The Joe Rogan Experience Podcasts
Discussion
Yea, I enjoyed Louis CK too.
I haven't listened to many others recently, but a highlight for sure was #1914 Siddharth Kara. Talking about the appalling conditions of Cobalt mines in the Congo.
I started listening to Adam Curry last night, the most recent one. Entertaining. For a bit. But as always with these conspiracy personality types, I find myself agreeing with a lot of it, thinking 'oh yea, what about that... somethings up there'. However as it goes on, you realise this guys been ranting for a hour, on a string of rambling tangents, which becomes less and less entertaining. Then I think it must be exhausting to live like that.
I get why people get annoyed by this type of podcast. A lot of what they're saying sounds plausible. And there is no way to validate it all in any reasonable way, and to do so would make the podcast less entertaining. It is fun sometimes just to listen to people rant. It's when folks get invested in this kind of stuff that causes the problem. It is just two guys talking sh!t for a few hours.
I haven't listened to many others recently, but a highlight for sure was #1914 Siddharth Kara. Talking about the appalling conditions of Cobalt mines in the Congo.
I started listening to Adam Curry last night, the most recent one. Entertaining. For a bit. But as always with these conspiracy personality types, I find myself agreeing with a lot of it, thinking 'oh yea, what about that... somethings up there'. However as it goes on, you realise this guys been ranting for a hour, on a string of rambling tangents, which becomes less and less entertaining. Then I think it must be exhausting to live like that.
I get why people get annoyed by this type of podcast. A lot of what they're saying sounds plausible. And there is no way to validate it all in any reasonable way, and to do so would make the podcast less entertaining. It is fun sometimes just to listen to people rant. It's when folks get invested in this kind of stuff that causes the problem. It is just two guys talking sh!t for a few hours.
I want him to get Hancock and Carlsson back on for a proper debate with some archaeologists and geologists. They did it before with a skeptic who was just out of his depth and they walked all over him. Since Hancock's Netflix show came out there have been loads of response videos on Youtube etc by properly qualified people, evidencing basically everything Hancock says is bulls
t or massively twisted.
Hancock and Carlsson say they welcome debate. One geologist arranged to meet with Carlsson for a debate, arranged a time and date and Carlsson no showed. Hancock is still banging on about people just attacking him and not disproving his ideas but this is just untrue. There is one respected ancient historian been trying to get on JRE to talk about this stuff and they are not letting it happen.
Would love to see Joe's reaction being shown just how his mates are wrong and absolute bullstters. Would he be man enough to admit he was duped and change his mind or do we think he would try and defend them?
t or massively twisted. Hancock and Carlsson say they welcome debate. One geologist arranged to meet with Carlsson for a debate, arranged a time and date and Carlsson no showed. Hancock is still banging on about people just attacking him and not disproving his ideas but this is just untrue. There is one respected ancient historian been trying to get on JRE to talk about this stuff and they are not letting it happen.
Would love to see Joe's reaction being shown just how his mates are wrong and absolute bulls
tters. Would he be man enough to admit he was duped and change his mind or do we think he would try and defend them?RB Will said:
I want him to get Hancock and Carlsson back on for a proper debate with some archaeologists and geologists. They did it before with a skeptic who was just out of his depth and they walked all over him. Since Hancock's Netflix show came out there have been loads of response videos on Youtube etc by properly qualified people, evidencing basically everything Hancock says is bullst or massively twisted.
Hancock and Carlsson say they welcome debate. One geologist arranged to meet with Carlsson for a debate, arranged a time and date and Carlsson no showed. Hancock is still banging on about people just attacking him and not disproving his ideas but this is just untrue. There is one respected ancient historian been trying to get on JRE to talk about this stuff and they are not letting it happen.
Would love to see Joe's reaction being shown just how his mates are wrong and absolute bullstters. Would he be man enough to admit he was duped and change his mind or do we think he would try and defend them?
I don’t think hancock genuinely believes half the stuff he says. I got a bit sucked into hancock after he appeared on an early JR. The more you look into his stuff the more jumps out as complete nonsense. t or massively twisted. Hancock and Carlsson say they welcome debate. One geologist arranged to meet with Carlsson for a debate, arranged a time and date and Carlsson no showed. Hancock is still banging on about people just attacking him and not disproving his ideas but this is just untrue. There is one respected ancient historian been trying to get on JRE to talk about this stuff and they are not letting it happen.
Would love to see Joe's reaction being shown just how his mates are wrong and absolute bulls
tters. Would he be man enough to admit he was duped and change his mind or do we think he would try and defend them?Like with all good conmen he weaves enough truth, plausible scenarios with outright lies to sometimes see credible.
For me he’s the archeological Alex Jones, hugely entertaining to listen rant, but no real credibility and they’re just to sell his books and mercy. I’m surprised he hasn’t got a vitamin range from a recipe he found underwater. I also notice on his Netflix and JR he doesn’t talk at all about how he believes the pyramids were built using telekinesis…..
I think you’re doing Hancock a massive disservice here, and misrepresenting his claims. It’s not a “belief”, it’s just him proposing alternative theories, which should be applauded and welcomed. I find it fascinating personally, I have no axe to grind on either side. Why not explore the possibility of things that re outside our realm of understanding? Well.... probably because we find it uncomfortable.
Don’t forget these “expert archeologists” have a reputation and career to protect too. They are no different.
Don’t forget these “expert archeologists” have a reputation and career to protect too. They are no different.
jameswills said:
I think you’re doing Hancock a massive disservice here, and misrepresenting his claims. It’s not a “belief”, it’s just him proposing alternative theories, which should be applauded and welcomed. I find it fascinating personally, I have no axe to grind on either side. Why not explore the possibility of things that re outside our realm of understanding? Well.... probably because we find it uncomfortable.
Don’t forget these “expert archeologists” have a reputation and career to protect too. They are no different.
You have got a point, these ‘expert archaeologists’ are just scarred of losing their funding. But that’s ‘big archeology’ for you, as soon as they admit there is a chance the pyramids COULD have been built by telekinesis they lose their iron grip on the history book market so won’t even debate it. Don’t forget these “expert archeologists” have a reputation and career to protect too. They are no different.
Hancock is not a historian, he’s just a guy with ideas, it’s up to ‘expert archaeologists’ to prove the pyramids were not built using telekinesis, so far they haven’t been able to.
Flumpo said:
You have got a point, these ‘expert archaeologists’ are just scarred of losing their funding. But that’s ‘big archeology’ for you, as soon as they admit there is a chance the pyramids COULD have been built by telekinesis they lose their iron grip on the history book market so won’t even debate it.
Hancock is not a historian, he’s just a guy with ideas, it’s up to ‘expert archaeologists’ to prove the pyramids were not built using telekinesis, so far they haven’t been able to.
Agree, I just like hearing different ideas! Why couldn’t there been something like telekinesis around? There’s quite a lot of historical teachings passed down that there was some apocalypse that wiped a civilisation out, is it not possible that this was way advanced that ours? We always think we are at the pinnacle, that’s a bit of our downfall really I think. Hancock is not a historian, he’s just a guy with ideas, it’s up to ‘expert archaeologists’ to prove the pyramids were not built using telekinesis, so far they haven’t been able to.
Probably a bit too in depth for this thread, I’m just a bit of a Hancock apologist
Will listen to the Rick Flair one though, loved Undertaker and Jake the Snake podcasts.
While on the subject of Hancocks bullsttery...
He isn't just "asking questions" or presenting alternate theories like an inquisitive man who wants to learn. He has an agenda and he routinely misrepresents archaeologist as corrupt and incompetent, despite all evidence to the contrary. This I'm afraid is Joe's biggest problem. He's doesn't want to learn either. He gets too entrenched with his positions and doesn't have the right people on to offer true balance. When you're as big as Rogan is now, that's irresponsible.
ttery...He isn't just "asking questions" or presenting alternate theories like an inquisitive man who wants to learn. He has an agenda and he routinely misrepresents archaeologist as corrupt and incompetent, despite all evidence to the contrary. This I'm afraid is Joe's biggest problem. He's doesn't want to learn either. He gets too entrenched with his positions and doesn't have the right people on to offer true balance. When you're as big as Rogan is now, that's irresponsible.
jameswills said:
I think you’re doing Hancock a massive disservice here, and misrepresenting his claims. It’s not a “belief”, it’s just him proposing alternative theories, which should be applauded and welcomed. I find it fascinating personally, I have no axe to grind on either side. Why not explore the possibility of things that re outside our realm of understanding? Well.... probably because we find it uncomfortable.
Don’t forget these “expert archeologists” have a reputation and career to protect too. They are no different.
This is where you are too into Hancock. I enjoyed him too on earlier JRE but looked into the stuff he claims or proposes and just about everything he even proposes is well understood and explained and debunked with actual hard evidence.Don’t forget these “expert archeologists” have a reputation and career to protect too. They are no different.
Proposing new alternative theories is to be applauded, archaeologists will say this too, it is how they too make a name for themselves, when they are studying and doing PHDs or to get published in journals they have to propose new ideas or debunk established old ones. The difference is they have to do it with actual evidence that goes through peer review.
Hancock just spouts proven nonsense then manages to get people to believe he isn’t taken seriously as big archaeology has something against him.
As I said I used to be fascinated by the stuff he talks about but I can’t even stand to watch anything he is on now as everything he says, from his theories to how he is persecuted, nobody will debate him blah blah is just proven crap.
RB Will said:
This is where you are too into Hancock. I enjoyed him too on earlier JRE but looked into the stuff he claims or proposes and just about everything he even proposes is well understood and explained and debunked with actual hard evidence.
Proposing new alternative theories is to be applauded, archaeologists will say this too, it is how they too make a name for themselves, when they are studying and doing PHDs or to get published in journals they have to propose new ideas or debunk established old ones. The difference is they have to do it with actual evidence that goes through peer review.
Hancock just spouts proven nonsense then manages to get people to believe he isn’t taken seriously as big archaeology has something against him.
As I said I used to be fascinated by the stuff he talks about but I can’t even stand to watch anything he is on now as everything he says, from his theories to how he is persecuted, nobody will debate him blah blah is just proven crap.
We will have to agree to disagree, but I just don’t believe there’s any such thing as “hard evidence”. Science theory and discovery changes over time always has always will. If you just accept a certain thing as the de facto “truth” you’ll never move forward. That’s what I like about listening to Hancock, opens the mind a little to new possibilities. Proposing new alternative theories is to be applauded, archaeologists will say this too, it is how they too make a name for themselves, when they are studying and doing PHDs or to get published in journals they have to propose new ideas or debunk established old ones. The difference is they have to do it with actual evidence that goes through peer review.
Hancock just spouts proven nonsense then manages to get people to believe he isn’t taken seriously as big archaeology has something against him.
As I said I used to be fascinated by the stuff he talks about but I can’t even stand to watch anything he is on now as everything he says, from his theories to how he is persecuted, nobody will debate him blah blah is just proven crap.
What of his theories/ proposals are you talking about? If you are more on the telekinesis/ psychedelic end of things then fair enough but if you are talking about historical things, geology, maps, flooding etc then there is plenty of very robust evidence against what he says.
Once you start seeing how he twists things to everything else he says just looses all credibility.
The old maps are a good example. He will say look at this sus thing on this map, maybe it could be blah blah. What he doesn’t tell you is it tells you exactly what the sus thing is on the map. Eg he is claiming somewhere described on the map as bloody hot and full of snakes could be Antarctica.
Also with the flooding. He will always talk about it being cataclysmic, tsunami style flooding and say it was 30ft overnight etc. The melt water pulses he is on about did experience greater sea level rises than normal but we are talking about 4cm per year over about 500 years. Not exactly civilisation wiping. You would just gradually move inland / higher.
Once you start seeing how he twists things to everything else he says just looses all credibility.
The old maps are a good example. He will say look at this sus thing on this map, maybe it could be blah blah. What he doesn’t tell you is it tells you exactly what the sus thing is on the map. Eg he is claiming somewhere described on the map as bloody hot and full of snakes could be Antarctica.
Also with the flooding. He will always talk about it being cataclysmic, tsunami style flooding and say it was 30ft overnight etc. The melt water pulses he is on about did experience greater sea level rises than normal but we are talking about 4cm per year over about 500 years. Not exactly civilisation wiping. You would just gradually move inland / higher.
There's evidence supporting a theory, that's it. Unless someone was there when it happened, nothing is fact. And then even documentation of that can be distorted through time. That's all I am saying, and all Hancock is saying really. I don't also understand why people feel threatened by him? So what if he's wrong, but what if he's on to something? Surely that would be pretty amazing?
jameswills said:
We will have to agree to disagree, but I just don’t believe there’s any such thing as “hard evidence”. Science theory and discovery changes over time always has always will. If you just accept a certain thing as the de facto “truth” you’ll never move forward. That’s what I like about listening to Hancock, opens the mind a little to new possibilities.
That's absurd, while theoretical science is clearly important. Some things are facts supported by evidence, we need the oxygen in air to live for example.To say all science is theoretical just opens you up to believing any old s
te, which makes sense in the context of the Joe Rogan podcast tbh.ZedLeg said:
That's absurd, while theoretical science is clearly important. Some things are facts supported by evidence, we need the oxygen in air to live for example.
To say all science is theoretical just opens you up to believing any old ste, which makes sense in the context of the Joe Rogan podcast tbh.
Quoted for pasting in the trans threads.To say all science is theoretical just opens you up to believing any old s
te, which makes sense in the context of the Joe Rogan podcast tbh.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff