Really smart people think Alex Jones should have a platform and you're definitely "doing something right" when people think its bullshit Jesus you're trash
I enjoyed the Alex Jones episode. The alien, human organ harvesting, human animal hybrid, drug, Nazi, and God talk was interesting. Don't believe that shit though.
Ok I take everything back if somebody listens to this and thinks Alex Jones is onto something they’re literally mentally ill and there’s no hope
I listened, I laughed, I believe about 1% of what he says, and yes, Alex should consider standup. Also did anyone listen to the Andrew Yang episode? I really enjoyed it, learned some shit, probably will listen again.
Don’t follow politics and never watched infowars and all I knew about Jones was that he was a wackjob. Guess I always assumed he played up the crazy stuff for his audience and he was more or less playing a character Nope he is legitimately nuts This was great
Seems like comedy is about not taking life too seriously ... idk if that applies to Jones. He believes in this stuff ... Yang episode was good. As was the pot debate ep. Listened to Tim Pool's as well, he's OK I guess. But caveats a lot of his points with "I'm not 100% sure about this" which I found kinda odd for a guy that fancies himself a journalist. Sam Harris ep was the same experience for me as every pod I've listened to of his ... just not sure what makes him a great philosopher of our time. Similar to Peterson for me
https://www.instagram.com/powerfuljoerogan/p/Bug5qkEAVal/?utm_source=ig_share_sheet&igshid=kh0rnfv0qd7 I don’t know how to embed apparently but worth a watch
Tim Pool losing his shit over twitter not allowing trans people to be harassed on twitter is amazing.
AJ: “THEYRE MURDERING GODDAMNED MOTHERFUCKING BABIES FOR ORGAN HARVESTING AND GIVING ASTRONAUTS DMT TO CONTACT ALIENS AND YOURE OVER HERE CENSORING THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO EXPOSE THE TRUTH OF THE GLOBALIST AGENDA” Jack: (takes small piece of paper from attorney) “well Alex we appreciate your input and it’s regrettable that due to your history of conduct that you’re no longer able to express your views on our platform”
Tim definitely lives in the twitter bubble. His belief that Twitter should mirror US amendments is pretty fucking comical. Also, the fact that he repeatedly calls himself a “social liberal” on JRE is pretty comical.
Its an talk that needed to happen, and it was a very good podcast. But I agree with you that Pool lives in a twitter bubble. He brought up conservative twitter "stars" and was mad that the Jack and Gadde had no idea who those people were. He took that as twitter not protecting the conservative voice, but in reality it seems like they have no idea who those people are because they are not important enough to.
The twitter podcast was interesting. It basically boiled down to Jack and Gadde saying they don't think they are doing a great job now and will try harder. It's a good response, but it seems like the basic argument was: why do you have so try to hard to be unbiased? From Tim's perspective, it seems very easy for twitter to protect left-wing positions. Their answer is good, in that they are acknowledging that offering that same protection to the Right is a problem, and they are saying that's not the intent, and they are working to fix it. If, in a backwards world, there was a social media platform that was as popular as twitter, and their current policy was focused on protecting white middle class men, and they were asked why they don't do more to protect women, and trans, and minorities, and their response was: we are looking into that, and we will try harder...I'm not sure that would be an acceptable answer. It was annoying hearing Tim throw out names that I'm guessing few people know (I knew none of them). "What about Bill Johnson, why did he get banned?!?!" ehh.... But it's hard not to get into a war of anecdotal evidence. what about this guy? and that guy? And the answer, most often was either A) they got banned for legit reasons, and here are all of those reasons, or B) Sorry, we made a mistake. Though, in one of their examples of a strike, a white guy said "fuck white people". But in a previous explanation they said all racial slurs are not the same, and if used by one group it's very clearly and obviously a racial slur, but if used by another group is not, and is acceptable. A white guy saying "fuck white people" seems to fall into that same category. I thought people had run experiments, where they made the exact same tweet, word for word, and changed a single word like "black" and "white" in the respective tweets, and demonstrated that one will get banned and the other will not. I don't remember hearing them touch on that at all, but I'm sure the answer is the same - we have to do a better job. But what that means is until they accomplish that, we will still see that bias. And I think they essentially admitted that without saying it outright. Also, ironically, I think some of the conversation they had, if it was on twitter, would have got Joe and Tim banned, especially the trans stuff.
This is the part that was most baffling to me. That dude really wants hate speech to be allowed on Twitter.
That whole angle was strange. About foreign governments having more access to social media than US citizens, therefor having more influence on elections. He is making a sort of slippery slope argument, I think, where twitter becomes an admittedly non-objective (despite their best efforts) arbiter of what people can and cannot say. And he even said once - where does it end?
Joe wants so badly for this vaccine dude to admit there miiiight be a chance that vaccines cause autism. "If one expert says the cause autism, and you as an expert says they dont, shouldnt there be measured debate on this?" Idk if there's a better summation of Rogan than that quote.
I haven't seen this interview, but with that question Joe is presenting part of the pushback against vaccines. If this guy's answer is no, and he can explain that, it *might* help alleviate some concern from the anti-vax community. Doubtful, but..... I think Rogan def has his opinions, and presents them in interviews. But part of being a good interviewer is offering counterpoints and opposition for the interviewee to address, even if you as the interviewer don't personally believe that. Right?
This is playing devils advocate as a flat earther in a discussion about the globe. Just because you can debate if the world is flat, doesnt mean it does any good to entertain a set of false facts.
but it does good if the expert answers that question in a way that convinces flat earthers or anti-vaxers that they are wrong.
Nothing convinces these loons because they’re already ignoring mountains of evidence. Ridicule works better.
If I could just make these irrational people rational maybe we could get somewhere. Doesn’t work that way fam
Im not criticizing him for asking questions that allows the guy to provide information about vaccines and autism ect. Im criticizing Joe for advocating for a structured debate with an anti vaxxer.
Ah, gotcha. Though, would that not be a spectacle to behold?? Lets set that up and put this issue to bed maybe?
I think he finally won Joe over. Until next week and an anti vaxxer comes on to change his mind because it will be the last thing he hears. Made me laugh a bit that Rogan was really pushing him to produce a documentary about his findings because asking people to read his book, or any book is too much to ask, which sadly is probably true.
It doesn’t work that way. Probably 20% of the people watching would be absolutely convinced that the anti-vax guy won. Because people are dumb and irrational.