Medical exemption.
- AdamFrench

Sounds reasonable.

there are just as many clips of him put out there that are using it to further the nonsense and false poop not just disparage.
- senstroll

The point is that if people only care or take away their entire opinion on a subject from a 1-3 minute clip of a 3 hour talk with whomever (could be a professor, comedian, scientist, journalist, homeless junky off the side of the road), then the real problem is with those individuals.

Oh and Neil can do whatever he wants. I (frank)ing doubt Spotify gives a poop about losing the rights to his songs. Hell, if they let Rogan go somehow, he's already made the 100 or whatever mil they paid him up front to be on their platform alone. He can waltz back into youtube and probably double his audience again.

The point is that if people only care or take away their entire opinion on a subject from a 1-3 minute clip of a 3 hour talk with whomever (could be a professor, comedian, scientist, journalist, homeless junky off the side of the road), then the real problem is with those individuals.
- AdamFrench

and it happens all the time...probably more than you an even imagine.

Glad you see the problem with it/those individuals

The only person who is arguing for curtailing of free speech here is you.

Neil Young is perfectly within his rights to decide what he wants to do with his intellectual property, and you seem to have a problem with it.

As for your statement that Joe Rogan has admitted he was wrong, you're simply incorrect here.

Of all the people to worship as a false idol, why would you pick a former co-star of Talk Radio?

It's true what people say: Joe Rogan is the Gwenyth Paltrow for bros.
- Atomic Wedgie

How am I arguing for curtailing free speech? I'm arguing that people here have been losing their (frank)ing minds over Rogan's hot takes. "He's dangerous!", "He's misinformed!", "companies should censor 'misinformation'", etc.

Neil Young is perfectly within his rights to call for canceling Joe on Spotify for misinformation but that logic is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Perhaps Neil should go on the JRE and have a conversation with Joe instead of foaming at the mouth about him. Then again, Young has an axe to grind with Spotify stemming back from years ago and I'm thinking this has added fuel to the fire.

Per Joe admitting he was wrong, the quotes are pretty irrefutable. You can argue that he didn't say the exact words, "instances of myocarditis occur at a much higher rate w/ COVID infections than they do from vaccination", but whatever. That's obviously implied by his admission that he "stumbled", looked "dumb", "confused", and doesn't know what's "right".

Also, I don't "worship" Joe Rogan and don't view him as an idol. But hey, I'm defending him here so obviously I'm a rabid fan. I have never enjoyed his stand-iup, thought he was the weakest link on Talk Radio, never watched Fear Factor, and don't listen to his podcast religiously.

I do enjoy listening to some of his podcasts (among many others) and I think he's a relatively astute MMA colour guy (though sometimes he's way off). Meh... no one is perfect. But the amount of vitriol this guy gets is hysterical.

Anyone else here uncomfortable that Bonds and Clemens weren't elected to the Hall of Fame?

At the end of the day, neither of them were ever convicted of using steroids.

Do I think they juiced? 100%

But with no proof, I can't agree with keeping them out.
- Atomic Wedgie

The hypocrisy of the voters (some) with not voting them in but also voting Ortiz, who actually had a positive PED test, in the Hall is amazing.

Only difference is that the media liked Ortiz and didn't like the other guys.

The hypocrisy of the voters (some) with not voting them in but also voting Ortiz, who actually had a positive PED test, in the Hall is amazing.

Only difference is that the media liked Ortiz and didn't like the other guys.
- GreatGigInTheSky

thats basically it imo. Ortiz was nicer to them.

Cringy moments from uncensored 3 hour conversations with different people of all different stripes every day. Weird. I thought he would be flawless and kill any and everybody I hate with a sword.
- AdamFrench

Well said!

The point is that if people only care or take away their entire opinion on a subject from a 1-3 minute clip of a 3 hour talk with whomever (could be a professor, comedian, scientist, journalist, homeless junky off the side of the road), then the real problem is with those individuals.

Oh and Neil can do whatever he wants. I (frank)ing doubt Spotify gives a poop about losing the rights to his songs. Hell, if they let Rogan go somehow, he's already made the 100 or whatever mil they paid him up front to be on their platform alone. He can waltz back into youtube and probably double his audience again.
- AdamFrench

this really has nothing to do with what I am talking about.

this really has nothing to do with what I am talking about.
- senstroll

Ya, but my sword is right here and it's supposed to be swinging.

How am I arguing for curtailing free speech? I'm arguing that people here have been losing their (frank)ing minds over Rogan's hot takes. "He's dangerous!", "He's misinformed!", "companies should censor 'misinformation'", etc.

Neil Young is perfectly within his rights to call for canceling Joe on Spotify for misinformation but that logic is deeply and fundamentally flawed. Perhaps Neil should go on the JRE and have a conversation with Joe instead of foaming at the mouth about him. Then again, Young has an axe to grind with Spotify stemming back from years ago and I'm thinking this has added fuel to the fire.

Per Joe admitting he was wrong, the quotes are pretty irrefutable. You can argue that he didn't say the exact words, "instances of myocarditis occur at a much higher rate w/ COVID infections than they do from vaccination", but whatever. That's obviously implied by his admission that he "stumbled", looked "dumb", "confused", and doesn't know what's "right".

Also, I don't "worship" Joe Rogan and don't view him as an idol. But hey, I'm defending him here so obviously I'm a rabid fan. I have never enjoyed his stand-iup, thought he was the weakest link on Talk Radio, never watched Fear Factor, and don't listen to his podcast religiously.

I do enjoy listening to some of his podcasts (among many others) and I think he's a relatively astute MMA colour guy (though sometimes he's way off). Meh... no one is perfect. But the amount of vitriol this guy gets is hysterical.
- mjones242

I drew the line on Joe Rogan a long time ago. This is a guy who is quite happy to personally profit by providing a platform for Alex Jones.

Ultimately, you are what you choose to associate yourself with.

I drew the line on Joe Rogan a long time ago. This is a guy who is quite happy to personally profit by providing a platform for Alex Jones.

Ultimately, you are what you associate yourself with.
- fifty__missions

same here, I was a big fan. we went to many UFC events, went to his standup, met him briefly a couple times whilst at events...but now

The hypocrisy of the voters (some) with not voting them in but also voting Ortiz, who actually had a positive PED test, in the Hall is amazing.

Only difference is that the media liked Ortiz and didn't like the other guys.
- GreatGigInTheSky

Agree, it actually goes further than that. Ortiz was a key member of the three world series wins for the Sox after an 86 year drought. Do you think just maybe the strong influence of one of MLB's most powerful franchises might have something to do with Ortiz getting in? Anything that would do harm to the legitimacy of those wins might be subject to a significant amount of push back from the Red Sox IMO. Similarly, most are aware of Ben Johnson's PED use and his public humiliation and loss of a gold medal. The fact that the Olympc Committee stripped Johnson of that medal in 1988, banned him for life and gave that medal to a US cheater who talks in a voice 2 octaves above normal still pisses me off.

thats basically it imo. Ortiz was nicer to them.
- senstroll

Yup. Which just goes to show that a lot of people have no business having a vote if they can't put their bias aside.

Like, I agreed with holding them (Bonds, Clemons) out of the Hall as a show that they cheated and took the right of being a 1st ballot Hall of Famer away from them, but not voting them in at the end of their eligibility is incredibly stupid.

And the same should have been applied to Ortiz.

new blog everyone

Agree, it actually goes further than that. Ortiz was a key member of the three world series wins for the Sox after an 86 year drought. Do you think just maybe the strong influence of one of MLB's most powerful franchises might have something to do with Ortiz getting in? Anything that would do harm to the legitimacy of those wins might be subject to a significant amount of push back from the Red Sox IMO. Similarly, most are aware of Ben Johnson's PED use and his public humiliation and loss of a gold medal. The fact that the Olympc Committee stripped Johnson of that medal in 1988, banned him for life and gave that medal to a US cheater who talks in a voice 2 octaves above normal still pisses me off.
- winsix

First bolded- Honestly, no clue. I'm really just inclined to believe that reporters a (frank)ing fragile losers who hold grudges.

Second bolded- Right?! (frank)ing insane.

Agree, it actually goes further than that. Ortiz was a key member of the three world series wins for the Sox after an 86 year drought. Do you think just maybe the strong influence of one of MLB's most powerful franchises might have something to do with Ortiz getting in? Anything that would do harm to the legitimacy of those wins might be subject to a significant amount of push back from the Red Sox IMO. Similarly, most are aware of Ben Johnson's PED use and his public humiliation and loss of a gold medal. The fact that the Olympc Committee stripped Johnson of that medal in 1988, banned him for life and gave that medal to a US cheater who talks in a voice 2 octaves above normal still pisses me off.
- winsix

At the end of the day there are 2 guys who should be in the HoF, and another who had just as much eligibility as Ortiz (Schilling) who weren't likeable. Ortiz is sketchy as an HoF guy . . . Ortiz never won an MVP award, but he was 2nd, 3rd, 4th twice and 5th. He was also the MVP for an ALCS, and the MVP for a WS.

Schilling never won the Cy Young, but he was 2nd 3 times, and 4th once. He also also the MVP for an NLCS and the MVP for a WS.

Ortiz somehow gets in as a first time HoF Ballot?

It's bias and bullpoop.

I drew the line on Joe Rogan a long time ago. This is a guy who is quite happy to personally profit by providing a platform for Alex Jones.

Ultimately, you are what you choose to associate yourself with.
- fifty__missions

What makes me lose my poop these days is that the most popular interviewers (I won't call them journalists) feel like their shows are just platforms for their guests to say whatever the frank they want, without any pushback.

Worst example: Oprah's "interview" with Harry and Meghan Markle. It wasn't an interview - it was an infomercial. It was an opportunity for the two of them to say whatever the hell they wanted, completely push their own narrative on how they are terrible victims for being in the royal family, and how they deserve our sympathy.

Yeah, boo-franking-hoo.

Off with their heads.

I drew the line on Joe Rogan a long time ago. This is a guy who is quite happy to personally profit by providing a platform for Alex Jones.

Ultimately, you are what you choose to associate yourself with.
- fifty__missions

Sure. And some people are willing to have conversations with both sides of the aisle.

Better to shine a light on undesirables than to push them into a dark corner of the web.

As a radical centrist, I don't give a (frank) if Joe "platforms" anyone I don't like. I'll listen to it or I won't. If that's a bridge too far for some people, that's cool.

Now if Joe started promoting some messages I find ideologically problematic - yes, even radical centrists have their boundaries - I may have to reconsider whether there is a line or not.

Having said that, I don't agree with the notion that you are what you associate with. I feel like that's a pretty reductive take and leads down a path to utter divisiveness and ideological puritanism.