Media Whenever you feel compelled to mindlessly hate on Rogan

[MrShady]

I've admitted he's a shill. This has been known for a long time. You're not rewriting the wheel with that one, anyone at that level has to play the game.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

Which means using his platform to push certain agendas and ideologies at times.

However, that doesn't change anything of what I've said here.

I'm simply playing devils advocate.

People can be many things simultaneously, a truth which is lost on many people who have a very black and white approach to thinking.

Going to insane lengths Is just thinking. It's considering every possible angle before speaking with confidence. There's no way to actually understand things without that level of effort put into thinking and analyzing.

Half baked ideas with very little effort, mixed with a healthy dose of emotion and personal bias Is how the vast majority of people operate. Very seldomly will you see or understand much with that approach to life, often times it becomes much easier for people to allow the thinking to be done for them.

Ya ok bro namaste. Doesnt change the fact that hes a con man. Playing the everyday bro meanwhile hes buddy buddy with billionaires and politicians. Playing the everyday stoner bro while hes having dinner with the governor of Texas. Hes a hypocrite with no real core values except chasing money and power. He may as well be another Zuckerberg or Elon, there is no "realness" underneath their mask. They've already sold their soul a long time ago in my eyes.

I'll leave it at that. Na ma miss me with all that rest of the bs you're spouting about your buddy Joseph Rogans, Secretary of Propaganda.

 

[Ares Black]

So, you hold a strong opinion about what I'm saying but you don't actually know what it is.

Interesting

I know what it is, and I have explained my problem with it.

Meanwhile you haven't addressed literally any of my concerns.

So, besides being condescending and pretentious, you are also a hypocrite. You are trying to bullshit your way through this, and you are failing.

You can't just keep posting the same empty bullshit and hope that this time it will be convincing.

 

[El Panteron]

I've admitted he's a shill. This has been known for a long time. You're not rewriting the wheel with that one, anyone at that level has to play the game.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be there.

Which means using his platform to push certain agendas and ideologies at times.

However, that doesn't change anything of what I've said here.

I'm simply playing devils advocate.

People can be many things simultaneously, a truth which is lost on many people who have a very black and white approach to thinking.

Going to insane lengths Is just thinking. It's considering every possible angle before speaking with confidence. There's no way to actually understand things without that level of effort put into thinking and analyzing.

Half baked ideas with very little effort, mixed with a healthy dose of emotion and personal bias Is how the vast majority of people operate. Very seldomly will you see or understand much with that approach to life, often times it becomes much easier for people to allow the thinking to be done for them.

Damn you sound like everyone's worst ex boyfriend and like you never even sniffed grass in your life at the same time, that takes skill, I bow to your game.

 

[AstralPanda]

Ya ok bro namaste. Doesnt change the fact that hes a con man. Playing the everyday bro meanwhile hes buddy buddy with billionaires and politicians. Playing the everyday stoner bro while hes having dinner with the governor of Texas. Hes a hypocrite with no real core values except chasing money and power. He may as well be another Zuckerberg or Elon, there is no "realness" underneath their mask. They've already sold their soul a long time ago in my eyes.

I'll leave it at that. Na ma miss me with all that rest of the bs you're spouting about your buddy Joseph Rogans, Secretary of Propaganda.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong is the thing. I've even said he's a shill.

But the topic is about Intelligence and multi dimensionality, not political allegiance or narratives.

Acknowledging what someone brings to the table doesn't necessarily have anything to do with anything you've chosen to highlight. People can be many things simultaneously.

 

[El Panteron]

People can be many things simultaneously.

It's like you heard a smart person saying this and now you're shitting it out without thinking.

 

[AstralPanda]

I know what it is, and I have explained my problem with it.

Meanwhile you haven't addressed literally any of my concerns.

So, besides being condescending and pretentious, you are also a hypocrite. You are trying to bullshit your way through this, and you are failing.

You can't just keep posting the same empty bullshit and hope that this time it will be convincing.

There's no point if you aren't actually reading what I'm saying and go out of your way to misrepresent my words.

I asked you to elaborate on exactly what you disagreed with specifically, or what my overarching point even was and I was met with silence.

If you are content with beating around the bush, then it's just a pointless discussion and someone arguing just to argue.

 

[AstralPanda]

It's like you heard a smart person saying this and now you're shitting it out without thinking.

It's a valid thing to repeat

Very common for many to like or dislike someone for whatever reason

And they sort of build their entire world view of the person around that thing, while ignoring like 99% of the other information.

Everyone is a combination of good, bad and all things in between.

If someone's made mistakes in life, it becomes very easy to define them by those moments, without realizing the whole picture or grey areas. Same is true on the other end of the spectrum.

To truly understand the story of others, requires seeing every side and it's very rare for people to consider things with such a critical lens.

(Just speaking generally here, not about Rogan)

 

[Ares Black]

There's no point if you aren't actually reading what I'm saying and go out of your way to misrepresent my words.

I am reading what you are sayi

I asked you to elaborate on exactly what you disagreed with specifically, or what my overarching point even was and I was met with silence.

Have you even read any of my posts? What you are saying is bullshit. It doesn't merit a serious response. You literally haven't addressed any of my concerns, why the fuck should I try to summarize your bullshit position?

If you are content with beating around the bush, then it's just a pointless discussion and someone arguing just to argue.

Listen, until this thread I had no problem with you at all.

I still don't think you are a bad person. You are just completely politically illiterate and you have started a thread that has become very, very political. You are clearly not equipped to have this conversation.

Do you honestly think that Joe Rogan is an intelligent man? He isn't. He is of approximately average intelligence with very poor critical thinking skills.

 

[Ares Black]

It's a valid thing to repeat

It's a meaningless platitude

Everyone is a combination of good, bad and all things in between.

More meaningless bullshit

If someone's made mistakes in life, it becomes very easy to define them by those moments, without realizing the whole picture or grey areas.

It really depends on the mistakes they have made.

To truly understand the story of others, requires seeing every side and it's very rare for people to consider things with such a critical lens.

You keep talking about seeing every side but you LITERALLY have not addressed any of the concerns I have raised.

You can't possibly be this obtuse. At this point you have to be trolling

(Just speaking generally here, not about Rogan)

You have been speaking generally this entire thread. You have not made one specific point.

 

[SaltedVinegarfootstomps]

There are 750 fighters in the UFC... but only 50 people on earth who could beat Rogan in a fight.

Which is even crazier when you break it down, because there are only 50 people who could beat up Rogan, but also only 250 confirmed comedians in the entire world. For Rogan to be one of the deadliest fighters on earth AND one of the best comedians is insane genetics. He's also 6'3

 

[El Panteron]

It's a valid thing to repeat

Very common for many to like or dislike someone for whatever reason

And they sort of build their entire world view of the person around that thing, while ignoring like 99% of the other information.

Everyone is a combination of good, bad and all things in between.

If someone's made mistakes in life, it becomes very easy to define them by those moments, without realizing the whole picture or grey areas. Same is true on the other end of the spectrum.

To truly understand the story of others, requires seeing every side and it's very rare for people to consider things with such a critical lens.

(Just speaking generally here, not about Rogan)

It's valid if you understand that's not a call to suspend any judgement, but to be ok with complexity and cognitive dissonance as you still retain your values and engage actively with the world and the consequences of someone's actions. Because understanding that complexity is what allows you to tackle a problem effectively.

The complexity of humans expresses itself in our relationships. One person is many things because they inhabit different contexts and relationships at different points in time. To us, Rogan is a precise thing, in our parasocial relationship to him. Our judgement is a consequence of that relationship, and it has a precise dynamic. To be clear, I don't think he's a nazi, I think he's a moron that wants to seem enlightened and open minded.

But his relationship with the public has gone a certain way. Now you may think the negative consequences outshine whatever entertainment he's provided (I do), you may think he's just doing entertainment, you may think he's battling for free speech and giving a voice to topics and people that would be otherwise festering in obscurity (you'd be a fucking idiot but you may!), but hiding behind "humans are complex" is not any sort of stance.

 

[Ares Black]

It's valid if you understand that's not a call to suspend any judgement, but to be ok with complexity and cognitive dissonance as you still retain your values and engage actively with the world and the consequences of someone's actions. Because understanding that complexity is what allows you to tackle a problem effectively.

The complexity of humans expresses itself in our relationships. One person is many things because they inhabit different contexts and relationships at different points in time. To us, Rogan is a precise thing, in our parasocial relationship to him. Our judgement is a consequence of that relationship, and it has a precise dynamic. To be clear, I don't think he's a nazi, I think he's a moron that wants to seem enlightened and open minded.

But his relationship with the public has gone a certain way. Now you may think the negative consequences outshine whatever entertainment he's provided (I do), you may think he's just doing entertainment, you may think he's battling for free speech and giving a voice to topics and people that would be otherwise festering in obscurity (you'd be a fucking idiot but you may!), but hiding behind "humans are complex" is not any sort of stance.

This is the best post I'm the thread IMO

Nailed it

 

[Iroh]

Being in that sort of environment isn't a bad thing though. I think a lot can be learned of how to transmute energy, staying strong in your own foundation and avoiding getting pulled into the vortex of toxicity.

I underrstand that. But you still have to make a cost-benefit analysis and ask yourself, whether that energy might not be better served being directed at something else. Look at my join date and post count, I've learned basically all there is to learn
on here when it comes to social interactions. Logical fallacies as far as the eye can see. Argumentation skills are very low, generally speaking. Most people don't know the difference between empathy, sympathy and compassion, that should tell you something.

You can only really have a real meaningful discussion if people are open and, in a hostile environment, people tend to not be open to considering perphaps re-evaluating strongly held beliefs and feelings.

Sometimes you gotta get pulled in, to learn how to avoid it.

Chaos has some lessons to teach at times

Yes, but you don't have to antagonize people to get that subject going. Joe is already very controversial, it doesn't take any provocation to get people riled up about him. Starting off with riling them up is just setting yourself up for a discussion with people who aren't going to listen to you with an open and receptive mind. While if you had taken a different approach to the subject, you might actually reach someone and have them really consider what it is that you are trying to convey. So if anything, you are only strengthening the hivemind behavior, you keep complaining about, by starting off with something you know would rustle jimmies.

Joe is a complex, topic, because he is tied to so many different topics. All of which people have strongly varying opinions and feelings about. You have to be really careful with the assumptions you can make about where people are coming from and what they are trying to argue. Especially because people will capitalize on any mistake you make and use it to deflect from the topic.

 

[AstralPanda]

It's valid if you understand that's not a call to suspend any judgement, but to be ok with complexity and cognitive dissonance as you still retain your values and engage actively with the world and the consequences of someone's actions. Because understanding that complexity is what allows you to tackle a problem effectively.

The complexity of humans expresses itself in our relationships. One person is many things because they inhabit different contexts and relationships at different points in time. To us, Rogan is a precise thing, in our parasocial relationship to him. Our judgement is a consequence of that relationship, and it has a precise dynamic. To be clear, I don't think he's a nazi, I think he's a moron that wants to seem enlightened and open minded.

But his relationship with the public has gone a certain way. Now you may think the negative consequences outshine whatever entertainment he's provided (I do), you may think he's just doing entertainment, you may think he's battling for free speech and giving a voice to topics and people that would be otherwise festering in obscurity (you'd be a fucking idiot but you may!), but hiding behind "humans are complex" is not any sort of stance.

To clarify, I wasn't necessarily relating that to Rogan.

Was just speaking generally.

it's more of a foundational approach to thinking and analysis.

If we can break that sort of black and white approach to things, then we will go much further when analyzing anything.

Strong hate or love share a similar sort of cult like zeal and it's because people attach themselves so strongly to one side, rather than considering the full picture.

It's how women end up with men who abuse them, people end up in cults or groups.

Not falling too strongly into either side is protection against such things. Protection from being deceived or being taken advantage of.

When the foundation is trying to see things on multiple levels, it's very hard to fall into these polarizing, politicized debates which are dominated by this black and white, tribalistic thinking.

Putting in the effort to see beyond it all, beyond black and white, left and right is what leads to truth.

Rogan is an interesting person to analyze because there's so many layers, so many masks and different intelligences.

Thats why I view how he's analyzed to be a solid intelligence test because it highlights how critical and multi faceted a person's thinking really is.

How many angles can they see, how many masks can they see behind, or do they simply fall into the typical tribalistic fervor.

(Could be true for how many public figures are analyzed in general as well)

Rogan embodies the fool or jester role. He portrays himself one way, but is entirely different behind what's being shown in many cases, so he's a very tricky one to pinpoint with conviction.

That being said, competency doesn't necessarily mean being morally upright. Someone can hold intelligence in a variety of forms, it doesn't necessarily mean they're abiding by or pushing what is morally or societally just.

Its important to be able to acknowledge what someone brings to the table, even if you dont necessarily agree with everything that person says or does.

Even if I hated someone to the core, I would still be honest and give that person the respect and flowers they're due. I think it's very common for many to dislike someone for whatever reason, and that means they have to dislike EVERYTHING about that person.

Everything they do or have ever done is trash, just this effort to make them look bad in every conceivable way.

Jones hate is a great example of this. Cherry picks opponents, only fought middle weights, overrated, lost to Reyes, struggled against Santos, the list goes on and on. People go through insane, illogical mental gymnastics to make someone look bad when they don't like them.

A lot of opinions, especially about these polarizing figures are coming from this same energy.

At the end of the day, I don't have a side. I don't have any one stance because many of them are true simultaneously and hold validity in their own ways.

 

[El Panteron]

This is the best post I'm the thread IMO

Nailed it

Thanks, even if the guy might be trolling the "I'm too enlightened to take a stance" thing is sadly very popular. Had to give the speech a couple times to patients so I have it figured lol (but of course the context was not necessarily a parasocial relationships... but you'd be surprised).

 

[AstralPanda]

Thanks, even if the guy might be trolling the "I'm too enlightened to take a stance" thing is sadly very popular. Had to give the speech a couple times to patients so I have it figured lol (but of course the context was not necessarily a parasocial relationships... but you'd be surprised).

That's how I try to be with everything. The middle ground. I'm not always perfect but I try to approach things with that lens.

I think that grey area is where the truth tends to be found.

People pick sides, defend their side to the death, and then act like you must be on the other side of you deviate from the narrative.

I just don't operate like that.

Every side holds some truth and deserves some respect and acknowledgement.

It's the divisiveness which muddies the waters and creates arguments / toxicity where there need be none.

 

[Ares Black]

I underrstand that. But you still have to make a cost-benefit analysis and ask yourself, whether that energy might not be better served being directed at something else. Look at my join date and post count, I've learned basically all there is to learn
on here when it comes to social interactions. Logical fallacies as far as the eye can see. Argumentation skills are very low, generally speaking. Most people don't know the difference between empathy, sympathy and compassion, that should tell you something.

You can only really have a real meaningful discussion if people are open and, in a hostile environment, people tend to not be open to considering perphaps re-evaluating strongly held beliefs and feelings.



Yes, but you don't have to antagonize people to get that subject going. Joe is already very controversial, it doesn't take any provocation to get people riled up about him. Starting off with riling them up is just setting yourself up for a discussion with people who aren't going to listen to you with an open and receptive mind. While if you had taken a different approach to the subject, you might actually reach someone and have them really consider what it is that you are trying to convey. So if anything, you are only strengthening the hivemind behavior, you keep complaining about, by starting off with something you know would rustle jimmies.

Exactly this. I successfully avoided taking the bait for a few days but eventually my jimmies got rustled and I started being an asshole

Joe is a complex, topic, because he is tied to so many different topics. All of which people have strongly varying opinions and feelings about. You have to be really careful with the assumptions you can make about where people are coming from and what they are trying to argue. Especially because people will capitalize on any mistake you make and use it to deflect from the topic.

This is the thing, for me anyway, since I cannot speak for anyone else.

I don't hate Joe Rogan, not really, although I do hate what he has become. I am very disappointed. I was never a JRE superfan, but not that long ago it was pretty close to non-partisan and had some very interesting guests. I thought Joe Rogan was basically a good guy who just liked talking about stuff.

As a long-time UFC fan I had mixed feelings about Rogan from the very beginning, but for the most part I liked him well enough. I remember him from a sitcom called NewsRadio, and I have since heard him call probably a thousand fights. More, probably.

In the last couple of years Joe has lost his way. I blame Jordan Peterson and Elon Musk, mostly, but it's ultimately on Joe himself. He sold his soul to become a propagandist for fascist oligarchs. I don't think he knows that's what he has done.

He has spent years spreading toxic misinformation and disinformation that have led to the current global crisis. I'm not saying it's Joe's fault that things have gotten this bad, but he played his part, and he continues to do so.

So, I can no longer in good conscience tolerate politically illiterate people claiming that hating him is mindless. If anything, it is mindful.


But you are right about empathy, sympathy, and compassion. And I am sincerely trying to be a better man, both on Sherdog and in real life.
I don't bear @AstralPanda any ill will, and I will strive to be more reasonable and less pugnacious.

 

[Ares Black]

That's how I try to be with everything. The middle ground. I'm not always perfect but I try to approach things with that lens.

I think that grey area is where the truth tends to be found.

People pick sides, defend their side to the death, and then act like you must be on the other side of you deviate from the narrative.

I just don't operate like that.

Every side holds some truth and deserves some respect and acknowledgement.

It's the divisiveness which muddies the waters and creates arguments / toxicity where there need be none.

I would like to formally apologize for my aggressive tone earlier, Sherbro.

I do not hate Joe Rogan. I am very disappointed in Joe Rogan and I wish he was a better person.

 

[MrShady]

Imagine you have a close friend like this. It wont take long until he lashes out on you with his alpha know it all behaviors. Gross.

Just listen to how he talks to her. Hes always been a piece of shit.

 

[El Panteron]

To clarify, I wasn't necessarily relating that to Rogan.

Was just speaking generally.

it's more of a foundational approach to thinking and analysis.

If we can break that sort of black and white approach to things, then we will go much further when analyzing anything.

Strong hate or love share a similar sort of cult like zeal and it's because people attach themselves so strongly to one side, rather than considering the full picture.

It's how women end up with men who abuse them, people end up in cults or groups.

Not falling too strongly into either side is protection against such things. Protection from being deceived or being taken advantage of.

When the foundation is trying to see things on multiple levels, it's very hard to fall into these polarizing, politicized debates which are dominated by this black and white, tribalistic thinking.

Putting in the effort to see beyond it all, beyond black and white, left and right is what leads to truth.

Rogan is an interesting person to analyze because there's so many layers, so many masks and different intelligences.

Thats why I view how he's analyzed to be a solid intelligence test because it highlights how critical and multi faceted a person's thinking really is.

How many angles can they see, how many masks can they see behind, or do they simply fall into the typical tribalistic fervor.

(Could be true for how many public figures are analyzed in general as well)

Rogan embodies the fool or jester role. He portrays himself one way, but is entirely different behind what's being shown in many cases, so he's a very tricky one to pinpoint with conviction.

That being said, competency doesn't necessarily mean being morally upright. Someone can hold intelligence in a variety of forms, it doesn't necessarily mean they're abiding by or pushing what is morally or societally just.

Its important to be able to acknowledge what someone brings to the table, even if you dont necessarily agree with everything that person says or does.

Even if I hated someone to the core, I would still be honest and give that person the respect and flowers they're due. I think it's very common for many to dislike someone for whatever reason, and that means they have to dislike EVERYTHING about that person.

Everything they do or have ever done is trash, just this effort to make them look bad in every conceivable way.

Jones hate is a great example of this. Cherry picks opponents, only fought middle weights, overrated, lost to Reyes, struggled against Santos, the list goes on and on. People go through insane, illogical mental gymnastics to make someone look bad when they don't like them.

A lot of opinions, especially about these polarizing figures are coming from this same energy.

At the end of the day, I don't have a side. I don't have any one stance because many of them are true simultaneously and hold validity in their own ways.

Eh, look I'll try to give you my best answer, even if you might be trolling, because I know there's many that do think like this.

I want to preface: I don't hate Joe Rogan. I don't have a voodoo doll of Joe Rogan (1:1 scale) to inflict curses on him, I don't think about Joe Rogan except when I log on Sherdog and see a thread about his height.

On this "you need not to have a position to understand things" is only true for those things we can measure objectively. The impact of a person in their relationship, the harm they do: these aren't things you can measure, they are only true relative to a certain subset of values. We want to live a certain way, some things make us and others feel good and so on.

(Also please do not speak on how people end up in cults or abusive relationship, this is is a separate topic, you could write me about that as it's very close to my line of work but man you are WAY off with that)

I DO agree that there's much to a human being, good and bad, that someone that's a monster to a person can be your best friend.
BUT.
This way you're engaging with reality is extraordinarily passive. We have strong emotions as a call to action, they are what propel us to transform our environment. Without a stance you are merely observing the world as it unfolds without you. You are not living the complexity of reality at all.

In addition to that, you ARE a person, you have emotions and a view of the world that is partial to you and your "tribe". Having a stance doesn't limit you from seeing reality, just what you think of it, how are you going to act about it. There's many, MANY things that blind us from the truth, our stance comes after them, not before. Biologically, I mean. No way around it.

Here I'll get political, skip it if you don't like it, fuck if I care but I'll put it for someone on the fence.

Not having a stance is a stance. When world views collide, one of them is going to win. And when you don't take a stance, you took the stance of the more powerful of the groups.

Final thougth: man I do get you when you say analysing people is cool. That is quite literally my work, my passion and a good chunk of my life. I'll say one of the few things about psychology and human sciences that never changed is that, whatever we learn, it's used to help. Knowledge is power, and power always shapes your relationships.

Not taking a stance doesn't take you out of the power dynamics. It just makes you the bottom of all of them, and you don't even know.