The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved: what you call censorship, I call power struggle

Starting point is 00:00:01 These statues have to come down. It's always been a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The problem now is it's a pandemic of the willfully unvaccinated. Falling birth rates are good. They're good for our planet. They're good for our societies. We're not responsible for the escalation with Russia. We're not the ones who invaded Ukraine.

Starting point is 00:00:21 I don't think it's fair to portray people of color as victims. It is a very dangerous time in American politics. Hello and welcome to the monk debates. episode, we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. What you call censorship, I call power struggle. Meanwhile, if you go on Spotify this morning, you won't find most of Neil Young's music. The singer asked the streaming service to pull his work, accusing the platform of spreading COVID misinformation.

Starting point is 00:01:05 Spotify is in full damage control mode these days, trying to stop the exodus of musicians who are leaving the streaming service and following the example of Neil Young. Spotify is now responding, saying it will take new actions to combat the spread of misinformation. If I become something different because it grew bigger, I'll quit. If it gets to a point where I can't do it anymore,

Starting point is 00:01:29 where I have to do it in some sort of weird way where I, you know, I walk on eggshells and mine my peas and cues. I'm f***ed that. Hello, I'm your moderator, Rudyard Griffiths. Well, it felt like just another episode in a debate that's been playing out in the public square over the past several years, the so-called silencing of famous figures who express views that are deemed problematic by many in the mainstream. As more artists began to pull out of Spotify to protest Joe Rogan's controversial podcast and users deleted their accounts, many critics of cancel culture decried what they viewed as another attempt by the progressive left to control the information landscape. Those claiming censorship argue that the Joe Rogan controversy, similar to the public outcry and response to Dave Chappelle's recent Netflix special,

Starting point is 00:02:25 is part of a worrisome trend reminiscent of authoritarian-style information control that seeks to silence opinions and squash debate. Other voices argue that this is not censorship, but rather legitimate protest, people using their money, art, voice, and agency to stand up against views that they disagree with, views that can cause serious harm to vulnerable populations. Here's popular podcaster and author Roxanne Gay, who pulled her show off Spotify. I think that misinformation is one of the deadliest issues that we're facing to see someone like Joe Rogan get paid $200 million on Spotify to support quacks and idiots and racists. Well, that's fine, free speech.

Starting point is 00:03:13 But I choose who I do business with, and I'm certainly not going to do business with a company that thinks that's okay. On this installment of the monk debates, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, what you call censorship, I call power struggle. Arguing for the motion is Karen Atia, an opinion columnist at the Washington Post. Arguing against the motion is Kat Rosenfield, a culture columnist for unheard. Karen, Kat, welcome to the monk debates. Hi, thanks for having me. Hi there. Thanks so much. Well, I'm really looking forward to this conversation with you today of all the kind of issues swirling out there, how we think about the way we talk to each other,

Starting point is 00:03:59 what is dialogue in a sense that moves our society, our culture forward. You know, these are big questions that have shaped a lot of our time together, virtual and otherwise during this pandemic. And again, the opportunity to go deep with both of you on the topic of censorship and what it means in our society today is just a privilege and deed. Our resolution is simple to the point, be it resolved what you call censorship, I call power struggle. Karen, we've got you arguing in favor of the motion. So let's begin our debate by putting a couple minutes on our show clock and turning the program over to you. Sure. Thanks so much. And thank you for having me. So as you said in your introduction,

Starting point is 00:04:44 it's obviously been a contentious time in the last several years. And there's been a a lot of discussion and talk about censorship, so-called cancel culture. And this is also happening concurrently, I would argue, with, I would say, especially with the internet, an opening of the space for people and for voices and for communities who have traditionally not been heard. right so if we look at let's just trace back to whether it's the me too movement whether it's the black lives matters movement we've seen how this opening up of the internet and the sort of democratic promise when it comes to more voices being heard has led to a lot of i would say

Starting point is 00:05:41 consciousness uh raising in a way of a lot of the social issues in our society. And that is leading, I think, to a power struggle. I think a lot of these voices of marginalized peoples who've traditionally been outside of the centers of power are voicing their experiences in an effort to try to gain power. And on the converse, those who've traditionally held the power looking to hold it. This question of whether this is amounting to censorship, however, my definition,

Starting point is 00:06:22 and I think the widely accepted definition of censorship is usually from a government point of view. I would argue that there is an instance where we're having changing societal norms, I would argue even changing taboos. It's now not cool, obviously, to to harass, sexually intimidate, to perpetuate various forms of bigotry and discrimination. So I think that there is a lot of changing social norms, which is causing a lot of anxiety and confusion over what to say. However, this notion that there is a fear of jailing or death or any of those sorts of forms of punishment, I think, is overbecky. blown. That being said, again, I think what we're seeing here now is the opening of the space

Starting point is 00:07:20 for more voices and more perspectives leading to a power struggle. Not official censorship. We're not seeing people being shunned from society, being placed in jails for what they're saying. Now, self-censorship is a different question. And that's has been with us for a long time. However, again, I would argue that what we're seeing now is a push and pull between various aspects of society that have long been marginalized against those that have traditionally held power. Thank you, Karen, for that opening statement. You're listening to our debate today. Be it resolved what you call censorship, I call power struggle. Kat, you're arguing against our motion. Let's get your opening remarks. Thanks so much.

Starting point is 00:08:13 So I agree in a lot of ways with some of what Karen is saying, especially when it comes to the question of how censorship and power struggle interconnect. But rather than seeing it as either or I really see it as both and the power to censor, you know, this is all about who holds the ability to suppress dissent, who can punish you for failing to conform to prevailing ideology, and who decides what that ideology is. So it's true, you know, the power in the U.S., we explicitly deprive the government of the ability to suppress people's speech. It was important to the founders that people be able to criticize their government freely. But for that reason, censorship really, the power to censor, rather, coalesces around private actors and around whoever has sort of social and cultural dominance at any given moment.

Starting point is 00:09:05 And actually, some of the most famous instances of censorship in our history were brought off by private actors, most noted. the Hollywood blacklists. On American Activities Committee to Order, Chairman J. Parnell Thomas of New Jersey opens an inquiry into possible communist penetration of the Hollywood film industry. Speaking for the films, Eric Johnston, president of the Motion Picture Association,

Starting point is 00:09:27 talks frankly concerning the attitude of the producers. We're accused of having communists and communist sympathizers in our employ. Undoubtedly, there are such persons in Hollywood, as you will find elsewhere in America. but we neither shield nor defend them. So historically, we've kept this tension in check by maintaining really strong norms towards tolerance, towards protecting the expression of dissent as a cultural and social norm and not just a question

Starting point is 00:10:01 of what the government can or can't do. But we do have these spasms periodically, and I think that we're in one now, where the dominant culture begins to to see dissent as kind of dangerous. And at that point, people start to lean kind of heavily into the idea that actually private actors have every right to punish you for your speech. And anything goes as long as it's not the government doing it. And taken to its logical conclusion, you can start to see how this might get a little hairy. You know, it could be your neighbor, your boss.

Starting point is 00:10:36 It could even be a corporation, private actor. It could be a mob of strangers online. You can be fired, blacklisted, socially and professionally ostracized. You can spend the rest of your life friendless, jobless, unemployable, untouchable. You can die alone and be eaten by your cat. And this is just the price you pay for having bad opinions. So that's obviously kind of a dystopian hellscape that I've just described. And I don't think that anybody really wants to live like that.

Starting point is 00:11:03 But more importantly, that culture is really destructive to democracy. democracy requires tolerance for dissent. People need to be free to express themselves to bring forth ideas, even provocative or offensive ideas. They need to be able to have conversations. And that's especially true, even if those ideas turn out to be wrong. If progress is important to you, it's also hugely important that we allow the people freedom to be wrong and to be wrong without being punished. So to bring this back to the question of power, then culture is always in flux. power doesn't stay in the same place. And whatever group happens to find itself holding the stick, you know, and who has the ability to kind of use the stick to beat everybody else into

Starting point is 00:11:50 submission, to demand conformity, you know, to punish people for saying things they disagree with, I think the most important thing is that they use it responsibly and that in many, if not most cases, that probably means not using it. Thank you so much for that opening statement. Cat, we're now going to go to rebuttal. This is an opportunity for both of you to react to what you've just heard in our debate, be it resolved what you call censorship. I call power struggle. Karen, you're up first. What do you want to spark off here in terms of Kat's opening remarks? Yeah, Kat, I think, brought up a lot of great points. You know, the example of the, for instance, the Hollywood blacklist, and I think this is where we are getting.

Starting point is 00:12:38 getting into, and I don't think they're completely mutually exclusive all the time, but, you know, government versus culture versus sort of private business entities, right? I think of the example of Earth the Kit back in the 60s, I believe, who criticized, who openly criticized the Vietnam War and at the White House, actually. and she was, yeah, she was put on a blacklist and she effectively couldn't work in the U.S. for years, so much so that she had to go abroad. And so this, the interplay, I think, of these powerful entities

Starting point is 00:13:24 to be able to effectively, whether it's end somebody's career, deny them opportunities, I think this is something that has, interestingly, I think as Kat pointed out, has been with us and especially is perhaps heightened in terms of cultural spasms, as she indicated. So again, you know, the 60s, 70s, you know, I think there are a lot of parallels to now. What I would push back against is this notion that all of this is new. We've not, I don't think in human societies, in human cultures, we've ever had any periods where you could be, where it's always been safe to express how you feel, express opinions, whether or not they're good or bad. This issue, again, though, of power, there has been, particularly in our culture, there are longstanding power centers in this country. I would say, you know, Christian, heterosexual, white, male, all of these have been, or whether it's the media, like there are definite, there is definite power that is afforded to certain groups and certain people and certain institutions.

Starting point is 00:14:53 I think, though, what we're seeing a lot of in the so-called kind of cancel culture, though, is this power perhaps being challenged. And I think there's a real need to distinguish between what is perhaps a fear of expressing ideas that are now outdated in the idea marketplace and actually claiming that the people who are still outside of those sort of power centers of identity or institutions that they actually have the power to cancel you, right? So, for instance, saying, offending a group that traditionally hasn't had power, say, take Hollywood, for instance. I would really doubt that take black folks, there aren't a whole lot of black people in control of whether it's Hollywood,

Starting point is 00:15:53 institutions, production studios, Wall Street, that really do have the power to say cancel a white male performer. And I'm taking this as far as identities, but it's really just to kind of take a step back and see that power is still not distributed equally. So something that is seen as offensive to one group isn't necessarily the same thing as saying that that group has the same power to affect the same level of punishment that the dominant groups who still control a lot of the dominant institutions here still have. Thanks, Karen, for that rebuttal. So Kat, similar opportunity for you.

Starting point is 00:16:34 You can react to Karen's opening statement or what you've just heard now. Sure. So I think Karen is absolutely correct that power certainly used to coalesce and for a long time coalesced around, you know, particular identity group. and around a more conservative ideology. It's one of the reasons why, for as long as I've been alive, certainly, and I think even longer, liberals represented the counterculture, and we had to argue in favor of a really maximally tolerant society because we were the ones advancing ideas that were provocative, that were unpopular.

Starting point is 00:17:10 So, you know, you had this sort of plea and this vision of a tolerant society. You know, nobody's forcing you to watch the gay cowboy movie, but please stop. trying to interfere with our ability to watch it. You know, stop trying to get in the way. Everything can coexist at once. I do think things have shifted somewhat. Progressive ideas and ideology have gained a huge amount of traction in a lot of the places that really sort of set the tone for the national conversation.

Starting point is 00:17:35 And that includes media. It includes publishing, the arts, museums, academia, you know, all of the institutions that are responsible sort of deciding what ideas are advanced and what gets discussed. You know, progressives really have a lot of, if not all, the clout there. And so you do see a certain shift in who has the ability to, say, push somebody to the fringes, you know, to subject them to shaming and so on and so forth. There's nothing new, though, about free speech as a challenge to power.

Starting point is 00:18:12 Free speech has always been most essential to marginalized people, most essential to minorities. If you have power, the last thing you want is some disempowered person making arguments that might persuade a whole bunch of other people to change things in a way that is disfavorable to you. And every ounce of social progress we've ever made in this country has relied on the ability of minority groups to advance arguments to persuade a bunch of people who had no personal stake in an issue that it was the morally and ethically correct thing to do to change the way things function. So I think the thing that I want to sort of most place a pin in here is that free speech and free expression are essential tools of whoever's not in power. And it's very threatening to those who are in power. Nothing freaks out an authoritarian like free speech. And you can see this, you know, you can see this all over the place, but even now, you know, in terms of other governments. You have places like Russia, China, Hungary. Any government that has the ability to suppress speech always does because it's a direct threat to them. And so when we start talking about the

Starting point is 00:19:32 idea that like, oh, free speech is just, you know, a tool of the privileged or it's just, it's just serves the status quo, I think that, you know, it's sort of demonstrably not true that that's been the case historically. Excellent, guys. Thank you so much. Terrific opening statement. and rebuttals, setting up this debate nicely, be it resolved what you call censorship, I call power struggle. So let me join the conversation now and try to think up some questions that are on top of mind to our listeners tuning into this conversation. Karen, let me begin with you. I think it's always helpful sometimes in these debates to look for some concrete situations or circumstances that kind of unpack and substantiate

Starting point is 00:20:14 what are really important abstract ideas. And I know both of you have written extensively and thoughtfully on the recent controversy over Joe Rogan and his Spotify program that many people singled out during the pandemic and more recently for spreading misinformation on vaccines and COVID treatments. Karen, could you do us the favor of unpacking that Rogan controversy? in the context of your arguments in favor of the motion, be it resolved, what you call censorship, I call power struggle. Yeah. So for a context, though, with the Joe Ergen situation, there was, and this is, again, the criticisms of Joe Organ have been going on for years in terms of

Starting point is 00:21:04 the allowing of misinformation, not just around the pandemic, but also, you know, frequent, you know, allegations of him and his guests openly participating in misogyny, sexism, racism. He platformed the proud boys, for instance, and after their appearance, their numbers in terms of their audience went up. So for me, when the videos and the footage came out of Rogan and his guest repeatedly using the N-word, that was when it wasn't so much about Joe Rogan himself as an entertainer. Spotify knew when they offered him the $100 million deal what they were getting into. They knew exactly what they were buying, it seems.

Starting point is 00:22:03 But it was really interesting to see how despite, you know, calls for Spotify to remove Joe Rogan in his podcast, they, A, stood behind him. B, kind of erased evidence of the crimes went through and scrubbed all those episodes that contained the inward, at least from what they could say. I think it was something like, you know, more than a dozen. It happened a lot. And I just saw that as an example of, I think, for, first of all, for black people who were justifiably upset by all of this as a way to say,

Starting point is 00:22:44 we would like a society, we would like for an institution not to throw all their money and resource $100 million behind someone who casually spreads racism, misogyny and misinformation. I think black voices in these instances were amplified, we protested, but did we ultimately have the power to cancel Joe Rogan or even cancel Spotify? No, that did not happen. It was a struggle for voices and to amplify our protests, but ultimately,

Starting point is 00:23:26 pissing off minorities, black people, sometimes in some cases it's profitable in this country. We saw it with Trump. We've seen it with various other radio personalities and figures. We have to contend with the fact that there is actually a power and money behind trafficking in the various isms of this country. And so that's how I saw it at the time. That's a fascinating analysis. And, you know, Kat, I want to give you, you know, similar opportunity here to, I know, I know, I know, you're not here to defend Joe Rogan, but you are here in a sense to defend the right of people

Starting point is 00:24:08 like Rogan to offend. And am I correct sometimes to misinformed? Misinformation is an interesting term because it's something that's become quite politicized, unfortunately. You know, who gets to determine what constitutes misinformation as opposed to just somebody being incorrect, right? That kind of goes back to the question of where power coalesces. So, but, you know, certainly the right to be offensive is absolutely something that we have enshrined that I think we should continue to enshrine. And, you know, our news organizations are subject to a certain amount of oversight if they publish inaccurate information. But Rogan is an interesting case because he's having conversations.

Starting point is 00:25:03 And, you know, so he positions himself as not a journalist. He repeatedly says, you know, I'm not an expert. Don't listen to me. I'm just a dude who likes to talk to people. I want to make this video, first of all, because I think there's a lot of people that have a distorted perception of what I do, maybe based on sound bites or based on headlines of articles that are disparaging. The podcast has been accused of spreading dangerous, misinformation, specifically about two episodes. I do not know if they're right. I don't know because

Starting point is 00:25:32 I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist. I'm just a person who sits down and talks to people and has conversations with them. I think, you know, that there's a lot of frustration centered on the fact not necessarily that Joe Rogan is platforming people who have disagreeable or kooky ideas or that he's spreading misinformation. And, you know, I think it's worth noting that on top of, you know, hosting COVID skeptics, he also has hosted a guy who claimed to be abducted by aliens. You know, he's hosted Oliver Stone, who spent his time on the podcast putting forth all kinds of really wild theories about the JFK assassination, wild conspiracy theories. So he's sort of equal opportunity in just throwing a lot of stuff out there.

Starting point is 00:26:26 I think that what is really worrisome to people is that this is incredibly popular. You know, people like to listen to Joe Rogan. He has more of an audience and he came to Spotify with more of an audience, having built himself up as an independent content creator, than the CNNs and the New Yorkers and the New York Timeses of the world. So I think that when people start to sort of agitate for his removal from the platform, it's not really about wanting to keep him from reaching an audience. He came with his audience. That's why Spotify bought him.

Starting point is 00:27:12 but Joe Rogan is an avatar for a culture that people find really distasteful. And they find his presence on this platform that also contains a lot of stuff that they like, a platform that they use to be the equivalent of, you know, sort of a coarse guy, you know, being allowed into their country club. I think the thing is that, you know, the Rogan thing, and, you know, this was something that was incitiveness or sorry, catalyzed by Neil Young leaving the platform or threatening to leave the platform. He issued an ultimatum. It's me or Joe Rogan. This is easy to be kind of cavalier about because it was ultimately a very toothless ultimatum. And I think that Young anticipated well in

Starting point is 00:28:01 advance that he was not going to succeed in pushing Joe Rogan off Spotify. But it's not hard to imagine what a mess it would make if everybody started to do this. You know, to start, making it a norm to say, I simply won't share space with somebody who has ideas I disagree with. I won't share space with somebody who has ideas I find offensive. I won't be in the same marketplace as them. There's really, I don't think there's really any place for that in a society that values freedom of expression. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, your host and moderator. I have a favor to ask you, please consider becoming a monk member. Membership is free and you get access to a series of great benefits, including a 10-plus-year library of some of our best debates, dialogues, and podcasts.

Starting point is 00:28:51 You also get a free monthly newsletter featuring the debates that we're watching around the world, and you get a specially curated Friday weekly Monk Members Only podcast that focuses on the big international events and trends shaping our world. All of that, again, free at www.com. I hope you'll consider joining and becoming part of our community. Now, back to our program. So Karen, let's have you come back and just expand on and respond to some of Kat's arguments here. I think first, you know, a lot of people listening would think of that old chestnut, that kind of maxim at the back of their minds.

Starting point is 00:29:44 Well, you know, no one doesn't have the right not to be offended. in a in a democratic open and and free society so as as culturally repulsive many things that joe rogan says and does might be uh to you and many other you know spotify listeners um you know so be it you can you can turn joe rogan off and listen to nil young instead no one's forcing joe rogan to be your culture. Your culture is your choice. I'd like to hear you on that point, Karen. Yeah, I mean, I think the question of Joe Rogan and his interplay with Spotify specifically, again, it goes back to, you know, oh, well, we're all sharing the same platform. I mean, no, there's a difference. Spotify throwing $100 million for a deal with Joe.

Starting point is 00:30:51 Rogan indicates that it sees a value, right, in this type of discourse, not just the discourse, but in the audience, right? So I think this question about how such an audience coming to Spotify is also part and parcel about how it's building its own podcasting empire. its own media empire kind of off the off of you know not just speech and ideas that are offensive but I think it's a question of not just offense or feelings hurt but also about harm right so if we take you know COVID conspiracy theories misinformation the issue is that live literally we're at stake or are at stake, right?

Starting point is 00:31:55 When it comes to dehumanizing black folk, women, it's the issue that it's not just offensive or feelings are hurt. These are very real issues that are costing people's lives and people's livelihoods. But again, back to the power that these institutions are again gaming by appealing towards what we would say are some of our country's worst impulses when it comes to diversity and inclusion. I think also Spotify tried to rectify. They knew that there was offense and harm that there was damage to the brand. So they spoke about how they would

Starting point is 00:32:40 then distribute $100 million to more podcasters of color and from marginalized groups. Again, it goes back to whose speech is more valued. And in this case, Spotify said that we value Joe Rogan's speech over, you know, we're willing to give this one, you know, very popular white man, $100 million in the audience that he brings with it. And, yeah, we'll spread out $100 million amongst an unspecified number of people of color just to kind of paper over this very issue. But again, it is about Joe Rogan, I think, stood for an avatar of it is very still, I think,

Starting point is 00:33:30 in this country, difficult to cancel popular, wealthy, white men. Even in scrubbing the offensive content, scrubbing, you know, all of that, also a form of support. They stood by him, right? So this is not something that is very often a, afforded to those, frankly, who are not white men in society. So to pretend that it's equal, it's just not true. So I'm just reminding listeners, you're tuning into our debate,

Starting point is 00:34:01 be it resolved what you call censorship, I call power struggle. Kat, let's unpack a little bit more of Karen's argument here, which I'm getting loud and clear in her responses about, you know, the underlying structure, you know, it's one thing to, you know, to call out the censorship of Joe Rogan or someone else, but what do you think had about Karen's underlying point that, you know, the cake is baked to favor people like Joe Rogan. They have the money and the power. Really what we're trying to do here with what you might call censorship, but which, you know, Karen would call, you know, a just moment in a larger power struggle for racial and social

Starting point is 00:34:51 equity is, is leveling the playing field, is being proactive about our culture, not simply accepting our culture as we, you know, as it exists, Joe Rogan and all. You know, we have a duty as moral beings to shape our society. And is a more just, equitable, and fair society, society where people like Joe Rogan have less voice as opposed to more voice in the way they have today. I mean, Joe Rogan's popularity is first and foremost the market speaking. He came to Spotify with this enormous audience. Spotify purchased his audience. That's why they wanted him. It wasn't like they saw his content when he was a nobody and they were like, we want to develop this and we're going to pay a lot of money for it. So it was really about him already having built an empire, again,

Starting point is 00:35:44 independently, you know, outside of the structure of traditional media, outside the system, and somebody seeing that and seeing value in it, value monetarily and bringing it in. I think that it's a problem and a frequent one that the attempt to censor always begins with a claim of harm. And I think, you know, this speaks to a sort of a human tendency to identify something that we don't like, that we want gone, and then we reverse engineer a reason why it would be a social good to get rid of it. And this is not something that's at all new. You know, you've seen this argument when it comes to, you know, the idea that rap music is leading young black men into a life of crime and depravity or that gay characters on television were destroying family values or that violent video games were causing school shootings. people you know frequently assert a causal link between whatever media it is that they dislike and some broader societal ill um what i just keep coming back to is Spotify saw an entity a you know a product that they wanted to distribute they saw this as a as a business transaction should we be able to

Starting point is 00:37:05 interfere in that um and what i think of that's i think quite analogous is back in, I want to say 2008, when Brookback Mountain came out on DVD, conservative groups protested and tried to boycott Walmart over their choice to carry it in their store. And they wanted to force Brokeback Mountain out of Walmart. And Walmart said, look, we're not, you know, we're neutral, we're content neutral, we're agnostic on what's in all of the films that we distribute. We're just providing people with a product. that they want to buy. Should we be able to interfere in the market this way? You know, should people be able for moral reasons over, you know, moral objections, be allowed to step in

Starting point is 00:37:50 and, you know, not just suppress the voice of a content provider, but also decide what everybody else gets to hear for their own good? That's a fair rhetorical question. Karen, what's your reply? Yeah, I mean, I think bacon to that answer is, is, deal the question. I mean, Joe Rogan would be reaching the audience that he wants, regardless of whether or not he had Spotify's $100 million. So I think part of what is happening when it comes to the power struggle and for, I think, and I see this in media as well, this notion that the market is affluent, white guys, I think part of what is happening is, is trying to signal to institutions that the market is changing, right?

Starting point is 00:38:46 That like what people outside of a certain target demographic would like to see is different. To be honest, I really don't think people thought that Spotify was going to drop Rogan. I don't think people really thought that, you know, the protest was simply a, trying to shut down Spotify. But I think part of it is this was the way to signal desires and tastes. And to a certain extent, Spotify heard that and understood that and responded, I think, to the market by saying, okay, like, we get that this is not great. So thus we are going to distribute resources to podcasters of color,

Starting point is 00:39:35 which the market has not only underserved, but excluded, frankly. So this idea that the market has a always been fair or accurately represents society and what people are wanting. I think we're seeing people wanting something different. You've been listening to our debate today, be it resolved, what we call, some people will call censorship, others call power struggle, Let's go to our closing statements to wrap up this really thoughtful conversation between Karen and Kat. Kat, as per debate tradition, we're going to give you the first of our two closing statements. What are the key messages or ideas that you think our audience should leave this conversation with? I think that there are two things at play here.

Starting point is 00:40:29 One is that this is a conversation about principles. It's about what kind of a world we want to live in, what kind of a society we want. to build. And on that front, you know, when I see these calls to suppress, you know, dissenting opinions or to silence unpopular voices, it's hard not to see that as a really fundamental betrayal of the vision that was being advanced by liberals for, you know, for as long as I've been alive, in which, you know, there was this idea of a tolerant society, of, you know, room for everything, room for all kinds of different ideas, all different kinds of art where people were able to live and let live and where this stuff was able to kind of coexist side by side, which in a democracy

Starting point is 00:41:14 is huge and as diverse as ours is really pretty essential. So it's been distressing to see that for at least some people, you know, what seemed like fundamental principles that really united the liberal movement were actually just something that we claimed to want until we got power and then it was like, okay, now it's time to actually flex our muscles and take control of this whole thing. So that's the principled argument. But there's also a practical argument, and that is that when I argue in favor of not suppressing the speech of people who have incredibly disagreeable, unpopular, even blatantly offensive ideas, I'm not doing it for them. I'm doing it for me because any norms that we choose to enshrine, any power that we choose to claim for ourselves, we have to live by that. You know, somebody else is going to be able to take that power

Starting point is 00:42:15 for themselves. You know, it does not always rest in the same place. We've seen this evolution where the moral majority at one point had a lot of cultural influence. Now, for the time being, the progressive left has a lot of cultural influence. But anything that we do right now to erode the speech protections of people we disagree with, it's just going to make it eventually easier for those same people to suppress our voices down the line. Thank you for that thoughtful closing statement. Okay, we are now going to give Karen the last word in this debate,

Starting point is 00:42:49 our resolution today, be it resolved what you call censorship, I call power struggle. Karen, wrap this debate up for us. I am under no illusion that, you know, as we've said, a number of times, or as was said a number of times during this debate, that this notion that the progressive left has the upper hand. I live in Texas right now where I'm seeing an absolute backlash, I think, to a lot of the progressive notions and sentiments over the last few years. We're seeing actual censorship, actual censorship of books, actual censorship of ideas in the

Starting point is 00:43:31 classroom. A new report from the American Library Association shows that attempts to ban books in the U.S. surge last year to the highest level since the group began tracking book challenges 20 years ago. According to the study, most of the top-targeted books were by or about black or LGBTQ people. It is an issue now tied up in local, state, and national politics. We're seeing the backlash and so-called critical race theory, LGBT issues. These are the issues that I see as a real danger and threat to our democracy. As far as the examples that we've given

Starting point is 00:44:16 in this particular debate as far as censorship, has there been controversy, has there been challenged, as we're talking specifically about the Joe Rogan Spotify question, The essential conclusion of that whole situation is that Joe Rogan is doing just fine at Spotify. I don't think we've really discussed any concrete examples of true shunning and banning.

Starting point is 00:44:46 Rather, we're seeing, yes, adjustments to certain new cultural norms when it comes to race and gender identity, but fundamentally, I think, we're actually seeing the pendulum going back, I think, in favor of these institutions and of, particularly the power centers of men, white men, Christian, and all of that. So I think the way to see all of this is we are in cultural spasms. I think I agree with Kat on that. I think we are seeing an opening, actually, of the space and the inclusion of more voices

Starting point is 00:45:25 who are able to challenge. But does that amount to censorship and that these communities actually are having the power to keep people from employment or from their livelihoods? I would argue no, and I would actually argue that we're seeing things of swinging back into a different and actually more dangerous direction.

Starting point is 00:45:51 But I would say that the inclusion of these more voices is actually a very, very good thing. Thank you, Karen, and thank you, Kat, for a terrific debate. You know, this is such usually an issue, a debate that is hyperbolic and incoherent and uncivil, and the two of you have instead given us a really thoughtful treatment of a difficult subject matter, and certainly a lot for me to think about as I reflect on this excellent debate. So thank you so much for coming on the program today. Thanks for having us.

Starting point is 00:46:25 Thank you. Well, that wraps up today's debates. I want to thank our participants, Karen and Kat, they certainly gave us a lot to think about. If you have questions or reflections on this episode or any other Monk Debate podcast, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. Here's a recent email from listener Josh about our podcast debate on inflation. Dear Monk Debates, after listening to this week's debate on the credit. of the U.S. Federal Reserve and numerous commentaries over the past two years in the state of the global economy, I would be most interested to listen to a debate challenging the notion of whether, quote,

Starting point is 00:47:05 globalization remains sustainable, close quote. Thanks, Josh. We're actually working on convening a podcast debate on the future of globalization right now and what it all means for the future of the global economy. Stay tuned for that. And a friendly reminder that our members only podcast, featuring Janice Stein and myself in conversation about the week's current events is yours free to listen to anytime as a perk of our complimentary monk membership. You can grab your membership right now at triple w, the monk debates.com. Thank you for helping us bring back the art of public debates one conversation at a time.

Starting point is 00:47:45 I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melamie. Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. The Monk Debates podcast is mixed by Adam Karsh. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.

The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved: what you call censorship, I call power struggle

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.