Spotify Blue,™️ - a new music streaming service where self-righteous liberals can choose which artists and podcasts won’t get played.
if all goes well, Spotify Red®️will launch as an online dungeon for all of the censored artists. At that point, everyone will only listen to artists and content creators who hold political beliefs we can tolerate.
When did Neil Young start advocating for the silencing of his ideological opponents? Didn’t he make a statement as a countercultural figure in the 1960s, raging against the cultural and political establishment? Wasn’t he the one working with Crosby, Stills, & Nash to release “Ohio,” a powerful protest song released after the killing of student protesters at Kent State University in 1970?
Didn’t that song become an anthem for the anti-Vietnam War movement? I swear he was the one who continued that counterculture/anti-establishment crusade into the 2000’s when he reunited with Crosby, Stills, & Nash, singing anti-Iraq War and anti-George W. Bush songs. They called it the “Freedom of Speech Tour” and kicked it off in Philadelphia, the birthplace of the Constitution.
Baby boomers are now baby DOOMERS.
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
The emerging campaign to pressure Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from its platform is perhaps the most illustrative episode yet of both the dynamics at play and the desperation of liberals to ban anyone off-key. It was only a matter of time before this effort galvanized in earnest. Rogan has simply become too influential, with too large of an audience of young people, for the liberal establishment to tolerate his continuing to act up. Prior efforts to coerce, cajole, or manipulate Rogan to fall into line were abject failures. Shortly after The Wall Street Journal reportedin September, 2020 that Spotify employees were organizing to demand that some of Rogan's shows be removed from the platform, Rogan invited Alex Jones onto his show: a rather strong statement that he was unwilling to obey decrees about who he could interview or what he could say.
On Tuesday, musician Neil Young demandedthat Spotify either remove Rogan from its platform or cease featuring Young's music, claiming Rogan spreads COVID disinformation. Spotify predictably sided with Rogan, their most popular podcaster in whose show they invested $100 million, by removing Young's music and keeping Rogan. The pressure on Spotify mildly intensified on Friday when singer Joni Mitchell issued a similar demand. Allsortsofcensorship-madliberalscelebrated this effort to remove Rogan, then vowed to canceltheir Spotify subscription in protest of Spotify's refusal to capitulate for now; a hashtagurging the deletion of Spotify's app trended for days. Many bizarrely urged that everyone buy music from Apple instead; apparently, handing over your cash to one of history's largest and richest corporations, repeatedly linked to the use of slave labor, is the liberal version of subversive social justice.
When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont's heating system and Putin's sexual blackmail over Trump to bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the Biden email archive being "Russian disinformation,” and a magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is "disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID's origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely.
This "disinformation" term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of "disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard.
Read Glenn Greenwald’s excellent analysis on this cultural moment here:
Personally, I have long endeavored to maintain some kind of safe distance from the endless behavioral phenomena which have been unleashed by the internet and its interactive capabilities. You might call my approach to these so-called 'culture wars' a determined opposite of this 'Streisand Effect': the instant I become aware of anyone's being raised to the level of a personality cult, I become that much more committed to not giving a rat's ass what they have to say.
But for whatever reason, the internet has taken Andy Warhol's 'fifteen minutes of fame' impulse and transformed it into an astonishingly childish addiction to seeking whatever fleeting doses of self-imagined celebrity one can enable by doing no more than spouting reckless opinions or reciting ideological mantras.
Seeing the ridiculous and embarrassing 21C world through this light, I could not tell you the first thing about this Rogan character, other than the fact that a lot of people seem to hang on his every word for some reason, reason enough for me not to be interested in hearing any of them. I have little notion of what this 'podcast' thingy is or what might distinguish it from plain old talk radio, a venue where people in need of attention vie for the opportunity to hog the mike and use it to talk out their asses on matters which concern them little and require their input even less. And until a few days ago, if you had mentioned this 'spotify' to me I probably would have thought you were talking about some kind of laundry product.
Personality cults are inherently dangerous, not because those seeking or enjoying such a status are particularly hazardous, but because people herding up and following trends for no more reason than that they trending is the most dangerous of all traits of mass human behavior. Where is the dignity, the autonomy, the self-respect, in following trends because they are trending?
I submit that the 21C world is a world of reckless and lazy addicts, looking for the next thing or person or ideogram to be addicted to. I don't give all this 'content' trying to substantiate the behavior of addicts as genuine ideas any credit at all. Whatever it was that this internet gimmick was supposed to liberate us from, it has done precious little to liberate us from ourselves.
And besides, wouldn't one have to conclude that naming one's rock band after a 19th-century Lakota warrior and rebel leader who preferred the tactics of luring the enemy into ambush by taunting and mocking him over open-field combat, 'cultural appropriation?'
Whatever. I have to go now and shoot up my daily fix of Jordan Peterson, or something....
Personally, I have long endeavored to maintain some kind of safe distance from the endless behavioral phenomena which have been unleashed by the internet and its interactive capabilities. You might call my approach to these so-called 'culture wars' a determined opposite of this 'Streisand Effect': the instant I become aware of anyone's being raised to the level of a personality cult, I become that much more committed to not giving a rat's ass what they have to say.
But for whatever reason, the internet has taken Andy Warhol's 'fifteen minutes of fame' impulse and transformed it into an astonishingly childish addiction to seeking whatever fleeting doses of self-imagined celebrity one can enable by doing no more than spouting reckless opinions or reciting ideological mantras.
Seeing the ridiculous and embarrassing 21C world through this light, I could not tell you the first thing about this Rogan character, other than the fact that a lot of people seem to hang on his every word for some reason, reason enough for me not to be interested in hearing any of them. I have little notion of what this 'podcast' thingy is or what might distinguish it from plain old talk radio, a venue where people in need of attention vie for the opportunity to hog the mike and use it to talk out their asses on matters which concern them little and require their input even less. And until a few days ago, if you had mentioned this 'spotify' to me I probably would have thought you were talking about some kind of laundry product.
Personality cults are inherently dangerous, not because those seeking or enjoying such a status are particularly hazardous, but because people herding up and following trends for no more reason than that they trending is the most dangerous of all traits of mass human behavior. Where is the dignity, the autonomy, the self-respect, in following trends because they are trending?
I submit that the 21C world is a world of reckless and lazy addicts, looking for the next thing or person or ideogram to be addicted to. I don't give all this 'content' trying to substantiate the behavior of addicts as genuine ideas any credit at all. Whatever it was that this internet gimmick was supposed to liberate us from, it has done precious little to liberate us from ourselves.
And besides, wouldn't one have to conclude that naming one's rock band after a 19th-century Lakota warrior and rebel leader who preferred the tactics of luring the enemy into ambush by taunting and mocking him over open-field combat, 'cultural appropriation?'
Whatever. I have to go now and shoot up my daily fix of Jordan Peterson, or something....