Europe under extreme duress

[FLGUY]

My problem with him is is gives folks airtime that shouldn't get it on his show, at all. I'm not talking about folks who are just controversial but people who are blatant racists, anti-Semitic and believe some of the worst conspiracy theories.

That’s a valid point, and I see where you’re coming from, but giving those people a chance to speak their mind (no matter how crazy they may seem or be) gives the majority of rational people the ability to see them as crazy, instead of just being told that they are crazy by another person or outlet. I sure would hope that the average person is more likely to sniff out bullshit vs. being “brainwashed”.

There’s definitely a delicate line to walk between giving a potentially harmful person a platform, and suppressing voices that we may not like, and I don’t pretend to know where that line is or should be. I just know that trying to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t is something we should be very careful with.

 

[taxi1]

at’s a valid point, and I see where you’re coming from, but giving those people a chance to speak their mind (no matter how crazy they may seem or be) gives the majority of rational people the ability to see them as crazy, instead of just being told that they are crazy by another person or outlet. I sure would hope that the average person is more likely to sniff out bullshit vs. being “brainwashed”.

It would be interesting if he'd have two people on with opposing views and mediate their interaction.

 

[FLGUY]

It would be interesting if he'd have two people on with opposing views and mediate their interaction.

I would certainly love to see that, especially if the discussion could refrain from ad hominem or bad faith arguments.

The vast majority of people on both sides of the political aisle are good people who want the world to be better, and often times we agree far more than we disagree. Sitting down and engaging in respectful conversations with differing viewpoints are (in my opinion) how we improve as a species, not by misrepresenting the other side and trying to smear or “destroy” them. We’re all humans at the end of the day.

 

[nittany03]

It would be interesting if he'd have two people on with opposing views and mediate their interaction.

I don't know if he could do that without being or it becoming Jerry Springer. I mean, even on shows like "Crossfire," TV has tended to turn that sort of thing into a shitshow.

My main beef with him is what Flash said. I also agree with FLGUY that you have to be very careful, but at some point you have to draw a line between challenging people to reexamine their beliefs and promoting bad faith actors. A lot of whom can be very sneaky and suave about "just asking questions."

That said, I will say that one of Rogan's strengths is being able to be a mirror and just let folks talk. I've dipped my toe into professional coaching techniques in my civ job, and it's actually hard (especially for Type A aviator types) to learn and use that kind of verbal aikido where you're facilitating a person getting their own ideas out without influencing what they're trying to say or inserting your own ideas.

 

[Brett327]

A wonderful piece of analysis on JRE-

A more perfect oxymoron cannot exist.

 

[FLGUY]

draw a line between challenging people to reexamine their beliefs and promoting bad faith actors.

I wish there was an easy way to do this, in some sort of bipartisan way. Unfortunately in today’s society, I fear that social tribalism runs more rampant than it should, and as a result we tend to not to want to take out our trash, or air out our group’s dirty laundry, due to fear of that empowering our ideological opposites.

Unity, not division is what I would love to see. Yet we seem to be sprinting in the opposite direction these days, and we’re all worse off for it.

 

[FLGUY]

ChuckMK23 said:
A wonderful piece of analysis on JRE

A more perfect oxymoron cannot exist.

The fact that so many people just smugly dismiss him outright as if he’s some sort of nut, is just intellectually dishonest.

Brett, come on, man. This is exactly what we need less of.

 

[ChuckMK23]

A more perfect oxymoron cannot exist.

So @Brett327 do you disagree with the tenants of the interview? The guest is articulate and lays out a logical summary both of Russia's initial intentions and goals, its missteps, the cultural thinking that motivates Russia to continue the campaign and the outlook for the future as well as the constructs that keep Russia from escalting to a first-use. Its the first logical review I have seen that reasonates with me.

As a laymen its very difficult to comprehend the policy choices of Russia here. And yet there has to be an explanation that experts are aligning to. The conclusion is that this war has to be won. And the effort is deserving of our treasure.

 

[Flash]

… but giving those people a chance to speak their mind (no matter how crazy they may seem or be) … I sure would hope that the average person is more likely to sniff out bullshit vs. being “brainwashed”.

There’s definitely a delicate line to walk between giving a potentially harmful person…

It isn’t a delicate line with some folks he has had on, reprehensible people that don’t deserve the attention he provides them. Frankly it isn’t his interest in what they have to say in some cases but just plain greed, getting notoriety and views for his show.

 

[FLGUY]

It isn’t a delicate line with some folks he has had on, reprehensible people that don’t deserve the attention he provides them. Frankly it isn’t his interest in what they have to say in some cases but just plain greed, getting notoriety and views for his show.

I’d have to see specifics to know which people are you are referring to, but I don’t disagree that there could be people that he shouldn’t have on. And yes, plenty of people are opportunists, unfortunately.

My only concern is who gets to be the one(s) to decide what is “reprehensible”. While it may seem obvious to many, it’s something that people can disagree on. Ideas that are reprehensible to some are accepted by others.

 

[nittany03]

So @Brett327 do you disagree with the tenants of the interview? The guest is articulate and lays out a logical summary both of Russia's initial intentions and goals, its missteps, the cultural thinking that motivates Russia to continue the campaign and the outlook for the future as well as the constructs that keep Russia from escalting to a first-use. Its the first logical review I have seen that reasonates with me.

As a laymen its very difficult to comprehend the policy choices of Russia here. And yet there has to be an explanation that experts are aligning to. The conclusion is that this war has to be won. And the effort is deserving of our treasure.

Well first off, no one is renting the interview to live in, so it's hard to disagree with them.

Irresistible pedantry aside, the guest piqued my curiosity about his credibility with a bit of a clunker regarding Eastern Christian theology, which made me Google a bit on demographic trends in Russia and China. In the larger interview, he seems convinced that both of these states are going to end up destabilized in the next 10-20 years, and pretty much implies Russia is going to collapse. What the actual numbers show is that yes, they're aging and have major governance and demographic issues, but it's much more likely that they stagnate Japan-in-the-90s-and-00s style than out-and-out collapse. Russia, for example, is projected to lose about 20-30 million people out of ~140 million in the next few decades, which is not nothing, but it's way different from his "analysis" that we're eventually going to run out of Russians.

So regarding anything else the guy actually said, my hunch is leaning towards invoking the idea of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. He seems to take normal trends and possibilities, turn the results up to 11, and say "this is what's going to happen." WRT the Russo-Ukrainian War, I think that ultimately Russia's strategic COG is located between Vladimir Putin's ears at this point.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

It would be interesting if he'd have two people on with opposing views and mediate their interaction.

His episode with Tim Pool, Vijaya Gadde, and Jack Dorsey featured some pretty opposite end of the spectrum conversation.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Well first off, no one is renting the interview to live in, so it's hard to disagree with them.

Irresistible pedantry aside, the guest piqued my curiosity about his credibility with a bit of a clunker regarding Eastern Christian theology, which made me Google a bit on demographic trends in Russia and China. In the larger interview, he seems convinced that both of these states are going to end up destabilized in the next 10-20 years, and pretty much implies Russia is going to collapse. What the actual numbers show is that yes, they're aging and have major governance and demographic issues, but it's much more likely that they stagnate Japan-in-the-90s-and-00s style than out-and-out collapse. Russia, for example, is projected to lose about 20-30 million people out of ~140 million in the next few decades, which is not nothing, but it's way different from his "analysis" that we're eventually going to run out of Russians.

So regarding anything else the guy actually said, my hunch is leaning towards invoking the idea of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. He seems to take normal trends and possibilities, turn the results up to 11, and say "this is what's going to happen." WRT the Russo-Ukrainian War, I think that ultimately Russia's strategic COG is located between Vladimir Putin's ears at this point.

Not saying that he (Peter Zeihan) is correct on every single one of his predictions but check out Chapter 6 of his second book The Absent Superpower (2016). I've been a pretty big fan of his since reading.

 

[Brett327]

So @Brett327 do you disagree with the tenants of the interview? The guest is articulate and lays out a logical summary both of Russia's initial intentions and goals, its missteps, the cultural thinking that motivates Russia to continue the campaign and the outlook for the future as well as the constructs that keep Russia from escalting to a first-use. Its the first logical review I have seen that reasonates with me.

As a laymen its very difficult to comprehend the policy choices of Russia here. And yet there has to be an explanation that experts are aligning to. The conclusion is that this war has to be won. And the effort is deserving of our treasure.

No, Chuck. I find it difficult to believe that anything of substance occurs within the context of the JRE. Joe is a punch-drunk, psychedelic-addled, mayonnaise-brained dope and a Moon landing denier. Whatever one thinks of any single guest's credibility, the assertion that anything on that show constitutes "wonderful analysis," is hilarious.

 

[RoarkJr.]

The JRE is video and audio recording of a man having conversations with interesting people.