Have you actually listened to his podcast recently? I thought you liked Rogan?
Or are you just dunking on Chuck for funsies?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Or are you just dunking on Chuck for funsies?
Your level of disdain for him is…concerning.
He’s just an inquisitive dude who talks to a lot of people. Nobody goes to him to solve the greatest mysteries of the universe, but a very large amount of people listen to the very interesting and informative individuals he hosts.
Random8145
Registered User
Pretty sure that Joe Rogan hasn't bought into the Moon landing conspiracy for years now. He used to, but has since stopped. I know this because some years ago on an episode of his I was hearing at work as a coworker had him playing, he had on a couple of guests of which one was an actual Moon landing denier, and Joe and the other guest were trying to explain to him how the Moon landing conspiracy didn't make sense. Joe said he used to buy into the conspiracy until he did some actual research into it.
I've never liked Joe Rogan, except maybe on Fear Factor, where he oversaw people eating insects for prize money. I guess I can respect what he brings to the table on that level.
That he has come around recently doesn't alter the fact that he was enough of an idiot to buy into the conspiracy theory in the first place. These kinds of people are mentally defective, and he's just as gullible with the parade of nonsense, charlatans, and snake oil salesmen he puts on his show... like Graham Hancock.
I believe this is what Zeihan forecast in Chapter 6. Back in 2014, he said that Russia’s (not just Putin’s) #1 security concern was an independent Ukraine - and that due to a demographic implosion, the Russians would invade Ukraine within 8 years.
If I read your post correctly, you haven’t heard of Dr. Zeihan, the former VP of STRATFOR and now running his own geopolitical company. He has a number of thesis’s that combine history, geography, and demographics.
In regards to demographics, his opinion is that urbanization of the 20th century has led to an unprecedented drop in birth rates, not locally but globally. This is inverting the traditional population curves, which will lead to economic instability as there are not enough people to consume the products of capitalism as well as the masses moving into retirement pull their investments out of the risky stock market and into safer investments, driving up interest rates and slowing the velocity of money, causing financing costs to rise. Very interesting analyst; you might consider his theories worth a read.
Late to the party, but here's my $0.02:
I'll caveat this with the fact that most of my Russian studies have concerned war gaming at the operational level. Most of our "academic" experience has been lectures from our Russian Maritime Studies Institute professors on Russian military doctrine and organizational structure. I can't comment on the religious aspect, but I didn't hear anything this guy said that I disagree with. His analysis seems to be pretty spot on.
I think the only thing I'd debate is his claim that NATO capitals were at an elevated risk of a nuclear attack last year. That's not in line with any of the discussions we've had concerning Russia's potential use of nukes. He was more accurate in his assessment that Russia might be more willing to go nuclear if the conflict crossed the border and Russian territory was at risk.
I'm interested to ask my program director his opinion of Dr. Zeihan because I'm sure he knows him. I'll circle back once I get an answer.
Seriously, you don't have to look too hard at all:
EDIT: The above pic is from the Joe Rogan Experience #911, which is...well, something.
I kinda think that folks who are racist, anti-Semitic, conspiracy theorists who think a elementary school massacre was a black flag operation or people who play any of those parts to make money are by default 'reprehensible'. Pretty simple really.
Do I like that he interviews these people? No. Can he? Sure, it is a free country. Just like Twitter, Facebook and Fox News get to decide who to have and who not to have on their platforms. There are plenty of other venues, sources and places to get the information I need and want about the subjects I am interested in, and in a shorter amount of time too. That is why the whole controversy of who gets to decide who is reprehensible is absurd, everyone does.
So what do I do about it? I don't bother to watch or listen to him. I think he is an idiot and the more I learn about him just further reinforces my previous conclusion (Seriously, moon landing denial?! I don't care if he has changed his mind, that's just plain stupid). So I will continue to pretty much immediately dismiss folks like Holocaust deniers, flat earthers, space-based laser fans and 9/11 'truthers' among many others. Oh, and radio/podcast hosts who happily have them on for hours long discussions.
Last edited:
And that’s your choice. My only point is that in order to make an informed decision about someone or something, you need access to whatever that thing is. If information from someone or something is only obtained via another person, outlet, third party, etc, then the questions about misrepresentation, bias, and bad faith representation of that thing become relevant.
I’m a huge proponent of the idea that people need to make those decisions and categorizations for themselves, and not rely on a talking head or blog post or Tweet to tell them how to think about a topic. Does that come with a risk of radicalizing some people by exposing them directly to an extreme individual? Sure. But as I said, I’m willing to bet the vast majority of people (when presented with unfiltered information straight from the source) can spot bullshit and make the correct assessment.
I think Alex Jones is probably the most obvious example of someone who the majority would categorize as “extreme”, and I would certainly question his credibility and call him a nutcase. But he’s also only one out over 2,000 episodes, to include Neil Degrasse Tyson, Bernie Sanders, Edward Snowden, Sam Harris and countless others across the socio-political spectrum. I’m not going to demonize Joe for his worst guests, when he has had so many vastly different and fascinating people on that greatly outweigh the negatives, in my opinion.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that any of it needs to be promoted by everyone, or even anyone. One also doesn't need to do in-depth research, watch, listen to or even skim the Wikipedia entry for someone to dismiss them for being an idiot if it is blatantly obvious they are in fact, an idiot.
I think you seriously underestimate the 'average' person given the widespread popularity of the countless popular inane and stupid ideas throughout history, to include present day.
That's your opinion, mine is that he is not worth a minute of my time because some of his guests and his own stupidity (Again, believing the moon landings were faked = Dumbass). 'Build at thousand bridges, you're a bridge builder. But you fuck one goat....'
I see your points, and they aren’t wrong, I also know that stupidity is an eternal
concept. And maybe there are far more stupid people in the world than I currently think there are, but if given the choice between defaulting to optimism or pessimism with regards to my assumptions about human intelligence, I choose optimism.
My take on what you’re saying is that some things are so blatantly obvious that they’re beyond a reasonable doubt (ie Alex Jones being verifiably crazy), I just want to ensure that people are able to find that obvious information about him being crazy out for themselves. I try to go to the source for contentious topics, and inform myself, and try to not fall prey to my own confirmation biases. I don’t always succeed.
While it may seem obvious in cases like Alex Jones as to who to not give a platform to, it’s not obvious in many other lesser obvious instances of who to silence. What one person thinks is crazy and unreasonable may not be someone else’s view.
In my opinion, how we execute the careful dance of balancing free choice, free speech, yet allowing companies to regulate their products, and where we decide to draw the line of “This has gone too far, and we will no longer tolerate it” is very complicated and I try to constantly re-evaluate my position on it.
And I strongly disagree with you last point. I’m a huge proponent of second chances, and not defining people by their worst actions. Those “worst” actions may be indefensible, and objectively terrible, and I do believe in consequences, but I also believe in redemption. Especially for someone who admits that they changed their viewpoint on something when they realize that they were wrong, or when presented with correct information.
And how will you know who the nut jobs, racists, misogynists', and the hater flavor of the month is unless they are heard? You can't just claim you can google it. Where is Wikipedia getting the information it needs to label a person extremist? Isn't it from the speeches made, books written, interviews given and citations made by these people? Silence them, drive them under ground, shout them down, and we won't know who these people are. I'd rather they were out in the light of day to be seen for what they are. You can't defeat them in debate is you don't hear them.
I have never watched or listened to Rogen (except when he was in line at an airport gate). But there is a collection of people that do us a duty. Like criminal defense attorneys who serve the justice system, they must give the most scurrilous, immoral, dangerous criminal their very best effort. That effort benefits us all on a larger scale. I think the people who cavort with the fringe, give them a megaphone or a stage are ultimately doing us a service by pointing a finger at the sort of people we need to laugh at and debate with facts.
I don't want to interview someone on a podcast that is a flat earther or thinks democrats drink children's blood. And I don't want to be a criminal defense attorney. But I am glad they are out there.
I have never watched or listened to Rogen (except when he was in line at an airport gate). But there is a collection of people that do us a duty. Like criminal defense attorneys who serve the justice system, they must give the most scurrilous, immoral, dangerous criminal their very best effort. That effort benefits us all on a larger scale. I think the people who cavort with the fringe, give them a megaphone or a stage are ultimately doing us a service by pointing a finger at the sort of people we need to laugh at and debate with facts.
I don't want to interview someone on a podcast that is a flat earther or thinks democrats drink children's blood. And I don't want to be a criminal defense attorney. But I am glad they are out there.
Well said.
Eh? What’s the background to this? Space-based lasers are a thing.
There's a lot of media out there. I don't have time for all of it, and I can't scrub every podcast for its validity; I sometimes have to use heuristics to decide what to consume. I'm willing to cut Joe Rogan out based on the basis that he thought Alex Jones was a legitimate enough guest to bring on multiple times. Maybe I'll miss some really insightful guests, but it's a risk I'm willing to take.