It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spotify Banning Neo Nazi Music

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


According to Hitler, it was this persecution that made them stronger.


Strange, didn't have that effect with communists in the US. (or anarchist or socialist) Furthermore, no laws have been passed to ban neo-Nazi music — a privately owned music streaming service decided to exclude content.

Frankly, I'm surprised that neo-Nazi music was on Spotify to begin with. I'm sure they have some sort of decency standards. If there's such a thing as pedophile music, should Spotify be compelled to provide that for streaming lest they face specious allegations of facilitating pedophilia? How about if a serial killer makes songs out of the death gurgles of his victims? Or how about live recordings of rape?

Could it be that right-wingers simply don't see neo-Nazi rhetoric as indecent? "Kill Jews" is worth trotting out the histrionics over but "Rape all the kids" not so much?

I know I watched months of unhinged behavior at the mere SUGGESTION that pedophiles might be lurking in pizzerias but several hundred hostile, armed, neo-Nazis actually descended on a small town, beat up some locals and eventually killed one, and it's all, "everyone's equally at a fault here."


Again I'm not talking about laws, but the principles the laws enshrine. I'm not sure why people cannot understand this distinction.

Yes neo-nazi rhetoric is indecent, immoral, and disgusting. But so is silencing and censoring others, not to mention a tactics of, you guessed it, the nazis. Words, rhetoric, and songs are just that, nothing more.

I watched countless videos of armed antifa and militant protesters beat innocents using mace, bike-locks, pepper spray, sticks, bats, knives. They shut down one of Trump's rallies if you recall. They did it at the inauguration. More recently, a man walked into a baseball game and attempted to assassinate members of the GOP. All of this to the relative silence of people like yourself.

Look at this. The elderly, women and children trying to leave a fundraiser, punched and spat upon. This was a year ago, and it hasn't stopped. Recognize the chants? This is just one minor incident of many, and none of you stood up for them. This is not democracy.


edit on 18-8-2017 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Well, that wasn't the argument now was it? The argument was that a private business is free to choose what type of product they provide based on their view of what is right and wrong and whether said product aligns with their own ideals and that of their company.

It's a straight like for like comparison.

If Spotify can elect not to provide a product because it finds it to be in conflict with what it deems right and proper then surely all other business have that right also?

Surely the bakery has the right to refuse to carry/produce/provide goods or services that it deems are at odds with it's ideals also? Surely that is only fair?

I made no judgement about the morality of either side.

Personally, I don't care if Spotify stop carrying this music (except perhaps i object on general principle of restricting freedom of expression, but I will certainly shed no tears for the individual groups affected). I don't care for racist attitudes and I find that kind of discriminatiom rather objectionable.

Additionally, I don't care who puts their whatever's wherever in the privacy of their own homes and I really don't think it's any of my (or anyone else's) business.

I am not trying to say that being gay is akin to being a Nazi? It would be incredibly dishonest of you to try and twist what I said to paint me in a bad light, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

I simply said that if one private company has the right to object to producing/providing a certain product because they think it's unacceptable then so do all the rest.

You should try to understand that, the Christians in question (of which I am not one) believe that homosexuality is deeply wrong and offensive as fervently as Spotify believe that neo-nazis are wrong and offensive.

And so either a private company is allowed to run their business based on their beliefs or they are not.

To argue anything else seems rather hypocritical to me...

As I said, I was checking for consistency..

edit on 18-8-2017 by Indrasweb because: To clarify further



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
deleted.


You're right. I was a jerk and dunderhead and I apologize.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: 4003fireglo

Thank you, fireglo. I appreciate that.




posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   
they'll need to address some really old tunes too;

fcit.usf.edu...



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: ScepticScot

Well, that wasn't the argument now was it? The argument was that a private business is free to choose what type of product they provide based on their view of what is right and wrong and whether said product aligns with their own ideals and that of their company.

It's a straight like for like comparison.

If Spotify can elect not to provide a product because it finds it to be in conflict with what it deems right and proper then surely all other business have that right also?

Surely the bakery has the right to refuse to carry/produce/provide goods or services that it deems are at odds with it's ideals also? Surely that is only fair?

I made no judgement about the morality of either side.

Personally, I don't care if Spotify stop carrying this music (except perhaps i object on general principle of restricting freedom of expression, but I will certainly shed no tears for the individual groups affected). I don't care for racist attitudes and I find that kind of discriminatiom rather objectionable.

Additionally, I don't care who puts their whatever's wherever in the privacy of their own homes and I really don't think it's any of my (or anyone else's) business.

I am not trying to say that being gay is akin to being a Nazi? It would be incredibly dishonest of you to try and twist what I said to paint me in a bad light, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

I simply said that if one private company has the right to object to producing/providing a certain product because they think it's unacceptable then so do all the rest.

You should try to understand that, the Christians in question (of which I am not one) believe that homosexuality is deeply wrong and offensive as fervently as Spotify believe that neo-nazis are wrong and offensive.

And so either a private company is allowed to run their business based on their beliefs or they are not.

To argue anything else seems rather hypocritical to me...

As I said, I was checking for consistency..


Different situation.

One is a company deciding not to provide a product that promotes hate a violence.

The other is a company deciding not to serve a customer based on bigotry.

No comparison.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope.

Both are private companies who are choosing not to provide a service to a particular demographic because their own values do not align with said demographic.

Exactly the same situation.

Please be intellectually honest here. It is objectively an identical situation.

I know that you really really disagree with Nazis and that you also really really disagree with discriminating against gay people (which is as it should be in my opinion) but please stop pretending that the view that one comapny should be allowed to discriminate and another should not, based solely on your own sensibilities, isn't entirely hypocritical.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You Sir are correct now you know why these people are tying to erase history. If you dont know history you are doomed to repeat it.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indrasweb
a reply to: ScepticScot

Nope.

Both are private companies who are choosing not to provide a service to a particular demographic because their own values do not align with said demographic.

Exactly the same situation.

Please be intellectually honest here. It is objectively an identical situation.

I know that you really really disagree with Nazis and that you also really really disagree with discriminating against gay people (which is as it should be in my opinion) but please stop pretending that the view that one comapny should be allowed to discriminate and another should not, based solely on your own sensibilities, isn't entirely hypocritical.


Its not hypocritical at all as is a completely different situation.

First as already explained choosing not to sell a particular product is not the same as choosing not to sell a product to certain customers.

Secondly there really is no comparison between choosing not to deal with a group of people who promote hate and violence and choosing not to deal with people based on their sexualitiy.

Let's not forget that by hosting white supremacists music it is not just making the music available it is also paying money to the white supremacist groups.

I wonder how many people here, who believe that Spotify are oppressing free speech, would hold the same view if it was Islamic terror supporters rather than white supremacists.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 03:18 AM
link   
More fake ass bandwagon "virtue signaling," lol. Nope, didn't ban it last year or the year before...
edit on 19-8-2017 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

It is not the same. If a baker decides he will not sell cakes with the decoration of "Satan is Lord", that is his right. What is NOT his right is to refuse to sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple that he is perfectly willing to sell to a straight couple.

If Spotify were to be willing to provide pro-nazi music to everyone except nazis, you might have a valid argument.
edit on 19-8-2017 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I wonder if they are banning fashwave too. It's actually decent, especially for being ideological music:



a reply to: Indrasweb

Are you being honest, let alone intellectually honest? Spotify isn't banning Nazis from listening to or uploading music, just certain kinds of music, while the cake shop was refusing to sell cakes to gay people. See the difference? If the customers had demanded some kind of fabulous, custom-made homosexual cake with male genitals on it, then you might have a case, but no.
edit on 19-8-2017 by Cutepants because: Now that I think of it I realize fashwave never was on Spotify in the first place



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Ok.

1) "choosing not to sell a particular product is not the same as choosing not to sell a product to certain customers."

This is the exact same reason that was given by the bakery. The owner stated that he was happy to provide any other service to the gay couple but that he did not produce cakes for same sex marriage i.e
He chooses not to sell that particular product.

2) The only difference is that most people don't like
'Nazis' and most people don't have an issue with gay people.. you see a difference only based on how you feel about it, not how it objectively is. What you fail to accept is that many Christians feel as strongly that gay marriage is wrong as you feel that right wing hate speech is wrong. Their conviction on the matter is equal, they just don't have your support (or the majority of people's support) so therefore it's fine to discriminate.

3) you're arguing that by Spotify carrying the music the group's in question are benefiting (in this case, financially). In the case of the bakery, they felt exactly the same way but, instead of financial gain they were gaining support and increases mainstream acceptance, something that they were fundamentally opposed to. Again, there is no difference here; at it's most basic, the argument is that by providing said service, the group in question benefits and, because this support gives that group more power (either financially or socially) then it is justifiable. Therefore, both parties feel justified in refusing the service.

4) "how many people would support their right to free speech of it was Islamic terror" well, from what I've read, quiet a lot of people. In fact, ALL the people who are saying that there's a difference between saying things and doing things and that people have the right to say whatever things they like. That would include me. However, your point raises an interesting question: there are LOTS of Muslims openly preaching hate and making hateful speeches all up and down the country (I live in the uk) and, unless their speech actually crosses over into insighting violence or commissioning a crime then nothing is done about it. There are several people who have been known proponents of hateful ideology who have gone on to commit terrorist acts where many people died. Yet nothing was done to stop them because, up until the point they committed the terorist act, they had only SAID hateful things, which is their right. The question is; why are we not targeting those groups as a society and coordinating with various corporations etc to shut down their free speech? Why are we focused on a (MUCH smaller, much less active) group of ignorant white people?


Kaylaluv

Sorry, not sure how to reply to multiple people 'properly'

Anyway,

"If a baker decides he will not sell cakes with the decoration of "Satan is Lord", that is his right. What is NOT his right is to refuse to sell a generic wedding cake to a gay couple that he is perfectly willing to sell to a straight couple."

I think that is a reasonable point. However, they were NOT looking for a generic wedding cake. The cake they eventually got had a big rainbow on it, a well known symbol for the gay community. That is NOT a generic wedding cake, that is (for wont of a less ridiculous label) a 'gay wedding cake'. They specifically wanted a gay wedding cake, a product that that bakery does not produce.

Otherwise you could argue this; if it is *just* a regular wedding cake that happens to have a rainbow on it, then it should be equally acceptable to have *just* a regular wedding cake adorned with Nazi symbols AND it would be perfectly acceptable to force any Jewish cake maker to provide this cake with a smile on his face, lest he become the latest victim of the court of public opinion and labelled the most vile creature, guilty of the most heinous sin in today's society; apostasy.


Cutepants:

The bakery wasn't banning the couple from eating cakes. In fact they were willing to sell them all the cakes their hearts could desire. They could have eaten their way to a diabetic coma and a double amputation; as is the god given right of every good citizen of the West.

So, they weren't banning cake, just certain *kinds* of cake. So, unless cake is just cake (And music is just music) then we have the same situation again, as I outlined above in my reply to Kaylaluv.
And, as to the second half of your post

"If the customers had demanded some kind of fabulous, custom-made homosexual cake..."

It would seem that that is precisely what they did. Just because it didn't have male genitals on it doesn't mean it's not offensive to the Christian who is against gay marriage (i would question why you chose to imply that male genitals would be grounds for offence in the first place?)

The argument people are making here isn't one about fair and equal treatment under the laws of the land and about upholding peoples rights equally. It's based on feelings and emotions and "I don't like or support group A and I do like or supoort group B therefore actions against group A are justifiable and actions against group B are not".

If you remove your emotional response from this and look at it objectively then I can't see how you could come to the conclusion that these cases are so vastly different to one another.

Like I said before (basically): BOOO Nazis and Yay for equal treatment regardless of sexuality.

However, also BOOO for not accepting that you really only care about the rights of the people you like and don't care too much for the rights of those you don't.

If a right can be taken away or only applies to some people, some of the time, it is not a right it is a privilege. If that is the case, then it is only a matter of time until you yourself have that privilege revoked, and, unless you stood and fought for the privilege of others (those you didn't like) then you can expect no quarter when the wheel turns again and you are the one in the firing line.
edit on 19-8-2017 by Indrasweb because: Poor spelling



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

There is no such thing as s gay wedding cake. They refused to sell a wedding cake to gay customers. Unless you are suggesting they would refuse to sell a cake with a rainbow on it to non gay people? Incidentally if they find rainbows offence it suggests a fundamental lack of reading of the Bible.

Are you really arguing the moral relativst view that there is no fundamental difference between being gay and being white supremacist?

There is fundamental difference in both the nature of and the morality of what Spotify have done and refusing service to people based on their race or sexuality.

I am quite happy (well willing) to defend the rights of white supremacists. I would not support having their music banned (except where it crosses into direct incitement to violence) however having your work hosted on a commercial platform is not a right.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Indrasweb

There is no such thing as s gay wedding cake. They refused to sell a wedding cake to gay customers. Unless you are suggesting they would refuse to sell a cake with a rainbow on it to non gay people? Incidentally if they find rainbows offence it suggests a fundamental lack of reading of the Bible.

Are you really arguing the moral relativst view that there is no fundamental difference between being gay and being white supremacist?

There is fundamental difference in both the nature of and the morality of what Spotify have done and refusing service to people based on their race or sexuality.

I am quite happy (well willing) to defend the rights of white supremacists. I would not support having their music banned (except where it crosses into direct incitement to violence) however having your work hosted on a commercial platform is not a right.


Ok.

It seems we're talking about two completely different things here. I thought I'd made it fairly clear what I was talking about but perhaps not. You seem focused on the morality of the end user here and I am not. I am focused on the morality of the companies involved and the question of whether they are allowed to discriminate based on their morality.

Anyway, onwards;

1) If there's no such thing as a gay wedding cake then there's no such thing as a Nazi wedding cake.

Yes?

A cake is a cake is a cake. Eggs, flower, butter, sugar, icing. It's a cake, not a political statement.

Therefore, in both the example of the Christian bakers and the gay cake, and the Jewish bakers and the Nazi cake, there should be a consistency in how the issue is dealt with.
It's just a cake so you should get on and make it.
Unless it isn't just a cake and it's a political statement, symbolic of a cause and invested with the meaning that we have given it.... then we can choose not to align ourselves with that because it's against our beliefs.

Either people cannot refuse to produce said cake or they can. Either it is "just a cake" or it is a cake that is symbolic of something else.

You cannot have it both ways. Pick one.

Same with the symbology of the rainbow.

The rainbow is either *just* a rainbow or it is a symbol that has been appropriated by gay people and is symbolic of their cause.
The swastika is either *just* a couple of lines crossed together (that USED to mean something entirely different to millions of people, and still does in fact) or it is a symbol that has been appropriated by ignorant assholes and is symbolic of their cause.

You can't mix and match when it suits you. It's either *just a rainbow/swastika* or it is a symbol of an idea or cause .

Pick one.

2) Why do you keep insisting that I am arguing the morality of EITHER side here; gay people or 'Nazi's? I'm not. The individual morality of the end user here is not the issue. It is the morality of the companies that provide these services that are dictating the outcome. They are setting policy based on how they feel about a certain issue.

BOTH companies are making a decision regarding what products they are willing to provide, based on their own moral code and beliefs.

The issue is whether it is reasonable to do so or not, whether it is lawful or not and whether this standard is being applied equally and fairly.

As I previously stated, from the standpoint of the companies, both feel equally that they have the moral high ground and both feel equally strongly that they do not wish to be associated with a particular cause.

Whether you agree with them or not from YOUR standpoint is irrelevant. From THEIR standpoint they are justified.

Therefore, once again, it is simply a matter of whether or not a company is allowed to choose what products they carry and are willing to provide, based only on what they feel is morally correct (which is entirely nothing to do with what YOU or I feel is morally correct).

What is the difference between refusing to promote one cause (white supremacy) or another (equal marriage rights for homosexuals)? ASIDE from how you personally feel about one or the other?

Both can be regarded as promoting and/or endorsing a political agenda. Just because you don't like the one and do like the other doesn't change the fact that they are both attempts to change the way society is structured, or operates, based on a personal belief of what is right and good.

The question is then; what makes what YOU believe more right and good than what they believe?

Because you say so, perhaps you feel emboldened because the majority of people agree with you?
By that logic though we would still have black slaves as, at one time, the overwhelming majority of people in that society wholeheartedly believed (I would go as far as to say, had you asked them, they 'knew' in their own hearts) that black people were inferior. Majority agree so it must be right, right? (Of course not). So who gets to decide who's right? How do they decide that?

Spotify 'KNOW' that people who listen to 'neo-nazi music' are evil/bad/whatever.

Christians 'KNOW' that homosexuality is a sin against god, an insult to his works, and is fundamentally evil/bad/whatever.

They each chose to conduct their business based on their own 'knowledge' of what is right and wrong. Their principles dictate how they operate their business.

Again, the question is; is that ok or do we as a society believe that we have a right to suppress and try to control/eradicate viewpoints we find distasteful?

Do we feel private companies have a right to choose how they run their business based on their own sensibilities, or do we feel there should be some regulations in place to protect certain groups?

If so, who gets to decide which groups, and on what basis is this decided?
Who has the power and do we trust them to use it wisely?
Can it be misused or abused (either deliberately or accidentally)?
Does everyone get a say or just a handful of people (that we agree with)?


3) Having your work hosted on a commercial platform is NOT A right, I 100% agree, but nor is having the exact cake you want made by the exact person you want, exactly how and when you want it.
So, unless we shift the goalposts the argument ends there. Neither is a right and so neither can be demanded nor enforced.

Perhaps we should shift the goalposts then?

Where to?
How do we decide that?
Who decides and by what method?
Who has the power and do we trust them to use it?
Can it be misused or abused (either deliberately or accidentally)?
Does everyone get a say or just a handful of people (that we agree with)?

Fair and equal.

Is that really what we want? Is that really what we mean when we say it?

Fair and equal means the bad as well as the good. The wanted and the unwanted outcomes. The intended and the unintended.

Fair and equal, equal and fair..?

edit on 19-8-2017 by Indrasweb because: For spelling



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

I don't know what baker case you are referring to, but every case I have seen in the U.S. involved a cake ordered with no special "pro-gay" decoration. These were all cakes any straight couple would have ordered.

The definition of discrimination in regards to public accommodation is refusing to sell the same product to one group that you are willing to sell to everyone else. This is what happened in every baker case in the U.S. This is NOT what is happening with Spotify.



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 09:36 AM
link   
www.premier.org.uk...

From the article:

"The wording we requested was 'Gay marriage rocks! Happy engagement, Andy and Joe! Lots of love xxx"

Additionally, the case in Colorado where the baker refused to make a cake for a same sex wedding also "won’t make cakes depicting witchcraft, ghosts, and demons or sexually suggestive images"

dailysignal.com...

Therefore, one could say that his discriminating was not motivated by homophobia or discrimination specifically against gay people, but by his adherence to the tenets of his religion. Should he also be compelled to make cakes with sexually suggestive images or demons? Hell, why not both right? Who doesn't love a cake adorned by a bit of demonic buggery, with a buttercream frosting?


You agree that a Jewish baker should sell the nazi cake?

What if it was just a plain cake?

A few skinheads come into his Jewish bakery and say "hey we want to buy up a load of plain old regular unadorned cakes for our "kill all jews and 'n-word's Nazi buffet and sing along" at the weekend so, get baking big nose" and he is obligated to provide the party food right?

Cos it's just plain old cake with nothing on it... right...

otherwise.. TO THE STOCKS WITH HIM.... right?

In another article elsewhere it stated that the couple involved in the Colorado cake ended up getting their cake elsewhere which was a wedding cake with a rainbow on it... can't seem to find that article just now as there's TONNES of them online (as you can imagine).

Also,

The 'product' (in this case service) which Spotify sells is shop window space, they are a hosting service. They are refusing to sell this product to one group of people and not to others. That is exactly what you just said they weren't doing?

Could they also ban hosting anything by bands/groups with gay people in or trans people? Could they ban people who promoted liberal ideas? How about black people who talk about violence? How about women who talk about feminism?

You'd still be defending Spotify of course?

Fair and equal, equal and fair... right?
edit on 19-8-2017 by Indrasweb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Indrasweb

I am talking about the morality of the company. They are quite correct to say they won't carry products (in this case music) that promote hatred and violence.

Unless you believe the simple act of being gay is promoting hatred then there is really no equivalence despite your desperate stretching to make a comparison.




edit on 19-8-2017 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Look, let me be frank;

My personal belief is that everyone should have the right to decide for themselves. Everyone should have the right to say whatever they want, and of course face the consequences of that (AFTER THE FACT, that's the important bit). I don't believe that the government (of all entities!) should get to legislate what people choose to do, or say and, by extension, attempt to legislate what people should think.

If someone wants to put a sign up on their B&B or their bakery that says "we don't serve gays" or "we don't serve blacks" or "we don't like crackers" then I believe they should be allowed to. Then, that way, right minded people could choose to take their business elsewhere. How long do you think a bakery with a "no queers" policy would last? I'd think (and fervently hope) they'd be gone inside of a year.
By trying to legislate these people out of existence we are pushing them underground, marginalizing them (don't human beings just love an underdog?) and ultimately making them martyrs for their cause.

The dream of a utopia, where everyone only ever thinks, says and believes the exact same things, and everything is just peachy, is a child's immature fantasy.

The world is made up of 7 billion or more individuals, not a handful of homogenous blobs who all think the same, have the same feelings on subjects and have the same experiences. When I envisage a world like that I see a nightmarish DYSTOPIA not a utopia.

Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

We can regulate ourselves. We don't need governments dictating to us. Even the suggestion of that is dangerous to my mind.


Who has the power and do we trust them to use it? 
Can it be misused or abused (either deliberately or accidentally)? 
Does everyone get a say or just a handful of people (that we agree with)? 

Fair and equal.. at the point of a sword... it's not worth it..



posted on Aug, 19 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

Now it appears they are actively trying to scrub out white power/racist across various social media platforms.



GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




We've always known that Silicon Valley tech companies lean heavily to the left despite their greedy capitalist tendencies.


If the opposite of white supremacy and racial hatred is "leaning heavily to the left" then I see no issue with this whatsoever. I'd rather be leaning heavily left than to be a filthy Nazi racist.


edit on 19/8/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join