The Joe Rogan Podcast Thread

[Stylizer1]

Carlson has no legitimate evidence, and you clearly haven't researched this topic well enough based on the information in your posts. Watching youtube videos from bad sources does not count as research. Who said anything about a "closed book"? We learn new things all the time, just none of that comes from people like Hanock and Carlson, because if it did they would have peer reviewed research published.

Again claiming that it's other people that don't understand, while it's clearly you that do not understand those topics, and thus fall for charlatans who have never substantiated a single claim they have made.

I doubt you would waste your time watching all of the video's on his podcast anyway. What they are talking about is an observation from the evidence available. Their interpretations. I never said you don't understand geography, archaeology, Egyptology..... I said you don't understand what they are talking about but I doubt you would take the time to entertain it with an open mind.

This seems to make you angry when that was never the intention. If there is something they said that you dispute cool, say it then.

Maybe you should actually watch some of them. They are interesting.

 

[Bondurant]

It's the best long form interview and the competition isn't even close. Love the episodes with Graham Hancock. He has Joey Diaz on too much. The episodes with Andrew Schulz and Tom O'Neill are my favorite recent episodes.

 

[Stylizer1]

 

[DaBadGuy316]

I love the Hancock and Carlson episodes. Also John Anthony West was on before he passed away. Different perspectives, new ideas on things that are "set in stone."

 

[Stylizer1]

It's the best long form interview and the competition isn't even close. Love the episodes with Graham Hancock. He has Joey Diaz on too much. The episodes with Andrew Schulz and Tom O'Neill are my favorite recent episodes.

I was first introduced to Bert Kriescher, Tom Segura, Joey Diaz on his podcast at first I loved them but the more I see them do stuff on youtube the more they really start to bore me. I don't find Joey Diaz funny at all. Tom and Bert are funny at times but find they say shocking stuff more for laughs than constructing good jokes. That especially goes for their stand up specials which lack humour. Sober October is fun though.

 

[Stylizer1]

I love the Hancock and Carlson episodes. Also John Anthony West was on before he passed away. Different perspectives, new ideas on things that are "set in stone."

The Robert Schoch episode on he Sphinx is really good too.

 

[Blender]

I doubt you would waste your time watching all of the video's on his podcast anyway. What they are talking about is an observation from the evidence available. Their interpretations. I never said you don't understand geography, archaeology, Egyptology..... I said you don't understand what they are talking about but I doubt you would take the time to entertain it with an open mind.

This seems to make you angry when that was never the intention. If there is something they said that you dispute cool, say it then.

Maybe you should actually watch some of them. They are interesting.

I have watched/listened to some of the episodes they are on, and I am familiar with many of their claims. None of their claims are supported by sound evidence nor are they convincing. You are shifting the burden of proof here, which is a logical fallacy. The burden is not on me to sit through another one of their videos and disprove every claim they toss out over 3 hours, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claims with evidence, and in this case on you to do so if you are defending their claims.

I also did address some items they like to talk about in an earlier post after your brought them up (civilizations destroyed by the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Gobekli Tepe the site of a fallen civilization, etc.) and you proceeded to address none of them and just repeat the same talking points you made earlier. Beyond the fact that the burden of proof is on you here, why would I possibly waste my time going through one of their videos in detail to post here when you wouldn't bother to address any of it anyways?

I am not the one with a closed mind here, you are. I'm asking for evidence to substantiate claims, i.e. I am open to accepting any new information provided that it is has been demonstrated. Anyone can write a book or go on youtube and make a bunch of claims or toss out baseless "interpretations" about history, but unless they can demonstrate that it's true with evidence it should not be taken seriously. If they can demonstrate it with evidence, they should do so and collect the adoration coming to them for their profound discoveries that change our fundamental understanding of the rise of human civilizations, like for example how Klaus Schmidt's discoveries at Gobekli Tepe were received. Being open to new information but requiring that it be rational, unbiased, and factual is by definition critical thinking.

 

[Stylizer1]

I have watched/listened to some of the episodes they are on, and I am familiar with many of their claims. None of their claims are supported by sound evidence nor are they convincing. You are shifting the burden of proof here, which is a logically fallacy. The burden is not on me to sit through another one of their videos and disprove every claim they toss out over 3 hours, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate their claims with evidence, and in this case on you to do so if you are defending their claims.

I also did address some items they like to talk about in an earlier post after your brought them up (civilizations destroyed by the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, Gobekli Tepe the site of a fallen civilization, etc.) and you proceeded to address none of them and just repeat the same talking points you made earlier. Beyond the fact that the burden of proof is on you here, why would I possibly waste my time going through one of their videos in detail to post here when you wouldn't bother to address any of it anyways?

I am not the one with a closed mind here, you are. I'm asking for evidence to substantiate claims, i.e. I am open to accepting any new information provided that it is has been demonstrated. Anyone can write a book or go on youtube and make a bunch of claims or toss out baseless "interpretations" about history, but unless they can demonstrate that it's true with evidence it should not be taken seriously. If they can demonstrate it with evidence, they should do so and collect the adoration coming to them for their profound discoveries that change our fundamental understanding of the rise of human civilizations, like for example how Klaus Schmidt's discoveries at Gobekli Tepe were received. Being open to new information but requiring that it be rational, unbiased, and factual is by definition critical thinking.

Ok.

 

[Bondurant]

CNN, FOX News, MNBC and Ye Olde Print Media have a greater moral obligation since they all claim to traffic in news but here some of you are...bitching about Joe Rogan's obligation.

 

[member 51464]

CNN, FOX News, MNBC and Ye Olde Print Media have a greater moral obligation since they all claim to traffic in news but here some of you are...bitching about Joe Rogan's obligation.

If someone started a thread that said "The New York Time has had so many articles that are great and some not so much. Most deserve to be discussed.

Does anybody read?", then maybe your point would fit in here. Alas, no one did so, and your argument does not fit here. If the defense of Joe Rogan's criticisms is to criticize non-Joe Rogan entities rather than to defend Joe Rogan, then the game has been lost. List of fallacies - Wikipedia may be of interest.

Flipping this on its head, no one would ever look at plagiarism or faked sources at the NYT, and say "geez, we have Joe Rogan out there giving air time to crackpots and conspiracy theorists but some of you are....bitching about the NYT's obligation to quality journalism."

I imagine you can see the absurdity in this.

 

[Don'tcry4mejanhrdina]

I'll watch/listen based on certain guests whom I find interesting. He can be a very good interviewer, if he doesn't understand something he'll ask instead of trying to bullshit his way through it. One thing I've noticed, Joe has really matured a lot over the years. Go back and watch some earlier podcasts and it's kind of hard to believe that guy was in his 40's.

I find it amusing when he talks about being an "expert" in comedy. When he gets a real comic on (not his dumb close friends), so many of their subtle jokes goes over his head and he often has to ask if they're being serious.

Overall, it's really hit or miss. I might listen to less than 5% of the podcasts, it's really dependant upon who he has on, I'm not watching it for Joe Rogan.

 

[Stylizer1]

I'll watch/listen based on certain guests whom I find interesting. He can be a very good interviewer, if he doesn't understand something he'll ask instead of trying to bullshit his way through it. One thing I've noticed, Joe has really matured a lot over the years. Go back and watch some earlier podcasts and it's kind of hard to believe that guy was in his 40's.

I find it amusing when he talks about being an "expert" in comedy. When he gets a real comic on (not his dumb close friends), so many of their subtle jokes goes over his head and he often has to ask if they're being serious.

Overall, it's really hit or miss. I might listen to less than 5% of the podcasts, it's really dependant upon who he has on, I'm not watching it for Joe Rogan.

I think Rogans comedy isn't very good. I think he talks about the process way to much and has basically the same conversation with every comedian.

 

[Dubi Doo]

My favorite moment is when Bill Burr shits on him regarding wearing masks. Rogan is a tough SoB. Unfortunately, he has a frail ego and is mentally weak. We all have our flaws, I suppose. Lord knows I do...

 

[chicagoskycam]

I'll watch/listen based on certain guests whom I find interesting. He can be a very good interviewer, if he doesn't understand something he'll ask instead of trying to bullshit his way through it. One thing I've noticed, Joe has really matured a lot over the years. Go back and watch some earlier podcasts and it's kind of hard to believe that guy was in his 40's.

I find it amusing when he talks about being an "expert" in comedy. When he gets a real comic on (not his dumb close friends), so many of their subtle jokes goes over his head and he often has to ask if they're being serious.

Overall, it's really hit or miss. I might listen to less than 5% of the podcasts, it's really dependant upon who he has on, I'm not watching it for Joe Rogan.

All of this close "dumb" friends are real comics, lol.

Segura
Burr
Diaz
Bert

WTF??

 

[ArGarBarGar]

CNN, FOX News, MNBC and Ye Olde Print Media have a greater moral obligation since they all claim to traffic in news but here some of you are...bitching about Joe Rogan's obligation.

Joe Rogan can do what he wants on his podcast, but he isn't immune from criticism. He hosts a podcast where people come to discuss issues that can shape other people's worldviews, and with such a large audience it is fair to point out the issues with his ability to interview guests and the people he platforms.

Also it is possible to discuss multiple things at once.

 

[bleedblue1223]

All of this close "dumb" friends are real comics, lol.

Segura
Burr
Diaz
Bert

WTF??

He's good friends with most of the comics that are on, but I imagine the poster is making a distinction between the Diaz/Segura/Bert/Ari/Callen/Schaub level comics and the Burr/Gaffigan/Jeselnik/etc.

 

[Stylizer1]

He's good friends with most of the comics that are on, but I imagine the poster is making a distinction between the Diaz/Segura/Bert/Ari/Callen/Schaub level comics and the Burr/Gaffigan/Jeselnik/etc.

Callen is hilarious though. His timing is spot on.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Callen is hilarious though. His timing is spot on.

Yeah, his closer group and more regular guests can still be funny, not saying they aren't. I don't watch those podcasts as much, and it's like Joe has said before, this podcast is mostly something he just wanted to do and all of a sudden it blew up awhile ago because people wanted this type of content. He'll have a ton of guests on that will be more appealing, but he's still going to have podcasts that are more about why this thing started, and there are a lot of people that like those episodes.

 

[chicagoskycam]

He's good friends with most of the comics that are on, but I imagine the poster is making a distinction between the Diaz/Segura/Bert/Ari/Callen/Schaub level comics and the Burr/Gaffigan/Jeselnik/etc.

Burr has been on like 5X in the past year, they are very close as well.

There are bits of Joe's comedy shows I really like and some I don't, especially when he goes all loud and cringy. I love his Podcasts though, he's come a long way with many outstanding guests.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Burr has been on like 5X in the past year, they are very close as well.

I know, those 2 are very close and he is on a ton, but I don't think the poster was referring to Burr with that comment. I agree with that opinion when it's directed at more of that Sober October group, which I think is what that post was directed at.

 

[chicagoskycam]

I know, those 2 are very close and he is on a ton, but I don't think the poster was referring to Burr with that comment. I agree with that opinion when it's directed at more of that Sober October group, which I think is what that post was directed at.

Yeah, and all those guys are legit good comics so I don't get it. Some comedians are just not into doing podcats, I think he's attempted to get Chapelle on. Those guys are just all close to him in LA, Comedy store guys.

 

[John Price]

I remember when the Legion of S were on JRE and Luis J Gomez kept calling him Mr Rogan That was a great episode. Joe Rogan is a big fan of LOS and the type of "edgy comedy" they're doing. Good to see Joe friends with Ari and company.

that being said I have no idea who Brendan Schaub is and the way he is mentioned ad nauseum on other venues you'd think he was a comic people have heard of (he's not)

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, and all those guys are legit good comics so I don't get it. Some comedians are just not into doing podcats, I think he's attempted to get Chapelle on. Those guys are just all close to him in LA, Comedy store guys.

Me, like that other poster don't think they are on the same level as the other comedians. I know he's tried to get Chapelle, not sure where you are going with that.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Me, like that other poster don't think they are on the same level as the other comedians. I know he's tried to get Chapelle, not sure where you are going with that.

Nothing other than the OP I was referring to calling his friends, not real comics, it's not accurate at all.

 

[montreal]

There are a few others which are interesting too.

I finished that one and started on episode 872, have been ripping through these as I already watched 2 with Neil Degrass Tyson which were pretty good. I work from home so it's easy to put this on when work slows down. Have to say I don't know why I never got into podcasts before but I'm certainly hooked on this one now as I also want to see the ones with Bill Burr who's one of my favorite comics (at least from the ones still alive)

The only problem is I find they are repeating stuff they said from previous episode but I just fast forward.