And I thought average intelligence has always been set at 100, and that bar has been raised as nutrition and education have seen IQs rise?
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
He's a loon but probably not wrong about IQ decline. If you consider what the geniuses 100 years ago managed to discover and invent compared with the knowledge of the time.
Fast forward to now and our best geniuses maybe aren't quite so impressive.
I’d say that is because of the vast networks of expertise we now have in the sciences. Back in Newton’s et al’s day there just wasn’t that many people doing it and they had limited networks in which to cooperate, making it more common for individuals to make more significant advancements.
Last edited:
We just landed a man-made object on a comet, drove a little car around on Mars, and have taken actual photographs of planets in orbits around other stars. But even if we hadn't, he still absolutely is wrong about IQ decline.
Indeed. Average IQ scores have been increasing in all countries since the turn of the twentieth century (the Flynn effect). This is most likely a result of better health/nutrition, better/more education and rising living standards.
https://ourworldindata.org/intelligence
Also because human groups are increasingly less decompartmentalized from one another, where information sharing is significantly greater due to technology.
Heh, plateaus are to be expected. And there is often significant lag. Quantum theory didn’t translate into computers right away, and computers didn’t become ubiquitous and transformative until way later. Who knows what today’s scientists are birthing?
niMic’s examples are also fine examples whose true genius and difficulty most of us can’t fully appreciate.
IQ must be declining if this is true.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
joe rogan is an alt right apologist
The problem with Rogan taking that line of reasoning is that Shapiro is demonstrably hateful and regressive in his approach lot of the time. He can't play the victim over that.
"But he was nice to me on my show" isn't really proof of anything.
"But he was nice to me on my show" isn't really proof of anything.
"Internet goon" would be an extremely kind way of describing Shapiro. Rogan's soft peddling with such goons is the second biggest problem with his show, the first being that he himself is a meathead.
If that's the case then there's a very simple solution - don't watch/listen to it.
Last edited:
Or...you could try to organise a boycott.
Me not "watching" Joe Rogan's podcast isn't a solution to the problems with Joe Rogan's podcast. He doesn't become a less stupid person once I stop paying attention.
Besides, the problems with Rogan and his podcast don't always stop it from being at least vaguely interesting. Some of them are worth listening to despite Rogan's presence. Though another chat with a shitehawk like Shapiro definitely doesn't fall into that category.
Its a bit more than vaguely interesting given that its one of the most listened to podcasts online.
This is all George Carlin fault.
The moment people started to seriously listen to the clowns we were in trouble.
The moment people started to seriously listen to the clowns we were in trouble.
Meh, popularity and quality aren't neccessarily the same thing.
It really depends on the guest. Some can carry a few hours of Rogan's super-compliant approach while others can't. For example, the second Jack Dorsey podcast was a lot more interesting than the first because there was someone else in the room willing to take a more aggressive line. Rogan isn't capable of doing that, which in one way is fine but in another limits what he can get out of some guests.
In the case of people like Shapiro and Peterson, we've been saturated with their ideas and arguments over the last few years. Sitting through another conversation with the eager-to-please Rogan would be a chore.
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with Rogan having a longform podcast that involves just sort of shooting the shite with people in a way that's vaguely interesting to stoners.
The problem is when you start bringing on serious people from political backgrounds for interviews, you're inherently giving yourself the responsibility of a journalist; Rogan, however, doesn't seem up to that and so allows fairly prominent voices like Shapiro and Peterson to put our their positions to considerable audiences in a way that's unchallenged.
The problem is when you start bringing on serious people from political backgrounds for interviews, you're inherently giving yourself the responsibility of a journalist; Rogan, however, doesn't seem up to that and so allows fairly prominent voices like Shapiro and Peterson to put our their positions to considerable audiences in a way that's unchallenged.
We weren't evaluating its quality, but the fact that its one of the most listened to podcasts in the world sort of makes it hard to say it isn't interesting.
These 'problems' only exist in the minds of a small minority.
Also, I don't understand why anyone would would watch/listen to a podcast hosted by someone they deem a stupid person.
'Shitehawk'
...I haven't heard that in a while. Are you from Norn Iron?No but it would solve the problem of it annoying you. Just do something else and live in ignorance, it’s great.
Sometimes giving guests a few hours to chat about whatever they like unchallenged can end up being interesting, it just depends on the guest. I don't particularly like Rogan but with the right guest the longform format still works.
Nah, Connacht. Was just thinking I should use that word more. Can't beat the classics.'Shitehawk'
Fair enough. I think much of the popularity lies with the long-form format itself. The mainstream media outlets haven't provided an outlet or platform for such discussions in a long time and the burgeoning popularity of particular podcasts and YouTube channels therefore just satisfies a desire that never went away. Ultimately they'll serve as a kind of counteracting agent; to rebalance what has been the prevailing view presented in the mainstream outlets.
I thought it was just Northern thing. Perhaps Cork as well.
Anyway...together with Shapiro is provides an attractive piece of alliteration. Stick with it!
Last edited:
You're hysterical. Then he has a socialist on, doesn't push back, and the loonies on the right call him "A COMMUNIST APOLOGIST".
The guy is an impartial interviewer. It's honestly a breath of fresh air. Not everything has to be editorialized. Not everything has to be politicized. Not everyone has to push an agenda. I think Shapiro is a horrible little manlet, yet, I have zero problem with Rogan having him on, because when he has people like Shapiro on, he also has people like Abby Martin on, he has far left people on. You know what else? The only people I've ever seen him push back on, are Candice Owens, Dave Rubin, and Steven Crowder. He called them out on their bullshit, over things he had specific knowledge over.
Rogans job isn't to push YOUR political ideology. His job is to put on a podcast, with a wide variety of guests, and that includes people on the far left, and the far right. IF any one group should feel aggrieved, it is the right wingers, when Rogan took a giant shit on 3 of their poster boys/girls making them look like massive idiots. He's never done that to a leftie. Yet, for the most part, his position is to not have a position. He's the Switzerland of Podcasts.
Good post until the last bit. Rogan does take positions on things he cares about - hunting, weed, DMT, etc.hmm, your post reads a lot more hysterical than mine. in that 2 minute clip alone "you're a very nice guy", "you're so misrepresented", "you're not remotely alt right" "agree or disagree you have well formulated ideas, this isnt just some bullshit that youre spouting" "i dont like when people try to pretend that your [ben shapiro] philosophy is somehow hateful and regressive" "i dont like when people say you condemn people for their thoughts...you just dont"
thats pretty straightforward apologism. sorry it makes you feel a certain way
shapiro: "people will suggest that everything i do is about destroying people on the other side"
the cover of ben shapiro's book:
shapiro is a disingenuous racist and rogan defends him
the cover of ben shapiro's book:
shapiro is a disingenuous racist and rogan defends him
What makes Shapiro "alt-right" and not just a traditional conservative?
They're the exact same thing depending on who you listen to.
He's generally a conservative but the fact that he was affiliated with Breitbart and is young, put him in the perceived alt-right category.
He's also young and has some social media savvy, and so eschews the typical idea of the older, stuffy and out-of-date conservative.
Good point. I should've thought of that.
I would think many alt-rightists would reject Ben Shapiro because he's Jewish. He's always struck me as more traditionally conservative. He's just belligerent, rude, short, obnoxious and racist too. Which may be why people associate him with the alt-right.
Yeah, everyone knows you're not allowed in their club if you're over 5 foot 5.
what is the difference between alt-right and traditional conservative?
as far as I can discern the alt-right like trolling more and that's about it
Shapiro sounded a lot saner on Rogan than previous times I've listened to him, which granted hasn't been much other than the odd clip. Maybe he's matured a bit, or maybe just found better ways to spin his bullshit
as far as I can discern the alt-right like trolling more and that's about it
Shapiro sounded a lot saner on Rogan than previous times I've listened to him, which granted hasn't been much other than the odd clip. Maybe he's matured a bit, or maybe just found better ways to spin his bullshit
I think he is a regular conservative who toes the GOP line more than anything else.
His book is a good guide to both his beliefs, and as I later learnt, the beliefs of old people who watch Fox News:
1. WMDs were real and were hidden in Syria and Iran; Obama suppressed the publication of this knowledge.
2. Black Lives Matter are thugs who pay protesters - his book goes further and suggests back communities pay kids to get shot by cops.
3. Cruz as the ideal principled conservative, Trump as the dirty effective leader.
4. Universal healthcare is slavery for doctors.
5. Islam is an existential threat.
6. Obama deliberately allowed terrorists and others to enter through the Mexican border.
7. Transgender people should be referred to only by their sex at birth; it is a delusion.
8. Gay marriage is wrong
9. Climate change is a left-wing conspiracy.
10. Universities promote the homosexual agenda; homosexuality is a sin.
He was an editor at Breitbart, which had a separate section called "black crime" while he was around (and is notoriously slanted and short on facts in general), and there are a few tweets showing his racism towards Arabs. Both point to alt-right beliefs. However, he personally got oven memes on twitter and fired back, so his background stops him from truly becoming accepted as one of them.
I think he's a gateway to people like Molyneux, he's personally a more openly racist version of the mainstream GOP.
Edit - to be clear, because of the 9th point alone, the death tolls from mainstream conservatism, the alt-right, and Ben Shapiro's utopia will all be very comparable and in the hundreds of millions. So it is useful to classify them if we're trying to fight them, but in terms of the harm they do, they are close to each other.
The good thing about anyone who calls Shapiro alt-right is that you can immediately discount them as a voice of reason.
Plenty to bash him for without the ignorant hysteria. Same with Peterson or any other bog standard conservative.
Plenty to bash him for without the ignorant hysteria. Same with Peterson or any other bog standard conservative.