[DarkTriad]

(09-11-2017 08:03 PM)The Catalyst Wrote:  

Joe Rogan (unintentionally?) shows how butthurt Kiwis get over things. In case you didn't know, it was semi-big news in NZ media that he "disrespected" the haka(something Kiwis do before sport as part of our culture) in one of his podcasts. Now he does an "apology" (If I thought that many Kiwis would get pissed off ) which Kiwis will probably accept at face value not realising it was also a subtle dig and how easily offended Kiwis are.



An article the previous day: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/art...d=11920873

Quote:

'You dummies': US TV host Joe Rogan slams haka

Joe Rogan slams NZ Haka saying that 'it seems stupid.'

US commentator and former television host Joe Rogan has slammed the haka as "stupid" in one of his latest podcasts.

The actor and MMA expert took aim at the traditional Maori war cry in an interview with actor Hannibal Buress.

The pair were discussing the ability to control the state of the mind when Rogan questioned why native Americans would perform a war cry before battle.

But they soon took aim at the native Maori Haka.

"The haka, is that a New Zealand thing?" Rogan asked Buress.

"There is the video of them [the New Zealand Basketball team] playing the USA team, they're doing this elaborate thing and just energetic. They cut to the USA team and they looked confused," Buress said.

Joe Rogan then cut in, and asked: "They're doing it in a basketball game?

"This is ridiculous, they're playing basketball. You're playing NBA superstars you f**king dummies... It seems stupid. If you're playing basketball it's stupid.

"It's a performance art. The other players clapped. They're like 'good job children!'.

"It's weird if you do all of that then get your ass kicked."

However, Maori Party co-leader Marama Fox hit back at Rogan's claims, saying the former Fear Factor host is way off the mark.

"Obviously he has no understanding of indigenous culture in his own country or around the world," she told the Herald.

"It shows a very close-minded point of view and I invite him to come to New Zealand and we can show him how to do it properly and give him a lesson on what it really means."

Rogan and Buress pointed fun at the Tall Blacks' performance, questioning their reasoning for doing the haka despite the fact they'd likely get thoroughly beaten by the USA.

Fox rubbished their views on the haka, telling the Herald the traditional Maori war cry was a symbol for many uses and meanings.

"The haka is an expression used for so many things - as a sign of respect, the haka is used to get the blood pumping when you go into battle.

"When you're ready to get out there and play your game and put your best foot forward.

"It's not about trying to intimidate the other team, it's about getting yourself pumped up and being ready.

"Kiwis have made the haka their own. And we perform is with pride. We've been doing it across this nation and across a number of sports for a long time. It's an ownership of the whole nation and it shows the value of Maori culture to everyday Kiwis.

"When it is performed on the world stage as representatives of our nation they are showing what we are all about and embracing Maori culture.

"Everyday Kiwis perform the haka because they love it and it brings pride to ourselves and our nation."

I think the Haka is really cool. I also think it's silly and out of place in a basketball game in America. Totally appropriate at an American football or Rugby game, but not basketball (or golf). Might have been appropriate for 70's-80's basketball which was a tougher, more physical game.

[Zona]

(09-14-2017 03:05 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Peterson is incredible to listen to, I've never listened to anyone so knowledgeable who can pour out and share it in such an articulate way, as people that intelligent/obsessed are often socially inept.

I know he's hardly news to the forum but previously I'd only read some written work by/about him, so watching a video with him in it was very interesting. I'm now hooked.

Rogan still has too many dead-beat guests. Can anyone outside of the MMA world honestly say another Eddie Bravo appearance would arouse their interest?

The best podcasts are the ones with people who are either extremely famous (Bilzerian), extremely intelligent (Peterson) or just a bit of a mad man (Alex Jones).

Agreed on Peterson. There aren't many people who articulate such complex ideas with the fluidity that he does. He's definitely one of the true intellectual powerhouses of our day.

Regarding the deadbeat guests, maybe it's because I've been listening to Rogan's podcast since the very beginning, but I still have a soft spot for guys like Eddie and Joey Diaz. I used to love listening to them and their stupid, but often hilarious conversations, and as an MMA fan I still enjoy some the stuff with guys like Eddie and Brendan Schaub.

That being said, I no longer have much desire to waste time on pointless bullshit, so I mostly avoid those podcasts now. Even though I still like Eddie, there are times when he's nearly unbearable, like during the Alex Jones podcast when he was just a distraction.

So yeah, I get where you're coming from and to an extent I agree. However, JRE has such a diverse audience that I think Joe tries to touch all the bases. He also enjoys having his buddies on even if some of them are annoying as shit, but there's nothing wrong with that. I just skip those episodes now and only listen to the good ones that interest me.

[TooFineAPoint]

I think the Schaub episodes are consistent second bests, just behind Peterson and Jones types episodes.

I love the format of long form listening in to the conversation of two buddies riffing on things they love.

And surprisingly, podcasts where Rogan gets to be the star (like the one with Chris D'Elia) come out of nowhere to be really interesting. Chris let Joe go into some interesting directions, and frankly it ended up being more interesting than Chris's last few comedy specials (I ended up watching all of them as a result of that podcast).

[Conscious Pirate]

Oh I've been meaning to ask you fellas what you thought of the podcast Rogan did awhile ago with Rupert Sheldrake, the guy exploring morphic resonance.

top comment

Quote:

Fucking hell. The comments below are hilarious. Lots of vitriol, accusations of pseudoscience, hate, name calling, ad hominems, etc, yet what is completely lacking is any kind of direct reference of what Mr Sheldrake is saying and direct counter arguments to any of the points that he makes. He spoke for three hours people, more than enough time for people to directly attack the message rather than the messenger, yet all people can do in these comments is attack the person?

Thoughts boys? I find it all quite intriguing. The sense of being stared at is something I have long pondered, especially given my hyper-vigilance PTSD.

Anyone else have some experiences to share?