Joe Rogan IG Post, a Mind Infected by Ideology

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

@Carl-Richard

   I wouldn't say it's insulting, but more like an asymmetrical comparison. The suggesting of more personal responsibility to victims of structural violence, is like comparing a bad apple to some fungus plague spreading throughout a banana farm.

It's not necessarily insulting (it depends on the person), but it's insensitive in the sense that it's potentially very insulting. Regardless, a privileged white kid telling a kid from the slums to take personal responsibility and not grow up as a criminal is anyway socially repulsive. I'm not sure what your fruit analogy is about.

 

1 hour ago, Danioover9000 said:

Wait a minute, what does this have to do with OP's main post? We are really venturing off into the wild here. 

We're still talking about why the meme is garbage. We're just getting into the underlying reasons, which is a general lack of perspective and social unawareness. Besides, didn't you think that the thread had run its course? 

[kieranperez]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@kieranperez

   Are you happy with what you started? We are slowly spiraling into chaos over a post.

People will do and make whatever mess of this that they will. I shared it and it's on people to be mature or immature with what's presented to them. I don't really care.

[Space Lizard]

Still not sure why this idea of a cycle is so triggering to people. I imagine the average non internet forum dweller would consider it common sense. If your life gets too easy and you over-indulge yourself, you are going to have problems eventually. If you face adversity with strength, your life is likely to improve. I'm sure most of you have experienced something like that in your lives. Now extrapolate to a whole society. Or research the outcome of the "mouse utopia" experiments, where mice that could indulge themselves at will developed all kinds of pathologies. Equating strength to fascism is just silly. These are just facts about nature, and human beings have not and cannot transcend nature, no matter how many psychedelics they take.

[Carl-Richard]

12 minutes ago, Space Lizard said:

Still not sure why this idea of a cycle is so triggering to people.

Cycles are everywhere, but when right-wingers roll up on their tricycles and claim that it supports their worldview, that is when we put a foot on the brakes. We can't not let shit like this go without criticism:

 

Besides, Ibn Khaldun lived in the 14th century. Update your models.

[Space Lizard]

Let's look at recent America history. The parents of baby-boomers lived through hard times of depressions and world wars, became strong men and created the good times that the boomers were born into. Boomers had it very easy, became a generation of over-indulged weak men, by and large, and brought harder times upon us. So these are possible data points for Rogan's model. That picture looks like its from the "good times" of the 1950s-60s, when boomers were still little kids and hadn't grown up to become "sissies" and create harder times. So it all makes sense, if you look at it from this perspective.

[Epikur]

7 minutes ago, Space Lizard said:

Still not sure why this idea of a cycle is so triggering to people. I imagine the average non internet forum dweller would consider it common sense. If your life gets too easy and you over-indulge yourself, you are going to have problems eventually. If you face adversity with strength, your life is likely to improve. I'm sure most of you have experienced something like that in your lives. Now extrapolate to a whole society. Or research the outcome of the "mouse utopia" experiments, where mice that could indulge themselves at will developed all kinds of pathologies. Equating strength to fascism is just silly. These are just facts about nature, and human beings have not and cannot transcend nature, no matter how many psychedelics they take.

I think left leaning guys are more in team Hegel
 

 

[Danioover9000]

@Carl-Richard

50 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

It's not necessarily insulting (it depends on the person), but it's insensitive in the sense that it's potentially very insulting. Regardless, a privileged white kid telling a kid from the slums to take personal responsibility and not grow up as a criminal is anyway socially repulsive. I'm not sure what your fruit analogy is about.

 

We're still talking about why the meme is garbage. We're just getting into the underlying reasons, which is a general lack of perspective and social unawareness. Besides, didn't you think that the thread had run its course? 

   The fruit analogy was referencing some user bringing up black on black violence, while the original OP was dealing with whether Joe was joking or not in what he said using the political compass. I don't see the direct connection between that user's point in bringing up a racial issue and the Joe Rogan post, so to me that's asymmetrical unless it's referring to another user's point that the Joe post is hinting at fascism and Nazism somehow. It's like comparing the legality of abortions to gun control, two different issues at play. However, if you want to elaborate how the two are connected, ok then, it's just at surface level there's no explicit connection between the two.

   I still think the thread is going into oblivion soon. If you asked me if there were chances the thread would've been more productive, it would've been when the dialogue starts centering around what makes a stupid post versus a joke post, or talk about different types of humor, or talking about the differences between bantering and trolling. I'm a millennial, but I hardly over use the internet like most in my generation do, and I don't follow Joe Rogan as religiously as some do, but if there is any actual issues, then the thread could very well be better off if it transmission into talking about if it is justified to cancel Joe Rogan or not at this point. I'm not sure what criteria I would use, or other's standards on justified cancelling, because while Joe had built up a following, it's not in the millions or billions, and he isn't a celebrity figure compared to mainstream celebrities.

    

[Epikur]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@Carl-Richard

   The fruit analogy was referencing some user bringing up black on black violence, while the original OP was dealing with whether Joe was joking or not in what he said using the political compass. I don't see the direct connection between that user's point in bringing up a racial issue and the Joe Rogan post, so to me that's asymmetrical unless it's referring to another user's point that the Joe post is hinting at fascism and Nazism somehow. It's like comparing the legality of abortions to gun control, two different issues at play. However, if you want to elaborate how the two are connected, ok then, it's just at surface level there's no explicit connection between the two.

   I still think the thread is going into oblivion soon. If you asked me if there were chances the thread would've been more productive, it would've been when the dialogue starts centering around what makes a stupid post versus a joke post, or talk about different types of humor, or talking about the differences between bantering and trolling. I'm a millennial, but I hardly over use the internet like most in my generation do, and I don't follow Joe Rogan as religiously as some do, but if there is any actual issues, then the thread could very well be better off if it transmission into talking about if it is justified to cancel Joe Rogan or not at this point. I'm not sure what criteria I would use, or other's standards on justified cancelling, because while Joe had built up a following, it's not in the millions or billions, and he isn't a celebrity figure compared to mainstream celebrities.

    

I posted Hegel so the thread has reached some level I guess.

[Danioover9000]

@kieranperez

25 minutes ago, kieranperez said:

People will do and make whatever mess of this that they will. I shared it and it's on people to be mature or immature with what's presented to them. I don't really care.

   That's ok, as long as you've explicitly clarified your position on all of this. 

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Space Lizard said:

Let's look at recent America history. The parents of baby-boomers lived through hard times of depressions and world wars, became strong men and created the good times that the boomers were born into. Boomers had it very easy, became a generation of over-indulged weak men, by and large, and brought harder times upon us. So these are possible data points for Rogan's model. That picture looks like its from the "good times" of the 1950s-60s, when boomers were still little kids and hadn't grown up to become "sissies" and create harder times. So it all makes sense, if you look at it from this perspective.

Without baby boomers, you wouldn't have the internet. Technology puts a lever on intelligence and power. Who is the stronger man: the man with or without internet?

[Space Lizard]

18 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I think left leaning guys are more in team Hegel

Yes, well Hegel was a strange one. His idea that human history is progressing toward some final goal, according to a "dialectic", is a bizarre religious story that I see no reason to believe. But he does seem to be the biggest influence on leftist and progressive thinking. His "religion of progress" is just another myth, and nonsense, to me. I am amazed how many people believe it who are otherwise skeptical of religion.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Space Lizard

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

It's like Trump. He acts strong but it's just a facade of strength. He actually has very thin skin and is super insecure. That's how the alt-right tends to be. It's bluster and posturing.

I remember you saying that you don't think that Rogan is necessarily a right-winger like progressives such as Cenk make them out to be, but are you now changing your mind about that?

[Space Lizard]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Without baby boomers, you wouldn't have the internet.

The internet was developed in the 1960s, by guys like this (born 1926) and this (born 1924), when the boomers were kids.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Space Lizard

[MarkKol]

This is my favorite picture of all, I live right on the border with Serbia and Croatia (former Yugoslavia) which means my town was first to get hit by tanks and troops, the irony of the first picture portraying STRONG MEN as Soldiers who fought in war, if strong men create good times, then who raped all the women and children in my town? people often say "the soldiers had to protect their country, they had no choice but to fight" its clearly not true, raping 15 year old children has nothing to do with protecting your country, I don't demonize anyone though!  and I have to be compassionate and understand their level of consciousness. 

[Carl-Richard]

Just now, Space Lizard said:

The internet was developed in the 1960s, by guys like this (born 1926), when the boomers were little kids.

I mean the internet as we know it today (World Wide Web), invented by boomer Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.

[Carl-Richard]

45 minutes ago, Epikur said:

I posted Hegel so the thread has reached some level I guess.

Only if you're a Hegelian  

 

@Space Lizard Btw, cycles do not contradict progress. That is why we have spiral models  (SD, Integral Theory, Cook-Greuter, MHC etc.). These models actually describe the cycles that the right-wingers are talking about, only they don't use the same absolutistic "good/bad, strong/weak" caveman language.

[Epikur]

23 minutes ago, Space Lizard said:

Yes, well Hegel was a strange one. His idea that human history is progressing toward some final goal, according to a "dialectic", is a bizarre religious story that I see no reason to believe. But he does seem to be the biggest influence on leftist and progressive thinking. His "religion of progress" is just another myth, and nonsense, to me. I am amazed how many people believe it who are otherwise skeptical of religion.

But it makes sense form a survival point of view to have hopium.

[DocWatts]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Only if you're a Hegelian  

 

@Space Lizard Btw, cycles do not contradict progress. That is why we have spiral models  (SD, Integral Theory, Cook-Greuter, MHC etc.). These models actually describe the cycles that the right-wingers are talking about, only they don't use the same absolutistic "good/bad, strong/weak" caveman language.

The giga-cringe meme that started this thread is more or less a stupid person's idea of Hegelian Dialectics after taking one Intro to Philosophy Class 

Edited November 29, 2021 by DocWatts

[Space Lizard]

13 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Who is the stronger man: the man with or without internet?

That's an interesting question. For me, too much internet use is not healthy. I don't feel stronger after I've spent all day surfing the internet, do you? It's more of an unhealthy addiction, like smoking. Reality is still out there in the physical world; we can't survive and thrive in these artificial environments. I see people who spend most of their lives online and they tend to look sickly, flabby, neurotic, detached from reality--the opposite of strong. But that's just, like, my opinion.

[Carl-Richard]

11 hours ago, DocWatts said:

The giga-cringe meme that started this thread is like a stupid person's idea of Hegelian Dialectics after taking one Intro to Philosophy Class 

Haha  I was about to deploy the broken clock meme again but I figured that would be too accommodating.

 

11 hours ago, Space Lizard said:

That's an interesting question. For me, too much internet use is not healthy. I don't feel stronger after I've spent all day surfing the internet, do you? It's more of an unhealthy addiction, like smoking. Reality is still out there in the physical world; we can't survive and thrive in these artificial environments. I see people who spend most of their lives online and they tend to look sickly, flabby, neurotic, detached from reality--the opposite of strong. But that's just, like, my opinion.

Again, the trap here is to get stuck on low resolution value judgements like "good" vs. "bad". The overarching point is that society, like technology, is always evolving.

Technology is an external expression of internal ingenuity, and they build on top of each other: ingenuity creates technology, and technology inspires more ingenuity. Combine this with the fact that knowledge is passed down through generations and you have the dialectical movements of society.

We're evolving towards more complexity and intelligence. This also creates new challenges, and that requires more complex and intelligent solutions. As challenges are overcome, we cultivate collective resilience. You can call that strength.

As society evolves, it cycles between individualist and collectivist stages. The individualist stages like to look at the collectivist ones (especially the higher, more inclusive and compassionate ones) and call them weak, and the collectivist ones like to look down on them and call them stupid, because that is what absolutists do.

It's also easy to get carried away with everyday speech and concede to using these absolutist terms while also recognizing that the accurate terms indeed are "complex" vs. "simple" and "individual" vs. "group." That is just the nature of language and communication (which are simply social means to social ends; social pragmatism).