Ronson mentions it in that episode briefly too. I used to listen to Alex Jones the odd time myself many years ago after Ronson's Secret Rulers of the World series left me with a peculiar fascination with that whole conspiracy scene. It got boring after a while though and I was fairly surprised with the direction his rhetoric took when he popped up as a Trump supporter years later. Ronson is (or at least was) also fairly sympathetic to David Icke in that he thinks Icke genuinley believes there are shapeshifting lizards and he's not using it as an anti-semitic dog whistle.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Ronson mentions it in that episode briefly too. I used to listen to Alex Jones the odd time myself many years ago after Ronson's Secret Rulers of the World series left me with a peculiar fascination with that whole conspiracy scene. It got boring after a while though and I was fairly surprised with the direction his rhetoric took when he popped up as a Trump supporter years later. Ronson is (or at least was) also fairly sympathetic to David Icke in that he thinks Icke genuinley believes there are shapeshifting lizards and he's not using it as an anti-semitic dog whistle.
Conspiracies are fascinating. The doc Zeitgeist fascinated me for a while.
I've never really watched his show so have never seen anything of his beyond those occasionally insane clips people post when he goes on a massive rant, but I know plenty of people who watch his stuff ironically and find him entertaining in the way you would an insane comic book villain or something. Because the guy, undoubtedly, is as entertaining as he is insane. But the problem is that his insanity isn't just something arbitrary for his own amusement; as we've seen with Sandy Hook it has a very direct impact on those it targets. Which is something I imagine a lot of people forget.
I find him entertaining but haven't forgotten about the sandy hook thing. It was a pretty massive feck up and really distasteful but it was kind of a once off (he says horrible stuff about politicians et al quite often but I dislike them enough not to care i guess). I don't really get why hes so notably unpopular at the moment.
I think the kids would say "got him"
It absolutely was not a once off. It may have been the first time he outright denied it but he still exploits any sort of shooting to push his show's insane narrative. For example claiming the Vegas shooting was an ISIS/Antifa collaboration.
He's an atrocious human being.
So... he’s arguing that modern day scientists are stupid and that we ought to listen to consensus from the 1800s, which doesn’t mention climate change? Or am I missing something?
Stefan’s a loon.
And I thought average intelligence has always been set at 100, and that bar has been raised as nutrition and education have seen IQs rise?
I’d say that is because of the vast networks of expertise we now have in the sciences. Back in Newton’s et al’s day there just wasn’t that many people doing it and they had limited networks in which to cooperate, making it more common for individuals to make more significant advancements.
Last edited:
We just landed a man-made object on a comet, drove a little car around on Mars, and have taken actual photographs of planets in orbits around other stars. But even if we hadn't, he still absolutely is wrong about IQ decline.
Indeed. Average IQ scores have been increasing in all countries since the turn of the twentieth century (the Flynn effect). This is most likely a result of better health/nutrition, better/more education and rising living standards.
https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence
Also because human groups are increasingly less decompartmentalized from one another, where information sharing is significantly greater due to technology.
Heh, plateaus are to be expected. And there is often significant lag. Quantum theory didn’t translate into computers right away, and computers didn’t become ubiquitous and transformative until way later. Who knows what today’s scientists are birthing?
niMic’s examples are also fine examples whose true genius and difficulty most of us can’t fully appreciate.
joe rogan is an alt right apologist
The problem with Rogan taking that line of reasoning is that Shapiro is demonstrably hateful and regressive in his approach lot of the time. He can't play the victim over that.
"But he was nice to me on my show" isn't really proof of anything.
"But he was nice to me on my show" isn't really proof of anything.
"Internet goon" would be an extremely kind way of describing Shapiro. Rogan's soft peddling with such goons is the second biggest problem with his show, the first being that he himself is a meathead.
If that's the case then there's a very simple solution - don't watch/listen to it.
Last edited:
Or...you could try to organise a boycott.
Me not "watching" Joe Rogan's podcast isn't a solution to the problems with Joe Rogan's podcast. He doesn't become a less stupid person once I stop paying attention.
Besides, the problems with Rogan and his podcast don't always stop it from being at least vaguely interesting. Some of them are worth listening to despite Rogan's presence. Though another chat with a shitehawk like Shapiro definitely doesn't fall into that category.
Its a bit more than vaguely interesting given that its one of the most listened to podcasts online.
This is all George Carlin fault.
The moment people started to seriously listen to the clowns we were in trouble.
The moment people started to seriously listen to the clowns we were in trouble.
Meh, popularity and quality aren't neccessarily the same thing.
It really depends on the guest. Some can carry a few hours of Rogan's super-compliant approach while others can't. For example, the second Jack Dorsey podcast was a lot more interesting than the first because there was someone else in the room willing to take a more aggressive line. Rogan isn't capable of doing that, which in one way is fine but in another limits what he can get out of some guests.
In the case of people like Shapiro and Peterson, we've been saturated with their ideas and arguments over the last few years. Sitting through another conversation with the eager-to-please Rogan would be a chore.
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Rogan having a longform podcast that involves just sort of shooting the shite with people in a way that's vaguely interesting to stoners.
The problem is when you start bringing on serious people from political backgrounds for interviews, you're inherently giving yourself the responsibility of a journalist; Rogan, however, doesn't seem up to that and so allows fairly prominent voices like Shapiro and Peterson to put our their positions to considerable audiences in a way that's unchallenged.
The problem is when you start bringing on serious people from political backgrounds for interviews, you're inherently giving yourself the responsibility of a journalist; Rogan, however, doesn't seem up to that and so allows fairly prominent voices like Shapiro and Peterson to put our their positions to considerable audiences in a way that's unchallenged.
We weren't evaluating its quality, but the fact that its one of the most listened to podcasts in the world sort of makes it hard to say it isn't interesting.
These 'problems' only exist in the minds of a small minority.
Also, I don't understand why anyone would would watch/listen to a podcast hosted by someone they deem a stupid person.
'Shitehawk'
...I haven't heard that in a while. Are you from Norn Iron?No but it would solve the problem of it annoying you. Just do something else and live in ignorance, it’s great.
Sometimes giving guests a few hours to chat about whatever they like unchallenged can end up being interesting, it just depends on the guest. I don't particularly like Rogan but with the right guest the longform format still works.
'Shitehawk'
Nah, Connacht. Was just thinking I should use that word more. Can't beat the classics.
Fair enough. I think much of the popularity lies with the long-form format itself. The mainstream media outlets haven't provided an outlet or platform for such discussions in a long time and the burgeoning popularity of particular podcasts and YouTube channels therefore just satisfies a desire that never went away. Ultimately they'll serve as a kind of counteracting agent; to rebalance what has been the prevailing view presented in the mainstream outlets.
I thought it was just Northern thing. Perhaps Cork as well.
Anyway...together with Shapiro is provides an attractive piece of alliteration. Stick with it!
Last edited:
You're hysterical. Then he has a socialist on, doesn't push back, and the loonies on the right call him "A COMMUNIST APOLOGIST".
The guy is an impartial interviewer. It's honestly a breath of fresh air. Not everything has to be editorialized. Not everything has to be politicized. Not everyone has to push an agenda. I think Shapiro is a horrible little manlet, yet, I have zero problem with Rogan having him on, because when he has people like Shapiro on, he also has people like Abby Martin on, he has far left people on. You know what else? The only people I've ever seen him push back on, are Candice Owens, Dave Rubin, and Steven Crowder. He called them out on their bullshit, over things he had specific knowledge over.
Rogans job isn't to push YOUR political ideology. His job is to put on a podcast, with a wide variety of guests, and that includes people on the far left, and the far right. IF any one group should feel aggrieved, it is the right wingers, when Rogan took a giant shit on 3 of their poster boys/girls making them look like massive idiots. He's never done that to a leftie. Yet, for the most part, his position is to not have a position. He's the Switzerland of Podcasts.
Good post until the last bit. Rogan does take positions on things he cares about - hunting, weed, DMT, etc.hmm, your post reads a lot more hysterical than mine. in that 2 minute clip alone "you're a very nice guy", "you're so misrepresented", "you're not remotely alt right" "agree or disagree you have well formulated ideas, this isnt just some bullshit that youre spouting" "i dont like when people try to pretend that your [ben shapiro] philosophy is somehow hateful and regressive" "i dont like when people say you condemn people for their thoughts...you just dont"
thats pretty straightforward apologism. sorry it makes you feel a certain way
shapiro: "people will suggest that everything i do is about destroying people on the other side"
the cover of ben shapiro's book:
shapiro is a disingenuous racist and rogan defends him
the cover of ben shapiro's book:
shapiro is a disingenuous racist and rogan defends him
What makes Shapiro "alt-right" and not just a traditional conservative?
They're the exact same thing depending on who you listen to.
He's generally a conservative but the fact that he was affiliated with Breitbart and is young, put him in the perceived alt-right category.
He's also young and has some social media savvy, and so eschews the typical idea of the older, stuffy and out-of-date conservative.