There's a difference between censoring and enabling.
There's a difference between censoring and enabling.
Why it has to be mutually exclusive like an XOR operation? In a civilized discourse it is OK to have both points of view present at the same time, so that a listener can listen to one or both or none. By insisting on just one (in whatever context) we diminish our intellectual pursuits. Is it now all about cheap publicity stunts?
A racist is within their rights to publically discuss their views. I will happily argue that that is the way it should be until the heat death of the universe. But, importantly, you will never catch me saying the they're a decent person or they're doing the right thing. Young can be against basic human rights without exceeding the bounds of his own, but being authoritarian is still morally abhorrent.
Refusing to participate is far from being "authoritarian".
By that measure, any scientist refusing to engage with a crook, would be labeled as a fascist, when there are very good reasons for him or her not to do so.
If Neil Young pulled his music from Spotify on a whim, sure, he "refused to participate". That's not what happened. Neil Young leveraged his art to limit the someone else's basic right to self-expression. If someone refused to put music on Spotify because Spotify has Jewish musicians on their platform, would we call them an antisemite, or would we say, "there's no obligation to put your music anywhere, so that's fine"?
It's a moral condemnation. It also can mean someone using authority to coerce people.
I agree with you that Neil Young ought not to be accused of either of these. He obviously has the moral right to control his own creations. He obviously doesn't have the authority to get rid of Rogan, based on what just happened. He obviously doesn't have the power to completely shut up Rogan.
However, what seems true to me is that he disagrees with actions and speech of other people and has chosen not to try to convince them of his opinions through speech, but to fight them by other means.
This fact pattern seems to me like a possible definition of "authoritarian" that some people could be using, without the other baggage.
You may want to look into what the term "authoritarian" actually means.
>favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.
So I'll ask that you do a little work and point me at the definition you'd prefer.
These musicians aren't bullies, and they aren't doing anything like that. They're just saying "if your platform presents an image we don't like, or conducts itself in way that appears genuinely harmful to others -- we're not going to lend our credibility to it."
That's all. And it is perfectly within their free speech rights to do so.
But morally, it goes against free speech and aligns with fascism.
He's trying to cancel Spotify.
Until it’s the government doing it, it’s not a problem.
But censorship over dialogue is always a short sighted solution and it turns people from colleagues who disagree into enemies.
There's been a 14 point shift in the United States from Democrat to Republican in the past YEAR.
One of if not the biggest political shift in recorded history since the early 1900s.
And Republicans no longer view Democrats as disagreeing colleagues but as enemies to be eliminated.
Trump is now having some of the biggest crowds in political history.
2022 is republicans are predicted to take over the house and the Senate.
2024 Trump will win again.
All over the country people who believe the election was stolen are running for political office in positions to manage voting.
I personally think the Republicans will make major changes in the political process to ensure their permanent control even if it undermines the foundation of the country.
Our two parties are going to be flavors of Republicanism.
And it will be their right as well.
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q...