|
Gyges posted:You know, every time I've seen Stefan Molyneux's name as the guest I just figured it was the Fable guy and didn't listen. Turns out Stefan Molyneux is not Peter Molyneux so I've got no idea who he is other than from his wiki page. Holy poo poo. I have listened to them all thinking he was that Peter guy.
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Hocus Pocus posted:I'm not from North America so I've never heard of Stefan Molyneux, but I listen to plenty of philosophy podcasts and have a few friends who work in a philosophy department, and Molyneux doesn't sound like an academic or a philosopher... He's a Randian Libertarian who is part of some pseudo-cult that has you divorcing your family. Like all Libertarians, he has some good concepts he bandies around--specifically his attitude towards child-rearing and spanking, which he is adamantly opposed to. Unfortunately, he's like...SUPER anti-feminist, believes racism is a product of the state to divide the population, thinks all taxes are stealing, goes on long rambles about unreported evils women commit, and did I mention he's a Randian Libertarian because that poo poo is pants on head retarded. He's also a bit of a smug prick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:He's a Randian Libertarian who is part of some pseudo-cult that has you divorcing your family. Like all Libertarians, he has some good concepts he bandies around--specifically his attitude towards child-rearing and spanking, which he is adamantly opposed to. Unfortunately, he's like...SUPER anti-feminist, believes racism is a product of the state to divide the population, thinks all taxes are stealing, goes on long rambles about unreported evils women commit, and did I mention he's a Randian Libertarian because that poo poo is pants on head retarded. There's non-smug prick randians?
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:He's a Randian Libertarian who is part of some pseudo-cult that has you divorcing your family. Like all Libertarians, he has some good concepts he bandies around--specifically his attitude towards child-rearing and spanking, which he is adamantly opposed to. Unfortunately, he's like...SUPER anti-feminist, believes racism is a product of the state to divide the population, thinks all taxes are stealing, goes on long rambles about unreported evils women commit, and did I mention he's a Randian Libertarian because that poo poo is pants on head retarded. This guy should go on Anthony's show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:He's a Randian Libertarian who is part of some pseudo-cult that has you divorcing your family. Like all Libertarians, he has some good concepts he bandies around--specifically his attitude towards child-rearing and spanking, which he is adamantly opposed to. Unfortunately, he's like...SUPER anti-feminist, believes racism is a product of the state to divide the population, thinks all taxes are stealing, goes on long rambles about unreported evils women commit, and did I mention he's a Randian Libertarian because that poo poo is pants on head retarded. I read the first paragraph of his wiki and wanted to punch him in the throat, knowing nothing else about him. He's into bitcoins and the "non-aggression principle," which I had to look up because I am a low-minded ignoramus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o It's giving a name to "don't gently caress with people for no reason". Which is cool I guess. But smug nonetheless.  Don't you support the non-aggression principle? You see the government blah blah blah
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Omglosser posted:I read the first paragraph of his wiki and wanted to punch him in the throat, knowing nothing else about him. He's into bitcoins and the "non-aggression principle," which I had to look up because I am a low-minded ignoramus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o He has weird definitions of aggression too. Like, taxes are aggression. And, like any principle, the more rigidly he defends it, the more weirdly religious it all seems to be. Plus there's the whole inalienable rights to property or some poo poo, I dunno. He's smug, he's got a voicebox, and he doesn't support universal health care or public schools so gently caress 'im. VVV--I watched one episode with him and Rogan, the first one, which was alright because they mostly talked about the Trayvon Martin stuff and I rather liked his thorough account of the Zimmerman trial and the like. It was the only sensible interview they had, and Rogan kind of just nodded along to everything he said. The second interview I had to turn off less than 20 minutes in, I think they were whining about the ACA and it was right around the time of the shut down. Does Rogan actually challenge him any? I've known Rogan to largely just agree with the Libtartds he has had on his show (Peter Schiff comes to mind). BottledBodhisvata fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Aug 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
I do listen to his podcast from time to time. He has very interesting ideas and he is very controversial and entertaining at times, but he does become insufferable because his channel is an echo chamber. The callers don't challenge him because he dominates the conversation too much. I like it better when he goes on other people's channels like Joe Rogan because they actually do challenge and debate him. He's a smart guy and a very good debater, so it's more fun to see him when he's out of his element and debating people who are more at or above his level. His callers are usually sycophants, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Well, if you had went and listened to the episode, you would have enjoyed it, because Joe gave him a hard time this go-around. It gets pretty awkward when he starts pulling clips and asking Molyneux to explain himself about cutting statists out of your life and poo poo like that. Also, Robin Williams died because of women's addiction to free stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
Peter North posted:Well, if you had went and listened to the episode, you would have enjoyed it, because Joe gave him a hard time this go-around. It gets pretty awkward when he starts pulling clips and asking Molyneux to explain himself about cutting statists out of your life and poo poo like that. Is THAT what his "truth about Robin Williams" video is about? That poo poo pops up in my reccomendations from time to time, but I didn't really think... Like, seriously, gently caress this guy. He latches onto every major celebrity and public figure death to generate hits for his Youtube channel. He did the same thing with Nelson Mandela, towards whom he was less than kind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 24, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
It was funny when the seasteading guy said that Dr Oz was brought before congress to testify about his claims about miracle fat loss supplements because the free market decided it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
last weeks ice house #100 had redban spilling the beans on a possible deathsquad bankruptcy. lol at that dude
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Legalzoom
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
DJ BK posted:last weeks ice house #100 had redban spilling the beans on a possible deathsquad bankruptcy. lol at that dude Was never a fan of him but that's a real bummer. Not surprised though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Cara Santa Maria is cool and a good guest and during her latest episode I learned taht Stefan Molneaux told Joe that Robin Williams killed himself because women are addicted to free things.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
A Keg posted:Cara Santa Maria is cool and a good guest and during her latest episode I learned taht Stefan Molneaux told Joe that Robin Williams killed himself because women are addicted to free things. http://youtu.be/diyuAXzN7yo?t=35m11s Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Is he saying "herpes settlement"??
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Omglosser posted:Is he saying "herpes settlement"?? Yep http://youtu.be/diyuAXzN7yo?t=19m30s He does claim to put people who disagree with him at the top of the queue in his call in show to debate him. I wonder if this is actually true. Still, it'd be a tough debate to win. Any time you're the guy calling into a show you're always at a disadvantage, and unless he's the guy going on someone else's show (like Joe Rogan's), he tends dominate the conversation. Gianthogweed fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
I'm catching up on some recent episodes and the episode with Mike Baker (former CIA guy) is loving ridiculous. Rogan was a hundred times tougher on the two buddhists than he is a guy who outright laughs at conspiracy theories Rogan himself has said he believes. I'm going to have to turn this one off at less than an hour in for exactly the opposite reasons I turned off the buddhist episode.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Would it hurt your opinion of Mike Baker more if I told you he got trolled by twitter users so hard he showed up to a radio show unannounced thinking he was booked?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Is the Sam Harris 9/2 episode any good?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Helical Nightmares posted:Is the Sam Harris 9/2 episode any good? Are you very scared of brown people? Then you'll love Sam Harris.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
WHY SEE ESS posted:Are you very scared of brown people? Then you'll love Sam Harris. Aka a gross, hyperbolic label given to everyone critical of Islam circa 2007, but I haven't listened to Sam Harris in years so correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
I remember a Sam harris piece I read once where he went on about something like singularity, I can't totally remember, and was saying what he'd heard from this or that PhD. Then in the conclusion he said something like, "If even part of this is true, we're in for some big changes in the future" and I thought gently caress this man forever
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Regulus74 posted:I'm catching up on some recent episodes and the episode with Mike Baker (former CIA guy) is loving ridiculous. Rogan was a hundred times tougher on the two buddhists than he is a guy who outright laughs at conspiracy theories Rogan himself has said he believes. Well, he knows he can challenge a couple of magical-thinking "buddhists" more than he can a former CIA agent. Not for any other reason than he knows the CIA guy absolutely will not divulge any information or continue down one of what he calls rabbit holes for long. In Mike Baker's defense, you forget he started out as just a regular guy (save for his irregular job) who got his own TV show. He laughs at conspiracy theories, but perhaps he really doesn't know poo poo so he just laughs because he doesn't want to seem ignorant but at the same time doesn't want to give credence to stuff that would sully the name of his beloved agency. That's pretty much the vibe I got from him. Although at times it really seemed like he knew more than he let on. There were times when he spoke that there was this practiced hesitation in his syllables that made it seem like he was censoring his information as it was coming out of his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Omglosser posted:Well, he knows he can challenge a couple of magical-thinking "buddhists" more than he can a former CIA agent. Not for any other reason than he knows the CIA guy absolutely will not divulge any information or continue down one of what he calls rabbit holes for long. Mike was awesome because although, yes he probably knew more, he plainly said that secrets don't say secret for too long. Regardless on whats happening, the American public will eventually know. We know China is more aggressive, the middle-east is a cluster gently caress and the Russia thing is crazy, he just might know whats really happening with a little "reverse engineering" of the media stories. He gave us all the pieces, pretty much says the media is full of poo poo and the world has always been hosed. We are just seeing it a lot more now and it scares us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
I enjoyed the Mike Judge and the Sam Harris episodes. I think this podcast shines when the guest is more educated than Joe. He shuts up a bit more. He should only have guests like them that prevent his rants and rename the show "Joe Learns"
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:I enjoyed the Mike Judge and the Sam Harris episodes. I think this podcast shines when the guest is more educated than Joe. He shuts up a bit more. He had Mike Judge on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
Evil Agita posted:He had Mike Judge on?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
So that Bhuddist episode is worth listening to? I actually skipped out 10 minutes in because I thought it'd be them just talking about Bhuddism (I guess it was) but I didn't imagine Joe being critical. I like the sound of that. The Sam Harris episode was decent, as was the Mike Candlestick-Maker one. Like someone said, smarter than Joe is nice. Which is most guests. We need more Bravo/that-bigfoot-hunting-guy-level guys actually to switch things up a bit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Yeah, I'd be on board with another James "Bobo" Fay episode. Bigfoot and the like is a huge guilty pleasure of mine and I will happily listen to a guy passionately talk about squatchin'. I guess I'll check out the Sam Harris ep, as I've read a couple of his books and wouldn't mind hearing him blow Joe's mind for a couple of hours.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
XIII posted:Yeah, I'd be on board with another James "Bobo" Fay episode. Bigfoot and the like is a huge guilty pleasure of mine and I will happily listen to a guy passionately talk about squatchin'. The Sam ep is cool because Joe ACTUALLY shuts up for long periods of time after asking a question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
The problem with it is that Sam Harris is basically as stupid as Joe, he just knows more stuff. At the end of the day hes just as clueless and prone to buying wholesale into things he doesnt understand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:The problem with it is that Sam Harris is basically as stupid as Joe, he just knows more stuff. At the end of the day hes just as clueless and prone to buying wholesale into things he doesnt understand. What is an example of Sam buying wholesale into something he doesn't understand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Omglosser posted:Well, he knows he can challenge a couple of magical-thinking "buddhists" more than he can a former CIA agent. Not for any other reason than he knows the CIA guy absolutely will not divulge any information or continue down one of what he calls rabbit holes for long. You misunderstand me. Joe's version of playing devil's advocate against the buddhists takes the form of dominating the conversation with a near constant stream of evopsyche nonsense, biotruths, and pseudoscientific bullshit. It was unbearable. When he talks to Baker it's completely the opposite. "So what happened to Kennedy?" "Oswald acted alone and there was only one shot." "Aite." The show gets terrible at either extreme - when Joe is drowning the conversation in a flood of bullshit that has absolutely nothing to do with his guests' field or when he does nothing to challenge guests that literally laugh at his own admitted beliefs. I guess it's all a matter of how Joe views his guests. For gently caress's sake he talked about faking the moon landing with Neil Degrasse Tyson for an hour at least pretend to have the testicular fortitude to not let your loving guest dismiss conversation on your own show about something you've repeatedly admitted to believing just because the guest's a marginally personable, seemingly non-wimpy white dude.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 12:24
|
|
|
Lampsacus posted:I disagree. Joe seems to be more tied down with the dogma of his positions. For example, an unwavering belief in the CIA drug runs. Sam strikes me as somebody more prone to adapt his beliefs, if only to suffice his motivation of appearing clever. Basically all of his prognosticating. He doesn't have any academic or other basis to start from so he's relying on the trustworthy-ness of whatever authority who told him their opinion. Basically I think hes in the stupid trap that Joe is in, where he only interacts with wealthy people, and particularly wealthy people who make money by selling books based on their credentials, so things like everyone uploading into a big computer brain makes some kind of sense, because there is no attachment to the world that the vast majority of people live in. I definitely have to agree that Joe is more dogmatic. I guess what I said was a little unfair, but I actually think Joe is more honest because at least he puts the disclaimer on everything that he's operating from a position of ignorance. Also Joe doesn't make his money misinforming people like Harris does, he just shares his opinions and thoughts, which I respect more than someone who writes bad science fiction in the guise of essays and books about the future. Bundt Cake fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Sep 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:Basically all of his prognosticating. He doesn't have any academic or other basis to start from so he's relying on the trustworthy-ness of whatever authority who told him their opinion. Basically I think hes in the stupid trap that Joe is in, where he only interacts with wealthy people, and particularly wealthy people who make money by selling books based on their credentials, so things like everyone uploading into a big computer brain makes some kind of sense, because there is no attachment to the world that the vast majority of people live in. Let's all agree we are smarter than Joe Rogan and enjoy this show from a bit of an elitist perspective.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
I don't understand your complaint, because they didn't talk about the Middle East at all in this episode. They mostly talked philosophy and neuroscience, which Harris has a PhD in....
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Peter North posted:I don't understand your complaint, because they didn't talk about the Middle East at all in this episode. They mostly talked philosophy and neuroscience, which Harris has a PhD in.... I wasnt referring to the episode. Im just bitching about Sam Harris in general. Im not sure why but I find him really irritating, to the point where im posting about it a bunch for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:I wasnt referring to the episode. Im just bitching about Sam Harris in general. Im not sure why but I find him really irritating, to the point where im posting about it a bunch for no good reason.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:50 |
|
|
Bundt Cake posted:I wasnt referring to the episode. Im just bitching about Sam Harris in general. Im not sure why but I find him really irritating, to the point where im posting about it a bunch for no good reason. Sam Harris buys into the culture of fear that dictates U.S. Foreign Policy. Basically, we go to war constantly, endlessly, all over the world, in order to keep America safe from foreign threats. This is ludicrous, but this is what motivates the decision makers in the upper echelons of military policy, and Harris is into that. He's kind of fine when he's talking about weird poo poo he's debunked, but he's all in when it comes to "let's go gently caress up the Middle East/Muslims are a violent and dangerous religion that must be stopped" kind of thing. He's definitely on the right wing of the people whom Joe brings on regularly, and I think he calls himself a libertarian as well? I don't much care for him, he's kind of like Stefan Molyneux for me--he starts out sounding reasonable and interesting and then you slowly realize that he's actually a loving lunatic. It doesn't help that every person whom I know who actually likes Sam Harris is militant as gently caress when it comes to foreign policy, especially now that you have something as incredibly loathsome as ISIS presenting all the perfect fodder for the people who have been defending our constant destruction of the Middle East and Iraq. EDIT: Is the CIA guy interview worth listening to at all? I don't know anything about the man, and the thread's impressions seem to make it seem like it's not really much substance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2014 00:27
|
|