Patterico's Pontifications

2/3/2022

Constitutional Vanguard: Is Neil Young’s Protest Against Joe Rogan “Cancel Culture”?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:39 pm



I wrote virtually everything I am thinking about the Joe Rogan/Neil Young controversy here. I think this one will be informative in various ways for everyone who reads it — for insight into the nature of the misinformation Rogan is spouting, for some clarity about the facts of the controversy, and for some challenging examples that show that, at times, even principled conservatives might justifiably want to engage in protests of speech that some might call “cancel culture.” The piece also recognizes that cancel culture exists, and looks for reasonable ways to distinguish between valid criticism and cancel culture:

[T]here really is such a thing as “cancel culture.” I don’t particularly care for the term, but we have all seen it a million times, and we can give countless examples. The music professor who was canceled for showing his class Laurence Olivier playing Othello. The San Francisco art museum curator who resigned because he “ended a presentation about new acquisitions by artists of color by saying, ‘Don’t worry, we will definitely still continue to collect white artists.’”) The UCLA business communications professor who was suspended for teaching students about a very widely used “filler word” in Chinese that happens to sound like a racial slur. These and countless other examples are an affront to common sense and a clear attack on free speech. (And isn’t it curious how often these controversies revolve around trumped-up phony race issues?)

The people who complained about the music professor, about the art museum curator, or about the UCLA business communications professor were all technically exercising their right to free speech. But I think we can all agree that those complainers were morally wrong to do so. They are purveyors of cancel culture. Their actions, even if they constitute protected speech, are wrong and deserve condemnation.

So: how to distinguish between these examples of “cancel culture” and legitimate forms of boycotts/complaints/protest as I detailed in the previous section?

I poured my heart out into this one. (It’s nearly 5,000 words.) I was motivated to write it by the fact that there are people paying to read my stuff, and so I made this one for paid subscribers only — but it also hurts a bit that it will go to a relatively small audience, given the effort I put into it. So, for the non-paid subscribers, I’ll make you a one-time deal. If you contact me by email (patterico AT gmail DOT com) or by DM on Twitter, and give me an email address to send it to, I’ll forward it to you for free. (Don’t worry, I’m not collecting the email addresses, and I won’t use your email for any purpose except to forward you this one piece.) Maybe, if you like it enough, you’ll decide it’s worth becoming a paid subscriber. Maybe you won’t, and that’s fine too. At the very least, I will have had the opportunity to more widely share a piece that I think has a lot to say.

Also, paid subscribers are free to forward this one to anyone they like. And I want to give a shout-out to the paid subscribers. I wrote this for you. I hope you like it.

54 Responses to “Constitutional Vanguard: Is Neil Young’s Protest Against Joe Rogan “Cancel Culture”?”

  1. I am confused about Neil Young’s stance. Has he taken a strident stance on misinformation that comes from himself? Like his stance on GMO foods, which he says are poison?

    Hoi Polloi (15cfac)

  2. I address the GMO issue in the piece. It’s a pretty wide-ranging discussion.

    Patterico (7e54d1)

  3. Sweet. Will have to read when I get home.

    Hoi Polloi (15cfac)

  4. Ohio, Alabama, southern man and rocking in the free world say more then joe rogen’s kinder gentler machine gun hand ever will.

    asset (1676da)

  5. I very much like this analysis. But I think it misses something that I’m having a hard time explaining. Your piece is complete without it, but I think it’s an important way to look at it.
    Sorry if I express myself poorly.

    A big part of the opposition to ‘cancel culture’ is cultural. People from the populist and alt-right feel like their group isn’t afforded the respect they’re due and that disrespect is directed at them because other groups look down on them. Norms about speech and behavior are used as a pretext to deny them the ability to participate in public discourse. As evidence of this we can point to exceptions made for their opponents. One example of this is the old “Why can rappers say the n-word but not us.”

    So if your premise is that these complaints are in bad faith then the common sense conclusion is that criticism of Rogan is wrong because the real motivation is to silence a political opponent and everyone that agrees with him. The points you made (that I agree with) are at best “useful idiocy” (no insult to you intended) that can be used by their opponents and at worst dishonest.

    To summarize their opinion as best I can “Neil Young’s actions are illiberal because the real motivation is to silence someone because they’re on the wrong team. His stated reasons are a dishonest pretext. To whatever extent he is sincere the majority of people aren’t sincere about it, they just don’t like Joe Rogan.”

    The other aspect is that I think a lot of of the people aren’t really concerned about free speech as a principle. They’re more interested in ideas they agree with being widely accessible and respect being shown to them and their culture, or social status.

    If their concern is social status then seeing Rogan, who they identify with and consider part of their team, harshly criticized is objectionable. Neil Young’s actions weren’t wrong because they were illiberal they were wrong because they diminished and insulted a powerful symbol. The demand for respect is often expressed as a compliant about double standards based on shallow reasoning. “We’re supposed to value free speech so why aren’t people allowing a member of my group to have their say?” This is made worse by the recent history of major platforms using /their/ rights of speech and free association to ban other prominent figures such as Milo, Trump, or MTG.

    I need to spend some more time trying to get these ideas in order but I hope the gist came through.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  6. The only person who got cancelled was Young (and now David Crosby, Graham Nash, Joni Mitchell, Nils Lofgren, etc. and also Mary Trump). Given a choice, Spotify was never going to “cancel” Joe Rogan; too much money involved.

    The only cancellations that count are subscribers.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  7. CC seems a symptom of gadgetry boredom.

    Remember your Tom Lehrer:

    “When correctly viewed;
    Everything is lewd;
    I could tell you things about Peter Pan;
    And the Wizard of Oz, there’s a dirty old man!’

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  8. Musicians don’t earn that much from Spotify:

    For each dollar of revenue Spotify earns, 58.5 cents goes to the owner of a song’s sound recording (usually a record label), Spotify keeps 29.38 cents, 6.12 cents goes to whoever owns publishing rights (usually the songwriter) and 6 cents goes to mechanical rights (often, but not always, owned by the songwriter), according to Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, a financial consulting firm.

    Artists are paid between $0.0033 and $0.0054 every time their song is played, according to Business Insider. By another metric, according to data that the rapper T-Pain tweeted in December, it takes the average artist roughly 315 streams of a song to earn $1 from Spotify. “Every other service pays better rates than Spotify. Napster pays the highest rates, believe it or not,” Hanley said. There, for comparison, a song has to be played only 53 times before the artist earns a dollar.

    Source

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  9. Yes, it is a problem that Rogan hosted a crank like Malone for three hours, especially when there was no three-hour counterpoint.

    To me, you know it when you see it. Neil Young wasn’t trying to cancel Rogan, he was choosing to disassociate from a platform that paid Rogan beaucoup for his misinformation on vaccines. It would be a cancellation if he Young organized a movement of 1970s hippies to demand that Rogan be sacked or removed. Instead, these old-timey musicians are just taking their associations elsewhere. It’s not there aren’t other choices.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  10. I don’t listen to either one of these windbags.

    mg (8cbc69)

  11. Neil Young wasn’t trying to cancel Rogan, he was choosing to disassociate from a platform that paid Rogan beaucoup for his misinformation on vaccines.

    Didn’t Young issue an ultimatum to Spotify, that either Rogan went or he would go? So it was an attempted “cancellation” that failed. But yes, these sorts of threats are utterly obnoxious and destructive. If he is that upset by Spotify hosting Rogan he could have just left without making a threat.

    mikeybates (c22064)

  12. I didn’t see it as a “threat” because Spotify isn’t going to walk away from a $100 million contract. Young is the Loony Tunes chickenhawk trying to move Foghorn Leghorn off the ranch.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  13. @11, you didn’t read the post.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  14. @121. It sort of smacks of publicity piggybacking.

    Not exactly a run on Neil Young of late– when was the last time you listened to any of his work? Removing Teddy Roosevelt’s statue from in front of the Natural History Museum in NYC was the last straw for me. It was there 80 years and the pigeons were never offended. Cancel Culture advocates have too much time on their hands.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  15. The thing is, Neil Young’s maneuver could seriously backfire. I doubt a lot more people are going to listen to his music, no matter where he lands, but Rogan is already famous and he’s getting way more media exposure now than a couple weeks ago. Rogan wins.

    Paul Montagu (5de684)

  16. Didn’t Young issue an ultimatum to Spotify, that either Rogan went or he would go? So it was an attempted “cancellation” that failed. But yes, these sorts of threats are utterly obnoxious and destructive. If he is that upset by Spotify hosting Rogan he could have just left without making a threat.

    This is all addressed in my post, which I have offered to email to anyone who expresses interest.

    Patterico (7e54d1)

  17. Patterico, I am a subscriber, and I always appreciate your essays. Thank you.

    Simon Jester (f1e1f4)

  18. Not exactly a run on Neil Young of late– when was the last time you listened to any of his work?

    I’ve been listening for the past couple of weeks on Sirius/XM’s Neil Young Radio.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  19. I don’t see this as cancel culture as, afaik, Young is not demanding that Rogan be barred from speaking at all, or consigned to the outer darkness. He simply objects to Rogan’s high misinformation content and does not want to be associated with a service that promotes it. His perfect right.

    I see his “protest” as an act of correction, better speech to refute (or at least point out) poor speech (the Rajat Suresh video is another such). Saying “This person is spouting sh1t, and here’s how”, or even “I won’t be associated with this person’s crap, even a little bit” is quite different than calling for censorship. It’s speech, pure and simple.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  20. Rich Horton: any time you boycott a company or other organization to protest someone else’s speech, you are doing a bad thing.

    Um, no. Not even close. If I protest CNN because they give free reign to Fredo to laud his pond-scum brother on national TV, I am not saying that Fredo cannot speak, or that people cannot hear him, I am saying the CNN should not be calling it “news.”

    Then again, I’ve not been happy with any of the news networks since they became partisan sounding boards. First we had Crossfire, but now it’s all Crossfire. It’s as unsatisfactory as all restaurants being Taco Bell.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  21. And anti-vax sentiment kills people. So it’s not a joke.

    So? So do booze, skydiving and using Bernie for investment advice. I fear those who would censor “misinformation” more than I fear the misinformation. If I feel strongly enough about it, I will be the bad guy who points out why it’s crap, but I won’t be the guy who says you can’t hear it.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  22. The problem (one that Neil does not seem to be engaging in) is where a digital mob demands that some speaker be silenced and the service obliges.

    The antithesis of cancel culture would be when a digital mob demands that some speaker be silenced, and the standards response is “Sod off, Swampy.”

    The mob is not doing the cancelling, and even if Neil Young was asking for that, Spotify isn’t playing so, again, it is not cancel culture at Spotify.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  23. Spotify Needs Joe Rogan and Music Fans

    It is unclear if Spotify Technology (SPOT -16.76%) is feeling any business impact from the Joe Rogan controversy so far. It is clear why the streaming platform is unlikely to pull the plug on him or any of its other podcast stars.

    The streaming platform’s outlook that was included with its fourth-quarter results late Wednesday left the question of the controversy’s impact unanswered. Spotify’s projection of adding 3 million paid subscribers in the current quarter was 1 million shy of Wall Street’s forecasts. But it was identical to the 3 million added in last year’s first quarter, and in line with long-term trends showing the first quarter of the year to be the company’s weakest seasonal period for growth. The company’s revenue projection for the period was in line with analysts’ forecasts.

    Spotify’s shares slid anyway, plunging 16% Thursday morning and putting them in line for their worst daily selloff since going public in 2018.
    ……….
    ……….Spotify’s business needs all the podcasters it can get. Especially ones like Mr. Rogan, who draws listeners by the millions. But the threat of popular musicians drawing listeners off the platform in protest of Mr. Rogan or any other controversial podcast content can’t be dismissed, either. Revenue from premium subscribers still accounts for 85% of Spotify’s total business, and the majority of subscribers were there before Mr. Rogan became exclusive to the platform in late 2020.
    ……….

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  24. When fighting ‘Cancel Culture,’ start small:

    Munchkins are ‘midgets’… not ‘little people.’ 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  25. @20. I’ve been listening for the past couple of weeks on Sirius/XM’s Neil Young Radio.

    And the five decades before? 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  26. The mob is not doing the cancelling…

    Somebody is.

    Changing the Washington to the Washington Commanders offends me. Why militarize the NFL, too? With ticket prices what they are, Football ‘Raiders’ and baseball ‘Pirates’ are criminal as is. 😉

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  27. Interesting. Suspect age has something to do with it -or it’s a generational thing. Rogan buzz means next to nothing to me- flavor of the month on the internet menu. I mean seriously, who gives a damn about what he opines. Just another attention grabber. And Neil Young- talented, sure; but as ancient as Stonehenge – [and Hillary Rodham Clinton] and about as relevant to the calculus of 21st century life as the slipstick [aka the slide rule.]

    CC still means ‘closed caption’ to me and ‘cancel culture’ seems like a symptom of a bored population addicted to social media gadgetry with nothing truly important in their lives to focus energies upon in the real world– so it turns in on itself to pick at silly little things and our ever-hungry media culture gobbles it up for fuel. Twitter is aptly named; Washington Commanders; the Cleveland Guardians… the change itself seems offensive;

    And a woman will always be a woman, but a good cigar— a smoke. 😉

    “I didn’t know what Facebook was, and now that I do know what it is, I have to say, it sounds like a huge waste of time.” – the late Betty White, 5/9/2010

    [Apologies for the moderation term- figured out what it was.]

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  28. Prediction: Should Spotify dump Rogan, they’ll lose most of the rest of the podcasters too, who will (correctly) feel the cold hand of censorship an their spine. After all, how hard would it be to start up a podcast service?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  29. @32. That’s so funny because I just got a new computer last month and removed the preloaded Spotify from the program files. Who needs it?!

    What’s not there won’t be missed.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  30. I think it’s interesting that Young dumped Spotify and got in bed with Apple and Amazon. Apple is good with Chinese slave labor and it is trying to block a bill against it. Amazon has a laundry list of bad things it’s doing. It’s also in bed with the CIA and the DOD which is something you’d think Young might have a problem with.

    At the same time I don’t think he can say what’s the disinformation Rogan is sharing.

    frosty (f27e97)

  31. The mob is not doing the cancelling…

    Somebody is.

    As I said, if it is done, it is done by the service, or perhaps with world at large (e.g. Bill Cosby).

    In this case, no one is being cancelled and in some circles it is Neil Young who is being chucked out.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  32. With ticket prices what they are

    Washington Taxers
    Washington Spenders
    Washington Insurrectionists
    Washington Ratfinks
    Washington Bureaucrats
    Washington G-Men, um, G-Persons
    Washington Pencilpushers
    Washington Filibusters
    Washington Red Tape (aka “The Tape”)

    Kevin M (38e250)

  33. This is made worse by the recent history of major platforms using /their/ rights of speech and free association to ban other prominent figures such as Milo, Trump, or MTG.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 2/3/2022 @ 1:38 pm

    Hmm. Then they’re getting off easy. At least one of those three should be in jail. And if I ruled the world, I would be sorely tempted to draft them for participation in my Antarctican nudist colony.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  34. To be clear: “my Antarctican nudist colony” means a colony I would create.

    Not a colony I would participate in.

    No one would want to see that.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  35. Nancy pelosi has warned our olympic athletes not to protest what china is doing to its people. Nancy’s and the DNC’s donor class in silicon valley fears china might retaliate against their doing business in china. Their billionaire donor class money is the only thing protecting the corporate democratic establishment from AOC and the democrats leftist base from taking over the party from them.

    asset (1951f6)

  36. @39. Nancy pelosi has warned our olympic athletes not to protest what china is doing to its people.

    In what capacity; private citizen or Speaker of the United States House of Representatives?

    Because:

    The United States is one of the only countries with an Olympic Committee that is not supported through federal government support. Instead, the U.S. Olympic Committee relies on private funding. The Team USA Fund helps underwrite expenses for Olympic athletes, coaches, and more.

    https://www.investopedia.com/news/how-athletes-get-funding-olympics/

    If she’s brain farting this poop as Speaker, she’s outgassing like Joe with the Duchess of Cornwall; but as a private citizen, she’s entitled to vent her opinion. As am I: paying $15.00/pint for ice cream tells me she doesn’t know where to shop nor the value of a dollar– so she can blow it out her near 82 year old butt.

    DCSCA (f4c5e5)

  37. “Their billionaire donor class money is the only thing protecting the corporate democratic establishment from AOC and the democrats leftist base from taking over the party”

    AOC needs a better economics degree. She offers the allure of democratic socialism…free health care, free child care, free college, guaranteed incomes….without an conception of how it gets paid for and how it distorts incentives. Sure, they always hand wave about taxing the rich….or with Elizabeth Warren, confiscating wealth….but the numbers just never come close to adding up. It ignores the fact that companies will leave, rich people will emigrate, money will find a more appealing location. Education already has the imprintof the heavy hand of government and it’s where we see some of the greatest inflation, inefficiency, and incompetence. I’ve linked two articles that describe the problems with democratic socialism and why AOC’s dream….and Bernie’s obsession are not based on sound reasoning. This is emotional and based on a bad read of what occurred in countries like Sweden and Norway (as detailed in the articles).

    We should think long and hard about how we spend our next tax dollars. I’m all for across the board cuts and instilling the ethos that if you want to spend more, there should be either a proposed tax increase somewhere….or offsetting cuts….but real ones, not ones that are only offered for rhetorical effect. AOC can’t be the future of the Democrat party because democratic socialism can’t be our future….it will only bring disappointment and hard economic times. We can’t afford to subsidize Ms. AOC’s misunderstanding of economics and human nature….

    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-wrong-democratic-socialism-sweden-everywhere-else-ncna1158636
    https://reason.com/2021/02/10/socialism-doesnt-work/

    AJ_Liberty (3cb02f)

  38. Nancy Pelosi can go f herself. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I think I learned that from a Democrat…

    Hoi Polloi (15cfac)

  39. And if I ruled the world, I would be sorely tempted to draft them for participation in my Antarctican nudist colony.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e) — 2/3/2022 @ 9:11 pm

    It’s always good to get a review of your views on free speech and due process and capital punishment.

    frosty (f27e97)

  40. Time (@4):

    I’ve brought up the classic case of “allowed misinformation” with the numerous “9/11 truther” type Facebook, Twitter and other social media pages, threads, etc. Just search YouTube for “9/11 Truth” and you can see it easily.

    The other problem is when Congress gets into the act and hauls Big Tech executives before committees to answer for information they allow (or have allowed). It smacks of coercion, using law, or the threat of new law, to get changes in content approval, and makes the “independent private business” argument about the 1st Amendment less credible. Similarly when administration officials “suggest” that certain opinions be removed from internet sites. These requests always seem to favor the policies of the party in power more than they address “misinformation” in general.

    Kevin M (38e250)

  41. Their billionaire donor class money is the only thing protecting the corporate democratic establishment from AOC and the democrats leftist base from taking over the party from them.

    So, what happened to public employees, soccer moms, good-government types and the New Dealers? Are they cast into the outer darkness now?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  42. Kevin, I agree that a lot of the statements our elected officials such as Warren, Trump,& Desantis have made aren’t aligned with free speech as a value. I think the line starts to be crossed when the official is calling calling for the speaker to be punished for their decision and / or threatening them (e.g. Warren’s tweet from a few months back that they should change the law so tech execs won’t be able to be snarky).

    A public figure expressing their own views or encouraging others to use their reach responsibly can be less troubling. So i don’t have as much of problem with say, a public health official saying that companies shouldn’t amplify lies and misinformation about the vaccine or that artists shouldn’t glamorize smoking or amoral behavior in their creative works.

    For example If a socially conservative elected official wants to encourage artists not to portray homosexuality in a positive light I don’t think they’re acting improperly with respect to free speech. If they threaten to raise their taxes unless they do so it would be another matter.

    But I agree with you that people who have legal authority need to be careful in their statements and should temper them in the area of free speech.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  43. @39

    Whoosh

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  44. The whole “misinformation” thing is awkward. We have the recent case of Big Tech pulling down social media posts that talked about the “lab theory” for Covid, then suddenly the theory is accepted as a possibility by the anministration and the posts are then allowed. Not only does Big Tech look stupid here, but the connection between what is allowed and administration policy is more than coincidental.

    Now, if one were to suggest that Covid-19 was engineered and intentionally released as a State action, this would be viewed as “misinformation”, not because it was obviously incorrect but because the idea is unproven (unprovable?), inflammatory, and fairly dangerous should it become widely accepted.

    What criteria do we have for assigning an opinion to the “misinformation” bin?

    Kevin M (38e250)

  45. Kevin, Another point i haven’t seen discussed is the role of impact, urgency and influence on decision making process of people who run platforms.

    What is the impact of the speech in question on my brand?
    What is the impact of the speech in question on things I care about in the world?
    Is are things happening now or in the near future on the matter in question?
    Will my decisions / speech here have any influence on the speaker or on others?

    So it makes some sense to me that Young chose to exercise his rights here. He’s what I see when I apply these Ideas to Young’s Actions.

    What is the impact of the speech in question on my brand? No. Young’s rep wasn’t impacted by sharing a platform with Rogan
    What is the impact of the speech in question on things I care about in the world? Far more people then should take guidance from the JRE
    Is are things happening now or in the near future on the matter in question? Yes, additional vaccination would have greatly reduced the impact of Covid. Additionally the anti-Vax have used this to expand the reach of their harmful nuttery.
    Will my decisions / speech here have any influence on the speaker or on others? Rogan responded to this and appears to have been influenced by Young. So if Young wanted that, he go it.

    I think reasoning like this also helps explain why people who object to one thing remain silent on other bad things.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  46. Kevin, Cross posted with your comment 44 and my comment 45 wasn’t intended as a direct response

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  47. anyone who thinks this would’ve stopped with rogan is nuts

    misinformation has become synonymous with “things people say that i don’t like”

    the covid lab leak ban is a good example, and many of the commenters here bought into it

    JF (e1156d)

  48. @47, fortunately no one makes you read Twitter, Facebook, or Hustler magazine. So if you don’t like their definition of misinformation or ‘art’ you’re free to spend your time in other ways.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  49. @48 oh wow, one of those commenters chimes in

    JF (e1156d)

  50. Don’t recall that I ever had a strong opinion on the source of Covid 19, let alone supported a ban on discussing it. But don’t let facts get in the way of your opinions.

    Time123 (9f42ee)

  51. Nancy pelosi has warned our olympic athletes not to protest what china is doing to its people.

    Good advice, as there are no free speech protections in China, and athletes would be subject to the capricious nature of Chinese law. Chinese authorities have shown that they are willing to arrest and charge foreigners to gain political leverage, such as the two Canadian diplomats charged with espionage to exchange for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. If the Chinese would do that to diplomats, they certainly would do that to athletes, who have no official standing.

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  52. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. I think I learned that from a Democrat…

    Good luck dissenting in China……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8)

  53. I think reasoning like this also helps explain why people who object to one thing remain silent on other bad things.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 2/4/2022 @ 7:45 am

    Hence, LeBron James having no problem speaking out against Daryl Morey’s extremely tepid statement about Hong Kong (because Morey speaking out hurt his China brand), but staying silent on the human rights abuses in China (because to speak out would hurt his China brand)…while simultaneously having no trouble speaking out on political issues in the United States (because the people who loathe him for doing so mostly don’t buy his stuff anyway, so they hurt his brand here not one bit).

    LeBron is another one, by the way, who should get a one-way-ticket to the South Pole.

    fortunately no one makes you read Twitter, Facebook, or Hustler magazine. So if you don’t like their definition of misinformation or ‘art’ you’re free to spend your time in other ways.

    Time123 (9f42ee) — 2/4/2022 @ 8:32 am

    This is such an obviously true thing to say that I don’t know why you feel the need to say it ag…

    Oh, wait. You were talking to JF. Never mind.

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)

  54. Good luck dissenting in China……

    Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 2/4/2022 @ 9:36 am

    (with best Yakov Smirnoff voice)

    In Communist China, tank dissents you!

    Demosthenes (3fd56e)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3194 secs.