[rishboy77]

I'm about 1/2 through the latest episode with Kevin Hart.

In case anyone is interested usually about 6 min into start ....is a good point if you want to fast forward to avoid sponsor's Ad's

[Greyman]

Well hell...this is the straw for me apparently....

Wow. The level of word salad obfuscation and mental gymnastics to reach this Adam dude's seemingly pre-ordained talking point is utterly appalling...

Title of the snippet is:

'Are Alpha Males and Beta Males Real'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4yz-P94n0Q


Even tho Joe had over all sound levels of disbelieving, and logical rebuttals...in the end this is what we fuxking get outta Ol' Sellout Joe himself.

Joe: "I have the biggest problem with over confident men's rights guys....'cause I'm like, we have ALL the rights..."

Adam Conover laughs

Joe: "Like fucking settle down...I had a whole bit on it...divorce laws; thats it...everything else is stacked in our (mens) favor....fucking chill out you're making us look bad...."


I know I've been reading about some of you guys that are on the fuck Rogan train.

I get it now...like Shapiro or Jordan Peterson...God damn these p.o.s sellouts for taking away the few men regular dudes like me have to think are out there spittin' truth in an increasingly soy world...

Yet most of the time I do get value from many of his guests that have helped me out or I've enjoyed greatly...but...

In the end of it all...
Would I or you want him on my fire team..??

This shit makes my head hurt at times for lack of objective morality and faith in someone to believe in.

Where do I get my ticket...?

[NoMoreTO]

Fuck I am having trouble listening to this Adam Conover guy.

Conover is dropping Blue Pillzzzz like mad. Joe is just listening and not relating that well. That's aight, gotta keep it fair and balanced so we can get Roosh on there.

Male Millennial Voice Fry seems directly tied to his belief there is no such thing as Alpha. "Um like so its like my best friends are women...."

[joseph15]

(04-17-2019 07:25 PM)NoMoreTO Wrote:  

Fuck I am having trouble listening to this Adam Conover guy.

Conover is dropping Blue Pillzzzz like mad. Joe is just listening and not relating that well. That's aight, gotta keep it fair and balanced so we can get Roosh on there.

Male Millennial Voice Fry seems directly tied to his belief there is no such thing as Alpha. "Um like so its like my best friends are women...."

I agree with Conover only when he's saying that there is no literal social hierarchy like there is with animals, but that's kind of obvious. There is no black & white definition of what is an alpha male or beta male since there are too many factors involved and differing definitions.

I think Rollo Tomassi says it best though in the Rational Male. 'Alpha' is a mindset, a way of living, or an attitude towards life. Not a literal definition of someone's place in a social hierarchy which is where I think this guy is leaning towards.

However when he starts talking about men not naturally being drawn towards curves or women not being attracted to tall, athletic bodies he pretty much lost all credibility.

[thedeadgentleman]

Did you guys see this one:

Glad refers to this article from "Media Matter":

https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/0...men/223446

Were they come after Joe with that "amazing" chart:



...

Seriously. It's a private show that focus on comedy and martial arts (two subject that are obviously men centric). Of course there is more men than women. What is the point of this article? Gender quotas imposed by the government in the private sector?... Should we count the number of men/women that work are Media Matter as well?

Gaad also talk about D.I.E (that stand for: diversity inclusion and equity) which he say is the "new" religion you have to follow in public sector for success regardless to your actual value in terms of knowledge/expertise. I had no idea of this one before watching this video and I'm not even sure I'm surprised...

[Ouroboros]

(04-17-2019 07:36 PM)joseph15 Wrote:  

I agree with Conover only when he's saying that there is no literal social hierarchy like there is with animals, but that's kind of obvious. There is no black & white definition of what is an alpha male or beta male since there are too many factors involved and differing definitions.

If he was simply arguing that human social arrangements are more complex than those of animals and that it requires more analysis to identify who is an alpha, who is a beta, and why, then he would be correct. But he was explicitly ruling out the idea that there is a socio-sexual hierarchy in which alphas and betas exist, and his argument made little sense. He refers to the fact that one male can be socially dominant in one context but not another, but this just describes the concept of the 'situational alpha' - i.e. that a university professor, military general and football captain may all be alphas in their respective spheres (their modern day 'tribe') but not outside of them. This doesn't refute the concept of the alpha/beta dichotomy, it just means that it is context-specific. This isn't all that different from animals actually - a silverback gorilla or the head male lion in a pride are only alphas within their small social groups, not within the wider population of the species.

He also denied the fact that women are more attracted to alphas (i.e. men who are socially dominant/leaders), which is one of the few behaviours that is repeatedly observed across human cultures and throughout history.

Like many modern educated types, he seems very uncomfortable with the idea of biological determinism. Hence his denial not just of the biological underpinnings of attraction between humans, but also of the fact that certain traits that are partially or completely derived from genetics reliably lend themselves to social dominance (and thus 'alphaness') among men in most contexts (e.g. height, charisma, extraversion, social intelligence, strength).

[heavy]

RVF challenge, how long can you make it into the Adam Conover podcast before you throw your computer out the window.


He's basically pajamaboy

[debeguiled]

Adam Ruins Rogan.

[SeaFM]

Lol what?

This guy is possibly the biggest moron that I’ve ever seen on the podcast.

* I never heard of this guy and now “get” the joke.

[Cr33pin]

This would not stop showing up in recommended videos on YouTube so I finally watched it...... man what a shining example of a misinformed soy boy

[beta_plus]

(04-18-2019 12:07 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Adam Ruins Rogan.

Adam Ruins College Humor.

College Humor, while it was hit and a lot of misses, when it hit was god damn hilarious. "If Google Was A Guy" had me crying from laughter.

I wonder if they started to lose revenue and tried to go woke in desperation like ESPN.

[Aurini]

Gamma, gamma, gamma.

Adam is one of those 120 IQ midwits with a massive sense of self-importantce, who is desperate for the world to recognize his 'genius'; so he devotes all of his efforts to finding alternative theories and facts that 'disprove' common sense beliefs.

EG:
"Modern architecture is ugly."
"Actually, modern architecture was driven by the development of a new glue that made bricks cheaper than stones."

"Women working prevents family formation."
"Actually, divorce rates are lower amongs professional women, and a two income household allows for buying more books."

Et cetera. Note that I just made up the above BS off the top of my head; I don't know any of that for a fact. But it's the sort of post-modernist, structuralist analysis with which I'm very familliar. It sounds clever at first, but really it's nothing but excuse making and fact manipulation.

[The Catalyst]

(04-23-2019 10:25 AM)Aurini Wrote:  

Gamma, gamma, gamma.

Adam is one of those 120 IQ midwits with a massive sense of self-importantce, who is desperate for the world to recognize his 'genius'; so he devotes all of his efforts to finding alternative theories and facts that 'disprove' common sense beliefs.

EG:
"Modern architecture is ugly."
"Actually, modern architecture was driven by the development of a new glue that made bricks cheaper than stones."

"Women working prevents family formation."
"Actually, divorce rates are lower amongs professional women, and a two income household allows for buying more books."

Et cetera. Note that I just made up the above BS off the top of my head; I don't know any of that for a fact. But it's the sort of post-modernist, structuralist analysis with which I'm very familliar. It sounds clever at first, but really it's nothing but excuse making and fact manipulation.

Nomadbrah has brought it up before. thread-68599...pid1964208 Edit: He was talking about ad hominem- but I believe it does fall under the general umbrella of derailment.

(04-11-2019 01:48 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:26 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 01:21 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

(04-11-2019 12:57 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Did you ever notice that jews, non-whites agitators and feminists always argue in the same ad-hominem way?

That's of course because they all have the same origin. Jewish rethoric is effective at low information, middling IQ listeners, but not to a well informed audience as here.

I have noticed this also. In my Kiwi social circles all these non-sequiturs just derail the entire conversation as everyone chases their tails assuming the non-sequiturs are legitimate arguments because they don't actually analyse them. I don't bother listening to them for anything of substance

Also known as every debate between a leftist and a cuckservative.

Yes! I have felt like this for the longest time, where Kiwis were just all leftist and cuckservative. I couldn't be as certain/authoritative about it as I'd like since there was the possibility I was just going crazy. But I left and confirmed that normal people are not like that(at least, in typical non-heated conversation). It's so satisfying getting meaning from social connections. Instead of just like constant babbling by people who want to sound cool and think parroting others and following a certain preset framework/way of thinking is actual conversation . People actually think things through and don't always get sidetracked/derailed just because a subversive changes the narrative!(Note I realise in most places people's thinking changes with subversive narrative changes- but it doesn't happen almost every single time!)

The interesting thing with people like Adam, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson(or anti-SJW "but i'm not far right" people) etc is they are often smart enough to have their derailments be tangentially related to the original, legitimate topic. I have observed so many instances in NZ conversation where the derailment is pretty much unrelated(and it actually working!).

[trickster]

It be great if all midwits had a 120 IQ. In reality, that is a gifted level IQ. Sadly, many gifted level IQ’s have been wasted the past couple generations.

[SeaFM]

We do need to get to a place as a society where it’s ok for men with makeup and dresses to beat the shit out of women, and of course 7 year olds should also be able to make life altering decisions.

How can you guys not want this?

[debeguiled]

Adam's point: I don't remember any of the research or which study I read, but trust me because I have a smart friend who trusts the research.

Rogan lists some research.

Adam's new point: That's not what my trans friends say.

Rogan talks about people who say they regret transitioning.

Adam's new new point: That's just anecdotal.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Sounds like every political conversation I've ever had with my sister.

All that's missing is the loop from the last sentence to the second one.

[BlastbeatCasanova]

I know it’s been said already but Joe needs to have Roosh on there, shit be sick

[ThriceLazarus]

Honestly couldn’t stand listening to more than a minute of Adam - started to get that ‘punchy’ feeling, fists curling instinctively. Luckily they’ve condensed it down to a few minutes.

[VNvet]

The Graham Hancock one a few days after Adam is a much better use of your time. Connover's episode sounds like a Tucker Carlson interview where some SJW arguing clown world points gets destroyed by the natural order.

Yawn.

Hancock and Rogan had a real world conversation about very important stuff - hidden ancient history and a lost civilization. Hancock is a great springboard to anyone wanting to learn a more believable story about our origins. Plus, he has evidence to backup all his claims.

[CynicalContrarian]

(04-29-2019 08:49 AM)VNvet Wrote:  

The Graham Hancock one a few days after Adam is a much better use of your time. Connover's episode sounds like a Tucker Carlson interview where some SJW arguing clown world points gets destroyed by the natural order.

Yawn.

Hancock and Rogan had a real world conversation about very important stuff - hidden ancient history and a lost civilization. Hancock is a great springboard to anyone wanting to learn a more believable story about our origins. Plus, he has evidence to backup all his claims.
...

Do they even acknowledge the Gobekli Tepe game changer in high school history books yet?
Or are they still pushing the Sumer narrative?

[Elmore]

hancock is such boomer level hippie nonsense. the man has no pride in his own hisotry as an Englishman, it's all 'humanity's story' which in actual fact is utter supposition and stoner nonsense for the most part. he's carved out a nice little niche for himself, and is a capable writer stylistically, and i dont begrudge him doing so, but really, it is utter nonsense for the most part. He cries like a bitch when other historians show the holes in his argument, and he fails at peer review. it's borderline science fiction. nothing wrong with that, but if you believe it all, then more fool you frankly.

the correct reaction to pretty much to pretty much his entire body of work:

[alecks]

[bgbusiness]

(03-05-2019 08:22 PM)No More Mr. Soy Boy Wrote:  

At least Tim Pool did Rogan's job of challenging that bitch on Twitter and that Jack Dorsey guy in the latest episode. I don't recommend anyone wasting time watching though, it was too formal for a Joe Rogan podcast and that woman from Twitter was just too annoying to listen to.

I think their hypocrisy came became quite evident at times, like when they were talking about misgendering people. It's a strange world we live in when two of the people on the head of the pole of one of the most well-known companies in the world talks as if people can decide what gender they want to be. Or when a young CEO looks like a homeless person; skinny slob with shitty posture, cap indoors, bad beard and a nosering.

I saw the first interview with Jack Dorsey. Just Joe Rogan & Jack Dorsey.
I listened to it mostly when I was driving to a place, listened here and there over couple days.

I don't think it wasn't a bad interview, it was just a basic interview. Not amazing, but not so bad.

I don't understand the HATE.

What was Joe supposed to do? Be super aggressive when he has a billionaire tech CEO infront of him? How are other CEOs supposed to come to his interview if Joe treats him poorly? How would any other tech CEOs of high executive members supposed to come and do this hour long interview without having second thoughts?

I just don't get it. People's entitlement is super high. I thanked the technology, even YouTube and for my ability to watch this interview online without much barrier or force blocking me from watching it seamlessly.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Face it - Joe Rogan is part of the mainstream.

Tim Pool on the other hand - he opposes sometimes the mainstream even while being a leftie. His channel is partly de-monetized or by now completely demonetized.

Joe Rogan is just a sellout with some more alternative or edgy content. When you listen to him closely then you realize that:

1) He is smarter than he makes out to be - his persona being part of the show

2) He clearly tows the globalist party line on most essential subjects that they care about - he knows how far he can go

His main value comes from some of his wild guests out there - some crazy and some true or entertaining. Good for him - he carved out a good niche as part of the mainstream media empire - all while appearing independent. But that is nothing new - the CIA is known to have co-sponsored many of the so-called patriot radio conspiracy stations in the 1980s to 1990s.