Alex Jones on Joe Rogan. Wtf just happened?

[whoareyou]

9 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Oh God. Why does Joe allow this shit? He's way too soft on Alex Jones insanity.

You preach radical open mindedness, yet you repeat the same rhetoric that the MSM does about Alex Jones, because you are unaware of your own self-bias. He may seem "crazy" to you, but a lot of things that he said turned out to be true. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. 

 

[Fishy]

3:24:43 Alex says "here's the thing, I'm kind of retarded" lol

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, whoareyou said:

You preach radical open mindedness, yet you repeat the same rhetoric that the MSM does about Alex Jones, because you are unaware of your own self-bias.

No, I'm just aware he's mentally ill.

[Rilles]

32 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I'm just aware he's mentally ill.

What mental illness does he have? Im genuinely curious, I like reading about personality disorders.

[Leo Gura]

@Rilles Devilry disorder

[Inliytened1]

Wow.  Just listened to a good bit of this.  This dude is completely off his rocker.  DMT opens the portal to aliens and he has seen all of reality in his dreams.  

[Rilles]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Rilles Devilry disorder

Haha then Im guilty of that too... Prescribe me some 5-Meo, doctor!

[Ry4n]

My guess is that he has asperges and maybe some kind of personality disorder? Who knows I guess lol

[tedens]

@Leo Gura

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Oh God. Why does Joe allow this shit? He's way too soft on Alex Jones insanity.

 

12 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because you have a mentally ill friend doesn't mean you platform him to your viewers. It's irresponsible to platform such a person to millions of viewers as though it's all just in good fun.

It's like yeah, I'm good friends with Hitler, so let me give him my platform.

This is his earnings and you say that understanding survival through manipulation is part of maturity.

 

But it seems that he was mistaken about his friendship with him and probably regrets that he invited him.

Edited August 29, 2019 by tedens

[whoareyou]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I'm just aware he's mentally ill.

Of course a devil would say that and deny his own self-bias. It's ironic that you react the same way the people who you call devils do. 

How can you expect others to examine their own blind spots, when you are not willing to do the same (when encountered) ?

[Rilles]

2 minutes ago, whoareyou said:

Of course a devil would say that and deny his own self-bias. It's ironic that you react the same way the people who you call devils do. 

How can you expect others to examine their own blind spots, when you are not willing to do the same (when encountered) ?

I agree with you but a sidenote...

Alex Jones has actually blamed his Sandy Hook outcries on his psychosis... Look it up! 

So Leo is half right haha

[Cocolove]

3 hours ago, whoareyou said:

He may seem "crazy" to you, but a lot of things that he said turned out to be true. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be. 

 

DId you watch the damned podcast lmao 

"From OP, "You could spend a lifetime analyzing this." "

Yes, he doesn't make any well structured arguments, giving you a line of reasoning or evidence with which you can pursue your own investigation. He simply rants about 100 different conspiracies, making it so you could analyze it for a lifetime, and never fully invalidate or validate it.

 

[Forestluv]

Be aware of false equivalencies. From one perspective there can be equivalency, yet from another perspective it is a false equivalency. Conflating the two creates a mess. It is context-dependent. Leo addresses this in his videos "Sameness vs Difference" and "Recontextualization"

As a simple example: a being pisses in the punch bowl at a wedding. Let's consider context:

1) A puppy pisses in the punchbowl

2) A two year old boy pisses in the punchbowl

3) Drunken Uncle Ted pisses in the punchbowl

From one perspective, there is equivalency - yet it is context dependent. This equivalency will not necessarily translate to other contexts. We could say the three scenarios are equivalent in the sense that a being pissed in the punchbowl. Yet in another context, it is not equivalent. A puppy pissing in the punchbowl is not equivalent to drunken Uncle Ted pissing in the punchbowl and we would not react the same. For the puppy, we might laugh and put him on a leash. For drunken Uncle Ted we might reprimand him, kick him out of the wedding and send him to an AA meeting. To conflate the equivalency and non-equivalency perspectives would seem ludicrious. One might say "When the puppy did it, you laughed. Yet when Uncle Ted did it, you yelled at him and sent him to an AA meeting! You are a biased hypocrite!!".

This is an exaggerated example to highlight the point, so it seems silly. Yet people do this all the time. They say things like "we should be open to all ideas". In one context, all ideas are equivalent - in another context all ideas are not equivalent. In the case of Alex Jones - in one context he is not mentally ill, because his reality is equivalent to any other reality. From another relative context, Alex Jones is mentally ill. He is way outside the collective consensus reality. Mixing up these two contexts creates false equivalencies and leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, miscommunication and turmoil. This is super common in society. Watch how often people recontextualize and create false equivalencies - it's all over the place.

This is not to say that true equivalencies and hypocrites don't exist. If a politician speaks out that extra-marital affairs are immoral and is caught having an extra-marital affair, that is a direct equivalency and he would be considered a hypocrite. It's important to be aware of context, sameness and difference to make these distinctions.

[SQAAD]

@Leo Gura

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Oh God. Why does Joe allow this shit? He's way too soft on Alex Jones insanity.

Because Joe Rogan is an average - low consciousness guy & full of sh*t, that's why. 

He even took lightly the fact that Conor McGregor slaps ppl left & right just because he has millions of dollars. 

 

[whoareyou]

4 hours ago, Rilles said:

I agree with you but a sidenote...

Alex Jones has actually blamed his Sandy Hook outcries on his psychosis... Look it up! 

So Leo is half right haha

This is not true, this is what MSM likes you to think. Unfortunately even Leo is not immune to it.

His reponse to Sandy Hook stuff was taken totally out of context, and was used to totally destroy his reputation. If you look at all his interviews that he done with MSM networks, they were all cut, taken out of context to make him look like a crazy guy.

In actuality he admitted that he was wrong on Sandy Hook and apologized for it. Other than that, a lot of other things that he said turned out to be true.

 

4 hours ago, Cocolove said:

DId you watch the damned podcast lmao 

"From OP, "You could spend a lifetime analyzing this." "

Yes, he doesn't make any well structured arguments, giving you a line of reasoning or evidence with which you can pursue your own investigation. He simply rants about 100 different conspiracies, making it so you could analyze it for a lifetime, and never fully invalidate or validate it.

 

Watch his interview on valuetainment, and the stuff that he said on Logan Paul podcast. Some arguments are not well structured, but a lot of things that he says actually make sense 

4 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Be aware of false equivalencies. From one perspective there can be equivalency, yet from another perspective it is a false equivalency. Conflating the two creates a mess. It is context-dependent. Leo addresses this in his videos "Sameness vs Difference" and "Recontextualization"

As a simple example: a being pisses in the punch bowl at a wedding. Let's consider context:

1) A puppy pisses in the punchbowl

2) A two year old boy pisses in the punchbowl

3) Drunken Uncle Ted pisses in the punchbowl

From one perspective, there is equivalency - yet it is context dependent. This equivalency will not necessarily translate to other contexts. We could say the three scenarios are equivalent in the sense that a being pissed in the punchbowl. Yet in another context, it is not equivalent. A puppy pissing in the punchbowl is not equivalent to drunken Uncle Ted pissing in the punchbowl and we would not react the same. For the puppy, we might laugh and put him on a leash. For drunken Uncle Ted we might reprimand him, kick him out of the wedding and send him to an AA meeting. To conflate the equivalency and non-equivalency perspectives would seem ludicrious. One might say "When the puppy did it, you laughed. Yet when Uncle Ted did it, you yelled at him and sent him to an AA meeting! You are a biased hypocrite!!".

This is an exaggerated example to highlight the point, so it seems silly. Yet people do this all the time. They say things like "we should be open to all ideas". In one context, all ideas are equivalent - in another context all ideas are not equivalent. In the case of Alex Jones - in one context he is not mentally ill, because his reality is equivalent to any other reality. From another relative context, Alex Jones is mentally ill. He is way outside the collective consensus reality. Mixing up these two contexts creates false equivalencies and leads to all sorts of misunderstanding, miscommunication and turmoil. This is super common in society. Watch how often people recontextualize and create false equivalencies - it's all over the place.

This is not to say that true equivalencies and hypocrites don't exist. If a politician speaks out that extra-marital affairs are immoral and is caught having an extra-marital affair, that is a direct equivalency and he would be considered a hypocrite. It's important to be aware of context, sameness and difference to make these distinctions.

This is not the case of false equivalency. It is the case of distorted perception. If you would erase everything you "think" you know about him, and just watch his uncut interviews, or uncut footages, and try to see him for who he is without self-bias - you would see that he is not mentally ill. The self-bias runs very deep and this is a good example.

Do you actually think he was kicked off all social media platforms because he is "dangerous" to society? Of course not lol

Edited August 29, 2019 by whoareyou

[Aeris]

@whoareyou like what was true can you share 1 or 2 instances ?

Which one show his good "intellectual side" ?

[AlwaysBeNice]

That wasn't so bad, a lot of these conspiracies are true btw, people in high power can become so addicted to it, become frustrated it doesn't work so well for them and can start to do twisted shit.

But just don't blindly belief stuff, especially health related stuff, i.e. if wifi would be so dangerous, we'd see a massive increase in cancer in western civilization over the past x years, which just hasn't happened, though in general the more 'unnatural' the worse.. and the ego-stress is bad for you over long time.

[Zega]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Just because you have a mentally ill friend doesn't mean you platform him to your viewers. It's irresponsible to platform such a person to millions of viewers as though it's all just in good fun.

It's like yeah, I'm good friends with Hitler, so let me give him my platform.

Joe brings up this point in a few of his podcasts. He has debates about deplatforming people. He believes it conflicts with the first amendment. The argument is that private businesses have a right to censor what is on their platform. 

I think there is some moralizing going on and he wants to give everyone a voice. I don't think he realizes the dangers of this. 

I've heard Joe Rogan described as a "Social chameleon" before, and that seems to be the case with some of his more controversial episodes. 

[Aeris]

3 minutes ago, Zega said:

Joe brings up this point in a few of his podcasts. He has debates about deplatforming people. He believes it conflicts with the first amendment. The argument is that private businesses have a right to censor what is on their platform. 

I think there is some moralizing going on and he wants to give everyone a voice. I don't think he realizes the dangers of this. 

I've heard Joe Rogan described as a "Social chameleon" before, and that seems to be the case with some of his more controversial episodes. 

That's why I understand him a lot.

Curiosity for all

Love over everything

Maybe for Joe It's more self centered he isn't really serious about political beliefs.

If it work that's mainly because he doesn't give a fuck. He prefer giving a voice to all kind of truth.

When you do music you don't choose to only play one fucking scale.

When you do a radio based upon critical thinking you can't be the best by imposing Dogma over everything.

Best way not to be critical.

 

Btw leo is trolling us in this topic. I can sense something disrupted in the force.

 

[Inliytened1]

7 hours ago, Cocolove said:

DId you watch the damned podcast lmao 

"From OP, "You could spend a lifetime analyzing this." "

Yes, he doesn't make any well structured arguments, giving you a line of reasoning or evidence with which you can pursue your own investigation. He simply rants about 100 different conspiracies, making it so you could analyze it for a lifetime, and never fully invalidate or validate it.

 

Yes.  To me it seemed he had a complete melt down on air and Joe was regretting it deep inside but it was already too late.  He made a mistake on this one but hey, life goes on.   I think it didn't do his show any justice from a serious standpoint.  If you want mindless entertainment it fit the bill.  But i think Joe wants more for his show than that - he was just stuck at that point.  He should have known better though knowing Alex.  I don't know what he was thinking...maybe he wasn't.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Inliytened1