The Best Joe Rogan Talk of All Time

"

鬼殺し wrote:

anti-intellectual thinkers that comprise the largely STEM-educated male right.

There are many replies to this, but I will let your comment speak for itself.

This is pretty good and always has been (the joe regan experience) but i prefer to waste my time with
"8 out of 10 cat's" in the background currently.

And occasionally some mors and nugi discussions lately.

Peace,

-Boem-

I seriously never meet ppl like this. Guess my line of work and staying away from college. I drive heavy equipment actually I supervise it mainly today but still. Normals dont act like this even our Mexicans. It one big family really. Biggest weird I see are pill poppers like it seems like everyone is on medication.

Oh crap I wanted to say hey bars first then got to talking. Hey Bars!

I didnt watch whole vid just part where students yelled at him and bull-horned him and was like these ppl crazy and had to turn it off

I watch mainly fighter interviews there. Joe is a bit a space case for me. Drugs are bad mkay.

Love JRpodcast but I hate when he start to talk about drugs.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Oh crap I wanted to say hey bars first then got to talking. Hey Bars!

I didnt watch whole vid just part where students yelled at him and bull-horned him and was like these ppl crazy and had to turn it off

Hi there.

I actually mostly posted the video for the topics they moved on to after the social justice issues. The social issues aren't that interesting to me, as I said. If you apply some patience and wait for them to move on to greener conversational pastures, I think you'll find it quite interesting.

Joe is slightly mental, and highly entertaining. He's just fine that way as far as I'm concerned :)

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I've honestly heard/read better on all those topics you like to hear from him. Life's too short to waste on someone who might be a gifted educator at a relatively lay level but extremely muddled in their academics. Sorry.

Could you be a bit more specific? I would love to hear or read better than him on all those topics.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

A lot of people felt they were 'legitimately helped' by Jim Bakker too. I really wouldn't go there if I were you. And plenty of academics put a bunch of lectures online for free, as well you know. The better ones don't let their politics get in the way.

I wouldn't go there as well - comparing a guy who basically tells people to get a grip and do something productive with their lives to a televangelist.

And, speaking about letting politics get in the way, I'm not bothered by that. Political debates are to a large extent motivated by emotional reactions and their rationalization. In my observation, most people simply cannot keep a cool head about these topics, just as with religion. Someone says something contrary to their views, bam! Satan! Burn him! Everything he says is shit!

So he shits on Marxism without any apparent understanding of what Marx actually said, boo fucking hoo. Who doesn't? I get where he's coming from. It's difficult to remain objective about a philosopher whose theories have been abused and distorted by some of the most vicious and homicidal ideologies of the 20th century. He puts postmodernism in the same basket with Marxism, whatever. Meh. I've seen a number of his lectures and he has outdated opinions on some psychological terms as well - he uses the word "psychopath" as an umbrella term for evil people and assumes all -paths must be evil, fine. I get why he has arrived at that notion as well. This is another topic most people are misguided about, and it's easy to see how and why they end up being misguided.

And, really, he talks about so many topics, of course a critical listener will disagree at least some of the time. This doesn't prevent me from liking and appreciating the rest of what he says. I watched the Maps of Meaning series of lectures, enjoyed the hell out of it.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Either you want to be stupid and talking about banging wives and salty leftists (which I'm not, but merely saying that doesn't mean anything here) or you want to talk like a grownup. Pick.

Note that I've about as much interest in responding to one as the other.

Ignore all the none-grownup talk and tell us which of his policies and ideals you agree or disagree with, and why, if or not.

He seems like a "good guy who wants good", by preserving and nourishing the high IQ individuals in the population. Anything wrong with that or what's the problem here?
Should we do the opposite and promote mass welfare, breed low IQ genetic trash to leech off the 1%?
Would such a brave new world result in more quality of life due to its quantity of lives over individuals?

I think a lot of smart people overvalue their own intelligence. Not to mean they arent very sharp, but that they instinctually defend their intelligence far to strongly. In their own pond or lake they derive their own self worth from their intelligence, and when they venture to deeper waters they encounter metaphorically bigger fish than them. They refuse to accept it and go on the attack, whether to their own benefit or not.

You see it is all they have. It is the sole virtue that promotes them above the rest of the school.

I think it is best to be without the sense of self. And instead be merely a piece of the greater organism that is society. Prioritizing its benefit over any individual... including ones self.

Tough sell in a capitalistic dominated world, i know... but its worth the cost.

One topic of peterson's conversation was so close to being profound...but yet so far away the truth as i understand it.

He was reciting rhetoric about AI research mirroring the post modernism understanding in that objects, language, art, and concepts can be framed in a infinite number of ways. And then came to the assertion that this leads the post modernist to optimize ones viewpoint to that which lends power to ones self. And then further comments on how such a view isolates them from engaging or communicating with others.

Aa deeper and more profound revelation is to be had at actually further deconstructing the concept of 'framing':

1) It is not that an objective reality doesnt exist, it is our own limitations in understanding that lends to an infinite number of interpretations. Our ability to associate relations is so powerful that one CAN start with any arbitrary concept and through jumping across loose associations, end up at any destination concept ala degrees of kevin bacon. But simultaneously our language is so flawed that erroneous leaps in logic and downright falsehood are permissible... And compounded by the problematic fact that much of the information contained within a word is assumed, and even worse, is also unknown. Without explicit enumeration of all the properties and functions, we are left with a very 'hazy' bedrock of language. Of course with such a flimsy foundation, we will have problems building precision constructs on top.

2) optimizing for power seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable strategy. I think the erroneous assumption is in that a person ONLY maximizes a single variable. I really hate the term 'balance' as it is often used in the context where multivariable optimizations (weighted or unweighted) would be the more correct term. So im not going to say one should take a 'balanced' approach in constructing a frame.

Furthermore, a blanket derogatory assertion across an entire group of people is inappropriate. Such things should be qualified with 'some' or 'often' or even 'many'. I guess it's a sign of our times that such qualifications have become implied from the orator (or worse yet, actually incorrectly believed to apply to the whole class), but often lost on the audience.

Overall, i enjoyed the podcast. Interesting things were said regardless if they were original or accurate. At least he's pitching in the right park. Far too much of media has zero value.