John Carmack appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast

  • 69 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for cure_optimism
#51 Edited by Cure_Optimism (88 posts) -

I think what Joe Rogan's podcast has shown is that progressive, liberal ideas hold up better under scrutiny. Whenever he hosts dummies like Candace Owens or Ben Shapiro or Steve Crowder, they come to blows and end up with egg on their face. All their beliefs and ideas fall apart like a house of cards. Kyle Kulinski, Jimmy Dore, Tulsi Gabbard, Yang and others have had massive success getting their ideas through to a politically diverse audience while the conservative voices have failed. It's been clear for awhile that Rogan's more of a social democrat, but he's too much of a stoner doofus to realize it himself. I think the podcast deserves more credit and the people up in arms about him hosting Alex Jones and UFO nuts need to look at the bigger picture.

Avatar image for heidegger
#52 Edited by Heidegger (101 posts) -

@efesell said:

@heidegger:

But there are a class of people that should not be given the chance to have that platform in the first place. People who are not spreading ideas but people who while ridiculous and cartoonish at times hold actual real ability to cause harm.

I don't agree with this, unless you can name & shame? Who do you mean? It's important to field different ideas and objectives. Candace Owens, Alex Jones, Milo Y, Ben Shapiro, Crowder etc all have some good ideas and valuable things to say. They also have some dumb and even downright nasty opinions. Better to reveal themselves that way than only being known by their own channels or short-form interviews. Listeners are mature enough to make up their own minds whether the good ideas outweight the bad or not.

The podcast doesn't really field ultra-leftists who promote the divisive identity-politics agenda, I imagine they don't wanna come on as they only communicate within their echo chambers. Dave Rubin has commented on this before, that those on that left-spectrum (who dominate mainstream media, Twitter etc) always refuse to come on his own long-form debate show. By the way Rubin's show gets old for me real quick. Rogan's has much more variety, as for example we get Carmack and others enthusing about their own specialist subjects.

Avatar image for not_a_bumblebee
#53 Posted by not_a_bumblebee (151 posts) -

Don't know anything about Joe Rogan's podcast except that I think it is awful and it's one of the most popular podcast out there. Good on John Carmack for being considered important enough to be a guest on one of the biggest podcast in the US even if I think it is uninteresting crap.

Avatar image for m3ds334
#54 Posted by m3ds334 (64 posts) -

It was a pretty fun podcast. I really miss Carmack giving long form talks on whatever he is into at the moment. Really wish he was still in games in a way. His thoughts on crunch are really interesting because I do agree that there is something cool that can happen when a person throws themselves into a project working 60+ hours a week, but it really feels like it’s forced in this industry and that makes me so uneasy. I often feel like some sort of suffering his at the heart of all great art.

Avatar image for dweep
#55 Edited by Dweep (104 posts) -

How do you guys feel about libertarians? Because Carmack is a staunch libertarian.

Avatar image for m3ds334
#56 Posted by m3ds334 (64 posts) -

@dweep: I don’t think it makes sense, especially in the modern era. Taking libertarian ideas to their logical conclusions means that things like the fda would be privatized. So only rich people are going to be able to afford labs to see if their food and drugs are safe for consumption. I remember Joe mentioned a guy who thought all roads should be privatized. Asinine.

Avatar image for efesell
#57 Posted by Efesell (4632 posts) -

@dweep: In general I would call them immensely frustrating I guess? Often more well meaning and acting in better faith but pushing very frustrating ideas in very different ways.

Avatar image for the_nubster
#58 Posted by The_Nubster (4357 posts) -

@kmj2318: People like that are idiots regardless of their platform. It takes thirty seconds and a search engine to discredit Ben Shapiro and Alex Jones and most of these people, but the ones they rope in are not interested in disproving their arguments. The kind of person who will be on board with Ben will watch that clip and think Joe Rogan is the idiot in that situation. Signal boosting terrible people exposes them to a much wider audience, and in that audience there will always be someone who thinks that, for example, being gay is a sin. It doesn't matter that it's a dumb bullshit fact with no basis in anything, but simply hearing that there is a well-known figure who holds that same opinion will empower them and their beliefs.

All opinions are not equal. People who are homophobic, transphobic, ignorant, racist, hurtful, or who otherwise push an agenda that exists only to belittle and oppress do not deserve a platform. Period.

Avatar image for bonelessspirit
#59 Edited by BonelessSpirit (53 posts) -
Avatar image for shindig
#60 Edited by Shindig (4984 posts) -

Fuck it. After last night's shambles in parliament I'll watch anything to purge. Enlighten me, John. Tell me things are gonna be okay ... or 4k. Whatever, man.

Avatar image for shorap
#61 Posted by shorap (455 posts) -

@dweep: libertarians are funny because their ideology is completely fantastical and would always lead to worse outcomes.

Avatar image for niko_of_death
#62 Posted by niko_of_death (278 posts) -

@shorap: That's every ideology executed absolutely.

Avatar image for shorap
#63 Posted by shorap (455 posts) -

Are you saying that if it wasn’t executed absolutely then libertarianism could work?

Avatar image for kmj2318
#64 Posted by kmj2318 (47 posts) -

I'm seeing in this thread a strange thing how people group all conservatives together as idiotic and unreasonable. Based on what I've heard on Rogan, Alex Jones is reasonable perhaps 1% of the time, someone like Candace Owens I would give a reasonableness score of 30%, Ben Shapiro around 60%, and Jordan Peterson around 90%. Because of the show, I have a better sense of which arguments make sense and are worth debating and which ones don't hold up under their own logic. I guess this is why there is such huge pushback on this show. Some people want to equate all right wringers with Alex Jones, and group them up together, to discredit the more reasonable people. We're seeing the left fracture into a group of people who want to hear different opinions and a group of people who want to suppress different opinions. Won't be good for the next election imo.

Avatar image for efesell
#65 Posted by Efesell (4632 posts) -

@kmj2318: I'm not all that interested in assigning grades to these people. I wouldn't say any of them are reasonable, regardless of whether or not the stars align and they occasionally fart out something that isn't total harmful nonsense.

Avatar image for shorap
#66 Posted by shorap (455 posts) -

@kmj2318: “the left fracture into a group of people who want to hear different opinions and a group who want to suppress different opinions.” Who is doing this “suppressing?” It’s just people with different opinions unless there’s governmental force behind it in which case there are examples of conservatives and centrists doing this like in the governmental response to activists in the BDS movement.

I would also love to find out your methodology in determining how reasonable theses grifters, I mean public figures are?

Avatar image for someoneproud
#67 Posted by someoneproud (668 posts) -

Those other people are bad and everything they say is wrong.

Look mum, I'm internetting.

Avatar image for north6
#68 Edited by North6 (1195 posts) -

@shorap said:

@kmj2318: “the left fracture into a group of people who want to hear different opinions and a group who want to suppress different opinions.” Who is doing this “suppressing?” It’s just people with different opinions unless there’s governmental force behind it in which case there are examples of conservatives and centrists doing this like in the governmental response to activists in the BDS movement.

I would also love to find out your methodology in determining how reasonable theses grifters, I mean public figures are?

Regarding silencing - What is this thread? It's basically just some people praising Rogan for talking to Carmack, and in the context of talking to people of all shapes and stripes. Predictably, a good deal of left leaning folks shitting on him for speaking to right leaning people (amongst the health nuts, mountain climbers, rock stars, politicians, etc) They don't like Rogan because he once talked to someone they don't like.

And to be honest, that's 100% of what I'd expect. It's pretty troubling.

Avatar image for mike
#69 Posted by Mike (17998 posts) -

Well this topic shit the bed somewhere back towards the beginning of the first page.

Moderator