ColorfulElfBoy
Rising Star
Can we all agree that Joe is Bald at least?
-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Joe Rogan good or bad?
- Thread starter trashcan
- Start date
LOL yes we can agree on that 
Not only that. I also agree that his head does indeed look like a basketball.ColorfulElfBoy said:
Could it be that terrence mckenna mistook joe rogan for a DMT entity when he spoke of self dribbling bejuwelled basketballs? He must have hallucinated the jewellery then, or maybe there is a dimension somewhere, filled with bejewelled joe rogans who create vissible language and make gifts for all the visitors.
ColorfulElfBoy said:
dragonrider said:
Agreed and agreed.
ColorfulElfBoy
Rising Star
dragonrider said:
lol
I dunno how cool I'd be with bejewelled self dribbling joe Rogan's came running toward me...
One love
One love
ColorfulElfBoy
Rising Star
I swear this reminded me of something
RoundAbout
Rising Star
I do think he has the general impression "authorities" will deceive the public and treat people like children. Hence his fixation on vitamins and fitness to reduce risk, and frustration that it is not emphasized. Early on, the CDC stated (IIRC) that masks are not effective... presumably to prevent a hospital shortage. This probably contributed to him not taking masks seriously. He probably thinks the government is incompetent and is destroying people's livelihoods carelessly. It seems he has adopted the view that the virus originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Since stating his belief, the former director of the CDC has publicly stated that he believes the virus originated from there. He's sorting through conflicting information from authorities in general.
No, he shaves his head which indicates he is baldING. At the very least his hair transplant is probably holding out.ColorfulElfBoy said:
No. With headphones on, his head's true form is realized: a kettlebell. Coming soon to Onnit.dragonrider said:
ShamanisticVibes
Rising Star
RoundAbout said:
:lol: KETTLEBELL! That's what it is. I am sitting here reading like "WTF it does NOT look like a basketball", but it also doesn't look very much like a human head either. And referencing a phallus has been done to a million bald guys before him, so that is out. But....headphones, kettle bell. Fricken amazing! This comment wins the day. Thanks for the laugh, buddy. :lol:
downwardsfromzero
Boundary condition
Jeo Rogan gets mentioned (in passing) here:
[youtube]
[youtube]
Yeah, John Oliver puts it better than I can, but I'm in agreement with everything he said there.
Sadly, you will never go broke betting on the stupidity of U.S. citizens, or the moral degeneracy of those who seek to exploit that mental handicap. A growing percentage are simply unreachable (having spun off the planet to crazytown), which doesn't bode well for a post-pandemic Earth anytime soon.
Sadly, you will never go broke betting on the stupidity of U.S. citizens, or the moral degeneracy of those who seek to exploit that mental handicap. A growing percentage are simply unreachable (having spun off the planet to crazytown), which doesn't bode well for a post-pandemic Earth anytime soon.
Spiralout
Rising Star
I think the main issue these days is that we can't seem to have any type of conversation with out it being completely picked apart. People are going to contradict themselves, say stupid things, say things passionately which they think are true and end up changing there minds when they've been presented with more evidence and thought it through. Nobody has all the answers. I have grown incredibly tired of the entire social atmosphere at this point to be honest.
Spiralout said:
You're not alone my friend. I'm already pretty introverted, but in the past year, and not just because of lockdowns, I'm kinda disinterested in a lot of engagements and socializing.
One love
ShamanisticVibes
Rising Star
Spiralout said:
I completely agree! It is very frustrating these days to have any sort of social contact with anyone who considers themselves "In the know" or "educated/informed". As they seem to pester and bully to the point that they do a disservice to the point they are trying to make. It is near impossible to relax and have a conversation without some folks getting extremely polarized to the point of making things uncomfortable; even unbearable. At the risk of going on a tangent, I remember a saying that used to get thrown around a lot. "He/She has their ways". And what this meant to me was this... That person had their particular beliefs and/or ways of thinking. It may have not been the same as the person making the statement, but that person acknowledged the prerogative of the opposing viewpoint, and regardless of said viewpoint, they accepted that person for who they are. This virtue is basically extinct these days, which makes it very difficult to have any honest conversation with anyone. It seems as if either you agree, and alternate stroking egos in an echo chamber, or it becomes a war. Neither of which are constructive or perpetuate any sort of growth at all. I have been thinking about posting a communication thread, but have not had the time to do the proper research. But I have theories, and I feel that if I dug deep enough into scientific literature, that I could prove my hypothesis. This place is really, in my opinion, one of the last bastions of open conversation. Ironically enough, right alongside Joe's podcast, but that is a whole 'nother conversation at this point
ShamanisticVibes said:Spiralout said:
I completely agree! It is very frustrating these days to have any sort of social contact with anyone who considers themselves "In the know" or "educated/informed". As they seem to pester and bully to the point that they do a disservice to the point they are trying to make. It is near impossible to relax and have a conversation without some folks getting extremely polarized to the point of making things uncomfortable; even unbearable. At the risk of going on a tangent, I remember a saying that used to get thrown around a lot. "He/She has their ways". And what this meant to me was this... That person had their particular beliefs and/or ways of thinking. It may have not been the same as the person making the statement, but that person acknowledged the prerogative of the opposing viewpoint, and regardless of said viewpoint, they accepted that person for who they are. This virtue is basically extinct these days, which makes it very difficult to have any honest conversation with anyone. It seems as if either you agree, and alternate stroking egos in an echo chamber, or it becomes a war. Neither of which are constructive or perpetuate any sort of growth at all. I have been thinking about posting a communication thread, but have not had the time to do the proper research. But I have theories, and I feel that if I dug deep enough into scientific literature, that I could prove my hypothesis. This place is really, in my opinion, one of the last bastions of open conversation. Ironically enough, right alongside Joe's podcast, but that is a whole 'nother conversation at this point
It's why I'm so thankful and grateful to all of you and this community
One love
Yeah, i'm completely done with the polarisation as well.
The extremists from both sides are polarizing eachother and trying to force people to take sides.
They both do themselves what they accuse the other side of, and then point at the other side to justify their own behaviour.
I no longer believe that the fanatics on either side realy have an ideology. The violence, the hate, the fights and the polarisation itself has become their motive.
Both far left as well as far right regimes and terrorist groups have brutally slaughtered many millions of people, over the past century.
It is an indisputable historic fact that the hammer and sickle represent a brutally sadistic, murderous, totalitarian slaughterhouse as much as the swastika does.
The extremes on both sides are equal in the pure evil they hunger for.
They are both authoritarian and totalitarian, they both glorify violence, hate and destruction, they both are intolerant rigid and agressive, they both see themselves as superior, they both look down on everyone who isn't like them, they both see people as pawns or instruments only, they both hunger for absolute power, and they both don't ever want to stop fighting.
I don't see why anyone would have to pick sides between the two, or how one evil justifies another.
This is a very simple test: suppose someone would have absolute and total power. And then ask yourself what they would do with anyone who disagrees with them, or who asks critical questions.
If you worry about the answer to that question, then it is better not to associate with those people.
The extremists from both sides are polarizing eachother and trying to force people to take sides.
They both do themselves what they accuse the other side of, and then point at the other side to justify their own behaviour.
I no longer believe that the fanatics on either side realy have an ideology. The violence, the hate, the fights and the polarisation itself has become their motive.
Both far left as well as far right regimes and terrorist groups have brutally slaughtered many millions of people, over the past century.
It is an indisputable historic fact that the hammer and sickle represent a brutally sadistic, murderous, totalitarian slaughterhouse as much as the swastika does.
The extremes on both sides are equal in the pure evil they hunger for.
They are both authoritarian and totalitarian, they both glorify violence, hate and destruction, they both are intolerant rigid and agressive, they both see themselves as superior, they both look down on everyone who isn't like them, they both see people as pawns or instruments only, they both hunger for absolute power, and they both don't ever want to stop fighting.
I don't see why anyone would have to pick sides between the two, or how one evil justifies another.
This is a very simple test: suppose someone would have absolute and total power. And then ask yourself what they would do with anyone who disagrees with them, or who asks critical questions.
If you worry about the answer to that question, then it is better not to associate with those people.
RowRowRow YourBoat
Esteemed member
Generally I can say that making judgements about whether things are good or bad and right or wrong and then expressing those judgements lead to a conversation devolving and people only entrenching in their point of view even harder. If you can keep an open mind yourself and also communicate in a style that enables the other person to remain calm and feel open to peaceably express themselves you can often learn much more and bridge gaps in opinion much more efficiently than if you begin with judgement and disagreement.
Personally, I enjoy a good debate, I like disagreeing with people, picking apart all sides of a discussion, playing devil's advocate, etc. all in the good-hearted name of curiosity, interest, and learning, however most people do not feel this way at all. As someone who was very open to new ideas and differences of opinion it took me a while to learn that many people are so attached to their ideas that they feel angry, hurt, or attacked when theirs are questioned. I have spent some years trying to cultivate a less argumentative communication style and have discovered the greater levels of communication that can occur when you keep things at the level of a discussion and do not set people off so that they go into debate or argument mode. This can take a lot of self control and also tact, as you have to consider not just your own feelings but also to try to perceive how someone else is interpreting and reacting to a discussion.
I have found that even when discussing something from a 'neutral' point of view there are subtleties in your communication style which can be interpreted by other people as either approval or disapproval. For instance, if someone is talking about a point of view which you find interesting you have a choice to focus in and ask questions on the points of their argument which seem weak or those which they seem strong on. If you repeatedly focus on and question the weaker parks of their opinion they can perceive your curiosity as attacks on their point of view, instead you can choose to inquire about those parts of their views which seem to be better or more thoroughly thought out and you can end up learning just as much or even more without the person becoming agitated, defensive, or even offended. Focusing on the weak points can be useful if you are trying to win a debate and in most all other instances only serve to hamper discussion.
Personally, I enjoy a good debate, I like disagreeing with people, picking apart all sides of a discussion, playing devil's advocate, etc. all in the good-hearted name of curiosity, interest, and learning, however most people do not feel this way at all. As someone who was very open to new ideas and differences of opinion it took me a while to learn that many people are so attached to their ideas that they feel angry, hurt, or attacked when theirs are questioned. I have spent some years trying to cultivate a less argumentative communication style and have discovered the greater levels of communication that can occur when you keep things at the level of a discussion and do not set people off so that they go into debate or argument mode. This can take a lot of self control and also tact, as you have to consider not just your own feelings but also to try to perceive how someone else is interpreting and reacting to a discussion.
I have found that even when discussing something from a 'neutral' point of view there are subtleties in your communication style which can be interpreted by other people as either approval or disapproval. For instance, if someone is talking about a point of view which you find interesting you have a choice to focus in and ask questions on the points of their argument which seem weak or those which they seem strong on. If you repeatedly focus on and question the weaker parks of their opinion they can perceive your curiosity as attacks on their point of view, instead you can choose to inquire about those parts of their views which seem to be better or more thoroughly thought out and you can end up learning just as much or even more without the person becoming agitated, defensive, or even offended. Focusing on the weak points can be useful if you are trying to win a debate and in most all other instances only serve to hamper discussion.
RowRowRowYourBoat said:
While versed in logic and debating, I actually find it generally unproductive. To me it's too binary in too many minds, as it is about winning and losing more so than "truth" and understanding. I'd rather have discussions. I also try to speak and highlight my subjectivity and avoid absolutes in statements so that no one feels attacked. It's also why I say things like, "it's all just paradigms to me," and such so as to hint that I'm not attacking anyone when I pose a question to explore their thinking.
But Rowrowrowyourboat said it well, many seem unaware of their thinking and are horribly attached to what they think and believe. Change is constant, and our thoughts and beliefs are not exempt from change.
I think that some people become defensive also because they aren't sure how to elucidate more on their thinking when questioned, often, perhaps, because they haven't really explored it themselves.
Polarization seems to tie into the overly binary thought paradigms surrounding us. It's a kind of tribalism to feel the need to pick a side; an extension of survival traits.
Perhaps this is all just part of human evolution and individuals like us conversing about it is a sign of that change in evolution... maybe I'm being idealistic and whimsical
One love
Yes, it is a form of tribalism. That's also why the strategy applied by cambridge analytics was so succesfull.
In many ways we still live in the "paradigm of the 60's", where there was a civil rights struggle going on that literally WAS as binary as black and white, male and female, etc.
Many people see todays struggles in the same light. People on the left say that their current struggle is the continuation of the struggle of the 60's, but many of the people on the right also refer to the 60's and say:"we are the countercultural movement of this generation".
I personally think this era is nothing like the 60's. It's more a fragmentization of society today, where people live in their own little bubbles and fight to be shielded from opinions that exist outside of these little bubbles, instead of good versus evil.
In many ways we still live in the "paradigm of the 60's", where there was a civil rights struggle going on that literally WAS as binary as black and white, male and female, etc.
Many people see todays struggles in the same light. People on the left say that their current struggle is the continuation of the struggle of the 60's, but many of the people on the right also refer to the 60's and say:"we are the countercultural movement of this generation".
I personally think this era is nothing like the 60's. It's more a fragmentization of society today, where people live in their own little bubbles and fight to be shielded from opinions that exist outside of these little bubbles, instead of good versus evil.