• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Joni Mitchell leaving Spotify

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lefty Frizzell said:
You didn’t want unvaccinated people to be able to interact with society. That’s the part I disagreed with you on.
Click to expand...
There might need to be some limits on interaction but you can't ostracise these people completely. As someone who is CEV I accept that I am going to have to limit certain interactions, partly through my own choice and partly out of pure caution. Perhaps not really an equivalent scenario but unvaccinated people perhaps have to accept they have a choice but there may be consequences.
 

Lefty Frizzell said:
You didn’t want unvaccinated people to be able to interact with society. That’s the part I disagreed with you on.
Click to expand...
Let me clarify, as I said 'Interact in the same way as vaccinated people'

e.g.
A surgeon should not be allowed to operate on people if he hasn't had the appropriate vaccinations, e.g. Hepatitis and Covid

You should be allowed in an area where being unvaccinated increases the risk to those people in that area. e.g. Schools, Hospitals, Planes.

Your freedom to go against medical advice and not be vaccinated shouldn't override the freedom of the 90% who have been vaccinated not to be exposed to increased and unnecessary risk from the unvaccinated.

People should not be allowed to travel to areas of increased risk without the appropriate vaccinations, e.g. Yellow Feaver, Typhoid, Covid etc


None of this is different to ensuring people wear helmets riding a motorbike, or wearing a seatbelt.
 
Hep said:
Let me clarify, as I said 'Interact in the same way as vaccinated people'

e.g.
A surgeon should not be allowed to operate on people if he hasn't had the appropriate vaccinations, e.g. Hepatitis and Covid

You should be allowed in an area where being unvaccinated increases the risk to those people in that area. e.g. Schools, Hospitals, Planes.

Your freedom to go against medical advice and not be vaccinated shouldn't override the freedom of the 90% who have been vaccinated not to be exposed to increased and unnecessary risk from the unvaccinated.

People should not be allowed to travel to areas of increased risk without the appropriate vaccinations, e.g. Yellow Feaver, Typhoid, Covid etc


None of this is different to ensuring people wear helmets riding a motorbike, or wearing a seatbelt.
Click to expand...
You said unvaccinated people “don’t have a right to interact with society in the same way as vaccinated people”. We were talking about discussing vaccinations in media/on a platform, not unvaccinated people in physical contact with others - which is a completely separate topic imo.

I don’t see an issue in unvaccinated people talking about why they made that decision at all. Personally I don’t agree with the stance they’ve taken. I’d much prefer that they give their reasons and then somebody who has the facts can then explain why they are wrong.

Are your restrictions on unvaccinated people being restricted from appearing on platforms only on topics relating scientific issues, or is it a restriction on any topic at all?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boy
Lefty Frizzell said:
You said unvaccinated people “don’t have a right to interact with society in the same way as vaccinated people”. We were talking about discussing vaccinations in media/on a platform, not unvaccinated people in physical contact with others - which is a completely separate topic imo.

I don’t see an issue in unvaccinated people talking about why they made that decision at all. Personally I don’t agree with the stance they’ve taken. I’d much prefer that they give their reasons and then somebody who has the facts can then explain why they are wrong.

Are your restrictions on unvaccinated people being restricted from appearing on platforms only on topics relating scientific issues, or is it a restriction on any topic at all?
Click to expand...
No one should be allowed a platform to promote mis-informaton. Anti-vax isn't an opinion, it's mis-information.

If a qualified team of virologists posted new evidence that was peer-reviewed then fair enough, but unqualified nutters need to be de-platformed.

As a society, we surely have a duty to ensure that we aspire to a high level of knowledge, and I don't think we've done that yet. The internet is full of crap, and we need to sort that out, but at the same time not stifle genuine topics which are opinions and can be debated.

If I was to write an article saying water wasn't made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen and send it to 'New Scientist' Magazine to be published without any supporting evidence, it would be put in the bin. Yet, I can post it online freely. That's not right.
 
Hep said:
No one should be allowed a platform to promote mis-informaton. Anti-vax isn't an opinion, it's mis-information.

If a qualified team of virologists posted new evidence that was peer-reviewed then fair enough, but unqualified nutters need to be de-platformed.

As a society, we surely have a duty to ensure that we aspire to a high level of knowledge, and I don't think we've done that yet. The internet is full of crap, and we need to sort that out, but at the same time not stifle genuine topics which are opinions and can be debated.

If I was to write an article saying water wasn't made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen and send it to 'New Scientist' Magazine to be published without any supporting evidence, it would be put in the bin. Yet, I can post it online freely. That's not right.
Click to expand...

De-platforming is wrong apparently. Every single possible view deserves credence and an opportunity to be aired.

People who think John Major is actually a lizard man and the COVID vaccine can melt your eyeballs, demand the right to preach this message far and wide.

And we have to let them? Fuck off :lol:
 
Hep said:
No one should be allowed a platform to promote mis-informaton. Anti-vax isn't an opinion, it's mis-information.

If a qualified team of virologists posted new evidence that was peer-reviewed then fair enough, but unqualified nutters need to be de-platformed.

As a society, we surely have a duty to ensure that we aspire to a high level of knowledge, and I don't think we've done that yet. The internet is full of crap, and we need to sort that out, but at the same time not stifle genuine topics which are opinions and can be debated.

If I was to write an article saying water wasn't made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen and send it to 'New Scientist' Magazine to be published without any supporting evidence, it would be put in the bin. Yet, I can post it online freely. That's not right.
Click to expand...
we obviously disagree on the best way to irradiate bad ideas.

My understanding from your posts is that if a person has decided that they do not want to get a vaccination that they should be cut off. They should not be able to discuss with others why they made that decision and also close any form of further discussion (by a wider group) that could lead to reeducation on the subject. We simply as a society pretend that they done exist and just exclude them for ever more.

I disagree with that approach.
 
Frijj said:
De-platforming is wrong apparently. Every single possible view deserves credence and an opportunity to be aired.

People who think John Major is actually a lizard man and the COVID vaccine can melt your eyeballs, demand the right to preach this message far and wide.

And we have to let them? Fuck off :lol:
Click to expand...
Where exactly do you want these people who don’t have the benefit of your education and obvious intelligence to go? Just to live in the periphery, looking in?

It’s obvious that they don’t have the correct information, yet it seems that you just want to get rid.
 
Lefty Frizzell said:
Where exactly do you want these people who don’t have the benefit of your education and obvious intelligence to go? Just to live in the periphery, looking in?

It’s obvious that they don’t have the correct information, yet it seems that you just want to get rid.
Click to expand...

Hang on, who are you talking about? I'm talking about people using a platform to put out anti-vax material. Who are you talking about, "living on the periphery"?
 
Frijj said:
Hang on, who are you talking about? I'm talking about people using a platform to put out anti-vax material. Who are you talking about, "living on the periphery"?
Click to expand...
“Every single possible view” is what you seem to have issue with, and you’d prefer they didn’t have the opportunity, “and we have to let them. Fuck off”

Never had you down as a person who would want the internet regulated and restricted.
 
Lefty Frizzell said:
“Every single possible view” is what you seem to have issue with, and you’d prefer they didn’t have the opportunity, “and we have to let them. Fuck off”

Never had you down as a person who would want the internet regulated and restricted.
Click to expand...

Aye, I don’t think people should be able to hoy fake news about. Soz if you think that’s fine like.
 
Frijj said:
Aye, I don’t think people should be able to hoy fake news about. Soz if you think that’s fine like.
Click to expand...
There is a fly in the ointment of your argument with regard to the Joe Rogan Experience, as the discussion platform does not position itself as news - rather, an exchange of outlooks from guests who's backgrounds & credentials are given at the start of each episode. If there was a consistent and unchallenged grouping of guests with one prevailing opinion, criticsm could more fairly be levelled but I really don't think that's the case at all having been an avid listener for some time.

Anybody free of mind & cognition could make their own mind up after listening. Having listened to the recent episodes, I can be selective in my attention and credence given to JP's view on climate change and take a wholly different perspective on his grasp and views of clinical psychology...no problem. There is no need to suggest fake news is being "hoy" 'd around, when it's not broadcasting news. Rather, a platform for someone to express an opinion , or understanding you, on this occassion, may disagree with.
 
Helvellyn said:
There is a fly in the ointment of your argument with regard to the Joe Rogan Experience, as the discussion platform does not position itself as news - rather, an exchange of outlooks from guests who's backgrounds & credentials are given at the start of each episode. If there was a consistent and unchallenged grouping of guests with one prevailing opinion, criticsm could more fairly be levelled but I really don't think that's the case at all having been an avid listener for some time.

Anybody free of mind & cognition could make their own mind up after listening. Having listened to the recent episodes, I can be selective in my attention and credence given to JP's view on climate change and take a wholly different perspective on his grasp and views of clinical psychology...no problem. There is no need to suggest fake news is being "hoy" 'd around, when it's not broadcasting news. Rather, a platform for someone to express an opinion , or understanding you, on this occassion, may disagree with.
Click to expand...

"Fake news" is a catch-all term for "disinformation" but you can call it whatever you like. Regardless of whether or not it is a 'factual' programme or what it positions itself as, it is promoting information that is incorrect in regards to COVID, and it has a huge audience, it's a very influential show, so I hear.

It's absolutely not my cup of tea, but it is an influential show with millions of listeners. I can tell from this post of yours alone that I don't like your views, but I can tell that you're an intelligent person (vocabulary, syntax, logic etc). Most people aren't that bright, or as questioning of the evidence they hear.

It frustrates me when people push the argument that people are rational actors who can make up their own mind based on evidence. They're not, really. 50% of the population are below average cognition. In fact you might be familiar with Jordan Peterson's work on people of less than average intelligence and how they struggle with information.

The combination of a health promotion message coming from a source an individual trusts (let's say their favourite podcaster) and limited ability to objectively analyse it, leads to people believing things that aren't true. If this wasn't the case, companies wouldn't spend millions on celebrity endorsements.

Whether Rogan pitches his show as factual or not is immaterial. It is a huge show with a massive audience that happens to be pushing information that isn't true and leading people down narratives that are false.

He's made untrue statements regarding the vaccine's side effects and how the vaccine works, and had multiple guests make untrue statements about vaccines and ivermectin. I really don't think Spotify should be hosting a podcast that reaches millions if people where the host and the guests are making untrue statements that could affect someone's health-related decision making.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top