All his did was use it while quoting someone else or talking about the word himself. Crass, sure but hardly racist or transgressive against anyone.
It would be highly offensive if he called someone that but thats not what happened here.
And for the record, I'm very against his antivax stance, I just don't think he should be cencoered for it and he's certainly not a white supremecist
Honestly I don't get it, I'd love if someone would spell that out for me why someone using the word with extremely obvious lack of malicious intent is vehemently shouted down with the same intensity that actual white supremacists receive.
Actual white supremacists don’t pose any threat to the prevailing system of thought, so mostly get ignored as marginal wackos.
On the other hand, mainstream people who dissent, even in a minor way, pose a serious threat. They challenge orthodoxy in a way that crazy racists don’t. The real danger? People might start listening to them!
That’s why they get shut down harder. It’s about silencing credible dissent.
Actual harm prevention is a distant secondary concern.
It's not an overtly stated narrative and doesn't have to make rational sense, only be emotionally appealing. But it's quite self-consistent in its own terms, and it's ultimately what justifies this kind of outrage.
It's definitely not a just strategy, but it might actually be a fairly effective one.
I think it went too far when people started to link to Spotify's CEO's physical address on Twitter, it was almost like "Well here is the address, it would be a shame if something happened...".
And any "celebrity" involved in all this, if they think they aren't next on the list, they're deluded...
I also don't think he's necessarily antivax, but he's not innocent on this point.
Although he is right that there should be more focus on holistic approaches to help instead of just "TAKE THIS FUCKING VACCINE OR ELSE", which is kind of what it has been here in Canada. Meanwhile a large percentage of Canadian (and obviously Americans) are overweight, eat like shit, and don't exercise at all. All things which significantly increase the chances that someone, even if they're young, will have adverse effects from the COVID virus.
To me the quests seem to have some credentials and they have/had concerns over some aspects of how Covid is being treated, how the vacine is being administered, and how Covid restrictions are beign handled. They are interesting points and might be worth considering. I for one have been curious since the begining why Ivermectine was just banned fast with a smear campaign instead of doing actual trials and showing it doesn't work against Covid.
None of this is antivax or utter bullshit in my mind
Like Jordan Peterson rambling about climate change?
> I for one have been curious since the begining why Ivermectine was just banned fast with a smear campaign instead of doing actual trials and showing it doesn't work against Covid.
I you actually cared about that, then you'd know that trials were conducted and the data did not warrant a recommendation. For example, early results where discussed here in April 2020: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7172803/
Sorry but, by insinuating a smear campaign you are now the one who's spreading bullshit.
Yeah, Peterson isn't authority on climate change, but does that mean he shouldn't say what he thinks about it? Also I was refering to the supposed antivax episodes. I haven't listened to the Peterson episode. As I said I haven't listened to JRE since it became Spotify exclusive expect for these two episodes.
Sorry you need to help me with the link you provided. I tried skimming it and I just saw that ivermectine showed promise and that due to higher than usual dosage more research is needed.
>Sorry but, by insinuating a smear campaign you are now the one who's spreading bullshit.
Again what bullshit? If we have a drug that shows promise, but as soon as people start talking about it all news agencies start telling how the drug is "a horse dewormer" and implying that only idiots would even consider using "a horse dewormer" on humans when it is literally our best antiparasitic that has been used for decades on humans and animals. Obviously don't take any drugs that are made for animals, but I don't understand why potential treatment was dimissed so hard out of hand at a time when didn't have enough vaccines for everyone in need and we have bunch of Ivermectine in every pharmacy around the world.
> Caly et al. at Monash University in Australia recently published a paper in Antiviral Research, reporting that ivermectin, a medication widely used for the treatment of certain parasitic diseases in humans and livestock animals, inhibits the replication of SARS-CoV-2 in cell culture (Caly et al., 2020). *Despite the authors' cautious conclusion that ivermectin "warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans,"* the paper has excited widespread interest on medical and veterinary websites, which often incorrectly describe the drug as a treatment or cure for COVID-19. These inappropriate statements led to a warning by the US FDA, that *ivermectin in veterinary products should not be used for human therapy*
The letters and the author of the original paper all seem to be concerned about the dosage being higher than what is used to treat parasites and the amount could potentially be toxic which in their words: "important reason to be very cautious in considering ivermectin as a therapeutic for viral infection in human patients."
Again I ask you to help me with finding the section that says the drug fails to meet criteria for further studies?
EDIT: I tried to highlight the interesting points, but I can't figure it out so I will just put the two quotes here:
1. Despite the authors' cautious conclusion that ivermectin "warrants further investigation for possible benefits in humans,"
2. ivermectin in veterinary products should not be used for human therapy
The blessing and curse of having the worlds information at our fingertips is that we can usually find the data, groups and echo chambers to mirror any narrative.
If you were hesitant about certain medical procedures, you now have access to groups and data that can and will reaffirm that you should not undergo that procedure because of X, Y & Z.
Wether X, Y & Z are directly relevant, or even statistically probable - it doesn’t matter anymore. Group think, peer pressure, societal pressures and desires to be “free” and “independent” etc start to reign.
The backlash against Spotify is warranted - it’s just a large corporation that people can condem and refuse to do business with. Same with governments.
Perhaps not exactly the same analogy, but muslims won’t generally use the services offered by a Church, or some people might go see their Shaman over a GP, or vegans will avoid the meat-heavy BBQ place. We have our beliefs, some are misguided, some are dangerous. Covid is pretty dangerous, and deadly to certain demographics.
The forbidden fruit effect only gives these sounds more power than they deserve.
An awful lot of people disagree with you very strongly on that point.
I agree but as brown person who is a first generation immigrant and dealt with racism myself, Banning the utterance of a word used in a fairly clinical context draws attention away from actual systematic racism that exists today.
I hate to quote right wingers but this is very much virtue signaling and its dangerous for all te precedents it sets without doing anything that would actually benefit marginalized people.
Is Joe Rogan a bad guy? Who knows. Sounds like he was an idiot a decade or so ago, but maybe he's better now. Is he entitled in any vast cosmic sense to a platform with millions of listeners and an actual effect on politics and the real world? No, not really. He's got one, sure, but it's not like we as a society are in any way obligated to either agree that that should continue or not take steps to see it stopped if we feel it's doing harm. Should Joe Rogan be shot or thrown in jail? Absolutely not. Does he have an inalienable right to a mass influence on society? Also absolutely not.
This sort of notion that we as society don't have some vested interest in the construction of the world we live in that doesn't trump some random person's ability to earn an obscene amount of money is just strange. Joe Rogan isn't going to be poor if he loses his show and he's not going without a meal if Spotify decides he can't say the N-word in a podcast.
If I were a person who was vaccine-hesitant or straight up didn't want the COVID vaccine for whatever reason, all this talk would just make further entrenched in my beliefs. Which is clearly what is happening.
I also am also very much against calling for people's jobs/livelihoods what have you. Regardless of if I agree/disagree with their positions. I do wish Rogan would have just stayed independent, especially because I listen to far fewer of his podcasts because Spotify is a shit platform. But honestly, who would turn down a multihundred million dollar deal. So whatever, I don't blame him. But clearly he is seeing the repercussions of that.
AS someone who's also in an interracial relationship, I applaud his support and hope my own children benefit from genetic diversity.