pornography, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE you spoke to would totally lose their shite.
    Yet here we are, and only a few cranks who write letters to Repenthouse are suggesting we do anything about it.

    I notice how the current furor over norms doesn’t circle around matters of sexuality, but almost always matters of race and identity.

    This is where I invite Dark Matter and Pinky to observe how this topic underlies almost all of our discussions, whether it is pandemic misinformation, court cases, redistricting, or almost any other contentious issue.

    The parents who demand a book with LGBTQ themes be removed from a school don’t advocate for the suppression of Pornhub which is on their children’s smartphones.

    The fact that they object to Toni Morrison, but not BBC porn says a lot about what the real issue is, and what the norms are that they want to suppress.
    It isn’t the sexuality, but the attitudes towards whose sexuality can be expressed which is at issue.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      Not every kid has a smartphone, and there are parental controls and blockers. I’ll admit that some things can get past them, but I’ve noticed over the years that it’s a lot easier to not accidentally stumble on pron. A parent has the right to make informed decisions. (Also true of the covid vaccine, by the way.) Now, most of the country doesn’t care about Toni Morrison, isn’t even aware that a couple of school boards have sought to remove her books from required reading lists, but the difference here is compulsory exposure.

      You say that the current arguments aren’t about sexuality, but about race and identity. As Rudy Ray Moore said in Disco Godfather, “are you for real?” We’re told constantly that sexuality is identity. Trans stuff is constantly in the news and debates. Between covid and trans issues, you’ve got maybe 80% of the current debate.

      Now, I realize that you see race and identity behind “pandemic misinformation, court cases, redistricting, or almost any other contentious issue”, but we already knew that about you. A conspiracy theorist is definitely going to tell you that it all comes back to his pet theory. That’s not proof.

      One other thing. If I said that “the problem in this country isn’t Christianity but the attitudes towards Christianity”, you’d see the trap, right?Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      “The parents who demand a book with LGBTQ themes be removed from a school don’t advocate for the suppression of Pornhub which is on their children’s smartphones.”

      What and cut off their source too?Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      “you shouldn’t bother fighting this because the world probably already raped your kid” doesn’t quite make the point you think it does.Report

    • dhex in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      this is not a great comparison for a number of reasons, but largely because you’re contrasting apples and very slippery, slightly ashamed oranges that need a large number of tissues suddenly.

      the school board is local, often election-based, and can be interacted with in a very immediate way.

      what pathway is there to rail against pornhub in a public sense? what legislative avenues exist for a foreign-based company? what constitutional violations need to be engaged in so as to make these things happen?Report

  17. Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Is Joe Rogan really a hill people want to die on? https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/13/us/joe-rogan-n-word-blake-cec/index.html

    “The podcaster Joe Rogan did not join a mob that forced lawmakers to flee for their lives. He never carried a Confederate flag inside the US Capitol rotunda. No one died trying to stop him from using the n-word.

    But what Rogan and those that defend him have done since video clips of him using the n-word surfaced on social media is arguably just as dangerous as what a mob did when they stormed the US Capitol on January 6 last year.

    Rogan breached a civic norm that has held America together since World War II. It’s an unspoken agreement that we would never return to the kind of country we used to be.

    That agreement revolved around this simple rule:A White person would never be able to publicly use the n-word again and not pay a price.

    Rogan has so far paid no steep professional price for using a racial slur that’s been called the “nuclear bomb of racial epithets.” It may even boost his career. That’s what some say happened to another White entertainer who was recently caught using the word.

    It is a sign of how desensitized we have become to the rising levels of violence — rhetorical and physical — in our country that Rogan’s slurs were largely treated as the latest racial outrage of the week.

    But once we allow a White public figure to repeatedly use the foulest racial epithet in the English language without experiencing any form of punishment, we become a different country.

    We accept the mainstreaming of a form of political violence that’s as dangerous as the January 6 attack.”Report

  18. Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    Attention OT conservatives:
    The whole subthread revolving around the Dr. Seuss book illustrates perfectly why us liberals tend to see racism as lurking behind even the most abstract philosophical assertions from conservatives.

    We’re told that the objection here is due to the book being withdrawn, that this is an example of leftist censorship.
    But of course when its pointed out that this was a voluntary choice made by a property owner due to market forces and social mores, suddenly the objection shifts to “Actually, its about ethics in copyright abuse.”

    But of course, there is a metric tonne of copyright abuse far worse than this, which never gain a peep.

    Its impossible to read these comments without concluding that the stated reasons are a front, a fig leaf to camouflage a deeper concern.
    In this case, the real concern seems less than the fact that the publisher removed the book, but with the reason WHY they removed the book , which was the shift in social norms regarding ethnic stereotypes.

    To be charitable, I don’t think Jaybird is being racist here. But I think his discomfort stems partly from the “You’re not the bossa me” stance, and to a larger degree, that the ethnic stereotypes didn’t bother him, but the enforced social norms do.

    But this is what we mean by “Structural racism”, where you get racist results without racists. All the high minded principles of conservatism/ libertarianism such as free markets and property rights, or the use of social norms rather than government coercion, are just suddenly cast aside in favor of whatever it takes to prevent that damn book from being removed.

    Because those principles were never held in the abstract; They were always just tools to build the master’s house, as Nicole Hannah Jones might say, if the 1619 project were to address Dr. Seuss. And when the tools no longer create the outcome needed, they are cast aside.

    And even that wouldn’t be objectionable. After all, what are principles for, if not to build society?

    But take a good long look at the house that conservatives are trying to build. Look at what they defend, or don’t defend, what they attack, or don’t attack.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      TL:DR – 1953 (when white men were men and women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and the LGBTQ+ community knew its place) isn’t coming back.Report

    • DensityDuck in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      “To be charitable, I don’t think Jaybird is being racist here.”

      Don’t be coy. Yes, you do.Report

      • Chip Daniels in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        Not any more than you are, or I am, or Saul or Pinky are.

        I think racism, like all other sins, is latent inside everyone. And that’s the point about structural racism, is that we reap the benefits of our privilege without having to overtly engage with it.Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      You are forgetting their golden rule:

      “It is okay when you are Republican.”Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Chip Daniels
      Ignored
      says:

      But of course when its pointed out that this was a voluntary choice made by a property owner due to market forces and social mores, suddenly the objection shifts to “Actually, its about ethics in copyright abuse.”

      This. Exactly this.

      I’ve discussed copyright here before. With Jaybird. And I don’t remember his actual position, but he’s not actually a fan of some of it. But…I’m pretty sure this is new.

      Mostly because if he’d brought it up, I would have pointed out the incredibly obvious flaws. Because I actually agree with him in _priniciple_, that things that are no longer published should not be under copyright.

      But I never suggest this as a _law_. Because obviously trying to determine when something is ‘still published’ is a complete nightmare. There’s a reason there’s a really poor-quality Fantastic Four movie out there, and that was because Fox had to make a movie or lose the rights. Imagine if _everyone_ had to do that! The Suess estate, if required to ‘publish’, would do it once, at the worse quality imaginable. Like, literally one copy, done by poorly spreading an existing book out on an office photocopier and stapling it together, and sold in front of their lawyer on a random street corner for pennies.

      Or are we going to require them to print a certain amount, at a certain quality? What sort of weird government rules does Jaybird want?

      If someone is actually serious about the idea of out-of-print works being available, you do the thing I’ve repeatedly suggested here, in discussions _with_ Jaybird, so he does know about this: You simply make things fall out of copyright unless the publisher pays for a copyright renewal, and make them high enough that publishers won’t do that unless the thing is making money. I have suggested exponentially higher copyright renewal costs as time goes past (First decade is free/nominal $10 to register if you need to, second is $100, third is $1000, fourth is $10,000, etc, to infinite. Disney wants that Mickey Mouse copyright to continue, they can do it, if they lay down a billion dollars.), but you don’t have to do that.

      And if they fail to do that, if they fail to renew every decade or so, it falls into the public domain.

      But, of course, the Suess estate would still renew the copyright for these books, even if costly (Unless extremely costly.), so _that_ solution wouldn’t work here.

      So instead we get this other solution, of ‘requiring to publish’, which is very broken, not just in ‘What is publishing?’ but ‘What happens if someone can’t find a publisher to sell their work?’ and and ‘What if the work is some detailed research work that is very valuable for a few people but has no mass market so 1000 copies get printed like once a decade, and mostly sold to university libraries?’. Or even just ‘What if the market is incredibly small and thus sort of random, and it might be a long time before enough demand exists to spend the effort making more?’

      And, does this only apply to books? What about…paintings? Where there only _is_ one copy? Do I get the right to make prints of random paintings and sell them because the painter hasn’t bothered to set it up where I can buy them?

      This is just absurdly unworkable as a government policy, and it’s utterly surreal to see it as a _conservative_ one. The actual solution is ‘At least once a decade, you have to sit down and write the government a check’, and the market says all those out-of-print things don’t get checks written…and it solve the problem of ‘Who the hell actually owns this copyright?’, too, because if it’s been 10 years and no one paid the fee…no one owns it anyway.

      It is pretty clear that the decision-making process here by Jaybird is “I dislike that someone can withdraw books from market because those books damage their brand and don’t sell, for reasons I see as ideological, so I’m going to invent a weird government overreach of ‘requiring people to publish copyrighted works’ to make it not possible for them to do that.”Report

      • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC
        Ignored
        says:

        What sort of weird government rules does Jaybird want?

        See it as “what sort of weird enforcement of copyright does Jaybird want?”

        If it’s within a particular duration, I want strong, strong, strong enforcement of it.
        If it’s not within that particular duration, I don’t want any enforcement of it.

        The Sonny Bono Act was a bad act.Report

        • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          If it’s within a particular duration, I want strong, strong, strong enforcement of it.

          What? What are you talking about? Did you forget the thing you proposed just here? The thing we’re talking about?

          The Seuss estate holds the copyright on certain books that they do not wish to copy.

          You think it would be best if they lost that copyright due to that, or at least had it suspended somehow so others could make copies until their copy-making resumed.

          This is, as I pointed out, a nonsensical concept that requires all sorts of government regulation about what ‘currently publishing a work’ is, and is fairly easy to game on top of that.

          Edit: And, again, I point this out DESPITE AGREEING WITH THE PRINCIPLE. Things not published shouldn’t be copyrighted. But laws need to actually make sense, so the way to do this that makes sense is to make people pay for copyright renewals so things that are not published and don’t look they will make money in the future simply don’t get renewed.Report

          • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC
            Ignored
            says:

            Are the Seuss books within the pre-Sonny Bono Act duration?Report

            • DavidTC in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Are the Seuss books within the pre-Sonny Bono Act duration?

              Before , the Copyright Term Extension Act passed, the copyright was 50 years after death of the creator, and afterward, it was 70.

              Dr. Suess died in 1991. So, no.

              Also, that’s not what you said. To quote you:

              I have given solutions but they’ve been waved away.

              One is stuff like “once a book is officially no longer published, it enters the public domain”.

              I would honestly see that as an acceptable solution.

              Now, maybe you additionally care about copyright lengths in general and think they should be shorter, but the thing you (suddenly) cared about when we started talking about this was the inaccessibility of ‘no longer published works’, not that copyright was too long in general.

              And again I repeat what Chip said, and I agree: the stated reasons are a front

              It’s extremely clear that policies being put forward by conservatives are just whatever outcome they want at the time.

              Because the idea that someone can argue a wedding cake for a gay couple is art, and thus they don’t have to do it…and then at the same time argue that people should have to publish any prior art of theirs, even if they don’t currently agree with it, or lose the ability to make money from it in the future, is…uh…you can’t actually believe both those at once as some sort of principle.

              If a baker has a right to say ‘I will not create and sell art that disagrees with my beliefs’, and not be punished by the government for that, then a book publisher has the same right. And, no, the fact they did it previously doesn’t change that…people have a right to change their mind.

              And before anyone goes: “Liberals believe the opposite, which is just as hypocritical.”, just…no.

              Because if people on the left disagreed with the wedding cake thing, it’s mostly because those people thought wedding cakes aren’t really any sort of artistic expression. Which is a debatable question, at least. (Whereas a book pretty clearly is an artistic expression.)

              And that, indeed, is the question I hesitated over on that case, and ultimately agree bakers should not have to do it in this one specific instance, while still thinking it needs to be a very narrow decision that _only_ applies to creating art and other forms of expression, and perhaps they should be required to sell them a cake _sans_ any sort of art or statement, if we can figure out how to set that up as a law.

              But that’s probably because I’m trying to apply some sort of consistent worldview and principles.Report

              • Jaybird in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, I also don’t like the “death of the creator” part. That creates a spectacularly horrific incentive.

                I’ve said before that I believe that the death of the author occurs when the book leaves the press.

                (I suppose that that would create an incentive for new updated versions… the way that “Ancient Philosophy” textbooks do. As if there have been significant advancements in Ancient Philosophy in the last two years…)Report

      • DavidTC in reply to DavidTC
        Ignored
        says:

        Actually, there’s an even funnier problem with ‘If things are not sold they fall out of copyright’…you know what isn’t sold? The content of this website. The content of most websites, in fact. I can’t buy a copy of cnn.com, or really any of the articles on it.

        I guess it’s now public domain and I can copy it all I want?

        See, I’m one of those people who thinks that pretty much everything _should_ be public domain fairly quickly, and, yes, the contents of this website or CNN or wherever should be public domain in a decade if no steps were taken to register them, but even I don’t think new content should be public domain _right now_.

        Ooo, here’s a fun one: There are things called ARCs, ‘advanced reader copies’, that writers and others in the publishing industry get of books before they’re on sale.

        …so, to repeat, those books are not available for purchase at the time. And yet people have copies. Instant public domain, I guess?

        Or…do pre-sales count as being available for purchase? So…the Suess estate could just promise a new printing of the book in 2150, and offer pre-sales of it now?

        See how this really doesn’t work? With just with the barest minimum of thought?

        It is _extremely_ clear that, as Chip said, ‘the stated reasons are a front’.Report

  19. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    This is what Joe Rogan’s listeners believe:

    Venus, who declined to give her last name to CNN for fear of online hatred, pinpointed Newsom’s order shutting down schools and businesses in March 2020 as the slap in the face she needed to pay attention to the local county board. Venus was angry about the impact on her job and then on her children. As California reopened, children returned to schools wearing masks and state workers were ordered to get vaccines. Venus said she believed the vaccines would give her children seizures, despite evidence that Covid vaccines are overwhelmingly safe and effective.

    Venus, who counts Joe Rogan’s podcast as a key source of her news

    Notice she believes he’s providing news – facts – upon which she bases decisions. And notice too that she believes that politicians – even local ones – aren’t listening to her because they don’t do what she wants. That’s the complaint that drove so many to Trump in the first place – they are no longer listened to by politicians in their own party. And as the CNN story illustrates, they intend to take their country back no matter what.

    Rogan fuels that. Rogan profits off that. Rogan refuses to help educate his audience that the genies they want back in the bottle can’t be recaptured, much less bottled. That’s the crux of the problem.

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics/california-shasta-county-recall/index.htmlReport

  20. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    We just lost the best today.
    PJ O’Rourke
    RIPReport

    • Oscar Gordon in reply to Pinky
      Ignored
      says:

      I heard. 🙁Report

      • Pinky in reply to Oscar Gordon
        Ignored
        says:

        The hardest I’ve ever laughed is at an essay of his entitled “So Drunk”. It’s something I can’t even allow myself to remember or it’ll send me into another 20 minute laughing fit. I have to look at it a little to the side in my memory.

        He was also a top-notch political thinker, although he did everything he could think of in his writing to hide it. I just found a quote of his: “Whenever I’m in the middle of conformity, surrounded by oneness of mind with people oozing concurrence on every side, I get scared. And when I find myself agreeing with everybody, too, I get terrified.” The context of this was some national panic in which everyone was in the right, and that’s when the crowd becomes dangerous. It wasn’t the modern -ist witch hunt, but it might as well have been. Neonazis aren’t dangerous because everyone knows they’re wrong, but antifascists are.

        I wasn’t thinking about him directly when we started talking about Rogan and the magic word, but he’d know what to say about it. O’Rourke didn’t believe in magic words. And my earlier comment about preferring Neil Young to Joe Rogan, again I wasn’t explicitly thinking about O’Rourke, but it’s really important to say something truthful and unexpected.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *