Is revealed by his top 10 most popular episodes.

10. Russell Brand
  9. Katt Williams
  8. Graham Hancock and Randall Carson
  7. Randall Carson
  6. Graham Hancock
  6. Alex Jones and Tim Dillon
  4. Elon Musk
  3. Edward Snowden
  2. Donald Trump
  1. Bob Lazar and Jeremy Corbell

The bolded italics are outright conspiracy theorists of the paranoid kind.

The bolded are secondary conspiracy theorists whose main focus is 'alternative science'.

Only one is a stand-up comedian (two if you count Trump).

These episodes have to-date amassed view counts from 21 million to 62 million on YouTube alone, totalling 337 million.

Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality.

They are typically tailored for individuals who are accustomed to being corrected for drawing incorrect conclusions, whether due to being ill-informed or simply struggling to understand a situation. These corrections often come from family members, teachers, colleagues, or even strangers on the internet who possess a deeper grasp of the subject at hand.

It's humiliating being wrong so often, but worse being called out about it.

For such individuals, being part of a community that validates their beliefs is intoxicating. It provides a sense of vindication: They finally have the truth, and no one can correct them anymore. This validation feels akin to receiving an overdue embrace from an absent or neglectful parent, a form of emotional fulfilment they might have lacked in earlier life.

It’s hardly surprising that this kind of content is so popular on Rogan's pod.

Conspiracies are crafted to appeal to the Rogan-style audience: simplified for mass consumption and delivering a potent dopamine hit of self-assuredness. When someone believes they’ve been proven “right,” it feels deeply rewarding, irrespective of the accuracy of their conclusions.

As someone who’s subscribed to his podcast for years, I understand the appeal. I don’t listen to every episode, but I tune in when he hosts guests I find interesting. His platform, however, often amplifies narratives that are far easier to monetise than rigorous science or critical thinking.

The unfortunate truth is that there’s little financial incentive in promoting real science.

While there are exceptional science communicators doing admirable work, the lack of controversy means they rarely attract significant sponsorships or public attention. Unlike pseudoscience and conspiracies, real science doesn’t thrive on polarising headlines or free publicity, it simply presents the evidence, without the drama.

For those interested, here are some science communicators I personally enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/@AsapSCIENCE
https://www.youtube.com/@besmart
https://www.youtube.com/@CleoAbram
https://www.youtube.com/@Computerphile
https://www.youtube.com/@kurzgesagt
https://www.youtube.com/@kylehill
https://www.youtube.com/@MarkRober
https://www.youtube.com/@ncalib
https://www.youtube.com/@NileRed
https://www.youtube.com/@numberphile
https://www.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime
https://www.youtube.com/@physicsgirl (She's battling long COVID which is a sad)
https://www.youtube.com/@therealsamreid
https://www.youtube.com/@SciManDan
https://www.youtube.com/@SciShow
https://www.youtube.com/@scishowspace
https://www.youtube.com/@smartereveryday
https://www.youtube.com/@veritasium
https://www.youtube.com/@Vsauce
https://www.youtube.com/@Vsauce2
https://www.youtube.com/@Vsauce3

However, they don’t provoke the same visceral, emotional reaction from their audience. In fact, more often than not, they present information that challenges deeply held beliefs, forcing viewers to confront the uncomfortable reality that they might have been wrong, the opposite of Rogan highlighting an easy conspiracy to understand no matter how outlandish it is.

This dynamic makes it clear why Rogan’s top 10 episodes resonate the way they do. His content feeds confirmation bias and emotional gratification, while genuine scientific inquiry demands introspection and intellectual effort, qualities that, unfortunately, don’t drive mass appeal.

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 4:48pm:

Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality.

;D ;D ;D
Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated.

We all start out as conspiracy theorists...

All children believe some people/things are out to get them - bullies, teachers, monsters under the bed who have conned mum and dad they don't exist... etc... etc... etc...

Kids also easily believe in magic and the existence of mystical beings...

Some of us attain adulthood with these belief capacities intact, some are just schitzy, while others feel a genuine exhilaration in believing the unbelievable or barely believable - Rogan is of the last kind or, at least, has evolved into it.

Rogan has interviewed too many convincing scientists - experts in their field, to be naive about what he chooses to believe... but, it seems that mundane explanations are not for him and the expert guest is usually met with a slight degree of despondency or boredom from Rogan - although he is remarkably skilled at not making it too obvious.

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 4:48pm:

Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. They are typically tailored for individuals who are accustomed to being corrected for drawing incorrect conclusions, whether due to being ill-informed or simply struggling to understand a situation. These corrections often come from family members, teachers, colleagues, or even strangers on the internet who possess a deeper grasp of the subject at hand. It's humiliating being wrong so often, but worse being called out about it. For such individuals, being part of a community that validates their beliefs is intoxicating. It provides a sense of vindication: They finally have the truth, and no one can correct them anymore. This validation feels akin to receiving an overdue embrace from an absent or neglectful parent, a form of emotional fulfilment they might have lacked in earlier life. It’s hardly surprising that this kind of content is so popular on Rogan's pod. Conspiracies are crafted to appeal to the Rogan-style audience: simplified for mass consumption and delivering a potent dopamine hit of self-assuredness. When someone believes they’ve been proven “right,” it feels deeply rewarding, irrespective of the accuracy of their conclusions. As someone who’s subscribed to his podcast for years, I understand the appeal. I don’t listen to every episode, but I tune in when he hosts guests I find interesting. His platform, however, often amplifies narratives that are far easier to monetise than rigorous science or critical thinking. The unfortunate truth is that there’s little financial incentive in promoting real science. While there are exceptional science communicators doing admirable work, the lack of controversy means they rarely attract significant sponsorships or public attention. Unlike pseudoscience and conspiracies, real science doesn’t thrive on polarising headlines or free publicity, it simply presents the evidence, without the drama. For those interested, here are some science communicators I personally enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/@AsapSCIENCE https://www.youtube.com/@besmart https://www.youtube.com/@CleoAbram https://www.youtube.com/@Computerphile https://www.youtube.com/@kurzgesagt https://www.youtube.com/@kylehill https://www.youtube.com/@MarkRober https://www.youtube.com/@ncalib https://www.youtube.com/@NileRed https://www.youtube.com/@numberphile https://www.youtube.com/@pbsspacetime https://www.youtube.com/@physicsgirl (She's battling long COVID which is a sad) https://www.youtube.com/@therealsamreid https://www.youtube.com/@SciManDan https://www.youtube.com/@SciShow https://www.youtube.com/@scishowspace https://www.youtube.com/@smartereveryday https://www.youtube.com/@veritasium https://www.youtube.com/@Vsauce https://www.youtube.com/@Vsauce2 https://www.youtube.com/@Vsauce3 However, they don’t provoke the same visceral, emotional reaction from their audience. In fact, more often than not, they present information that challenges deeply held beliefs, forcing viewers to confront the uncomfortable reality that they might have been wrong, the opposite of Rogan highlighting an easy conspiracy to understand no matter how outlandish it is. This dynamic makes it clear why Rogan’s top 10 episodes resonate the way they do. His content feeds confirmation bias and emotional gratification, while genuine scientific inquiry demands introspection and intellectual effort, qualities that, unfortunately, don’t drive mass appeal.

every truth is but a half truth.

rogan is an entertainer and great communicator and doesnt pretend to be anything more.

and what are we to make of science when it sells out to the financer of the science

when kelloggs and coca cola fund all the science around nutrition?
when the heads of the FDA nearly all end up working for big pharma?


The biotech industry’s web of attempts to buy credibility, by laundering its messages through supposedly independent academic scientists, is unraveling and beginning to reveal the influence of a huge amount of industry money on the independence of academic agricultural science. Some of this process was revealed recently in The New York Times. Many of these efforts to influence policy or public opinion start with industry staff emails, including suggested topics, points, and themes, which are then laundered through the credibility of academic scientists. It is a matter of academic scientists promoting positions and arguments of the industry, not merely a sharing of positions that each party already held and were acting on.

The emails from several academic scientists linked in the NYT article show numerous instances of industry personnel, such as Eric Sachs of Monsanto, in ongoing dialogue with academic scientists, including strategizing about how to influence policy and how academic scientists can carry out industry desires.

A deeper dive into the emails coming forward through this article and from U.S. Right to Know public disclosure efforts shows a broader and more troubling picture of influence peddling in the agricultural sciences.

The overriding issue is the huge amount of money from the biotech and ...

and industrial agriculture industries pouring into public universities, and the corrosive effect all that money is having on the independence of science. Evidence suggests that biotech industry influence is a pervasive problem, corrupting science and distorting public discussion. It extends much farther than the specific examples provided by the New York Times article. As with the climate change debate, where a powerful fossil fuel industry is slowing response to an environmental and social disaster, the biotech industry and industrial agriculture more broadly is delaying choices that would move us toward an urgently needed sustainable and just food and agriculture system.

The emails linked to the New York Times article also reveals some of the many other academic scientists, who have vocally supported biotech or panned biotech critics, and were copied on industry emails. We should not implicate scientists in greenwashing or collusion with the biotech industry simply for being copied on emails, or even some communication with companies. It is not clear from these emails whether those other scientists have also engaged in collaboration with the industry, or accepted industry money. But the efforts of many of these scientists to vigorously defend biotechnology or even attack critics have been documented elsewhere.

There is no reason to think this money buys less influence in academia than the widely recognized corrupting influence that money has on politics. Unlike academic science though, no one has illusions that our political process is objective. The perceived objectivity of academic scientists presents a huge opportunity for the biotech industry to influence public opinion in ways it could not accomplish otherwise.

A Tangled Web

Since the NYT article was published, several of these scientists have doubled down, saying that they have been proud to serve a cause they believe in. And I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. These scientists are effective in their spokesperson roles in part because of their backgrounds in molecular biology, the deep interest in which preceded their involvement with the ag biotech industry.

But this misses the point, which is that the collaboration with industry, its public relations machines, such as Ketchum, and access to industry dollars, allows these scientists to amplify their voices with the journalists and the media, the public, and policymakers way beyond what could otherwise occur.

As one small example, Bruce Chassy, an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois, bemoans the challenges of flying economy class (all he can afford, he says) to participate as an invited speaker at a biotech conference in New Delhi. He strongly implies he would not endure such tribulations, and would skip the meeting without industry support. In an August 29, 2011 email to Eric Sachs of Monsanto, he suggests that the ag industry trade group CropLife, of which Monsanto and other biotech companies are members, pay his way (Chassy was listed as a speaker at the event). In a separate email, Monsanto’s Sachs also suggests to Chassy that he participate in an American Medical Association meeting to try to dissuade the AMA from supporting mandatory labeling of GE foods.

That academic scientists recognize the value of their perceived independence is suggested in an email from University of Florida Scientist Kevin Folta to Monsanto’s Keith Reding, Regulatory Policy Lead, on April 17, 2013: “keep me in mind if you ever need a good public interface with no corporate ties. That knows the subject inside out and can think on his feet [emphasis added].”

In another example from the NYT article, Dow reminds David Shaw, a Mississippi State University weed scientist, of its generosity. And an email to Shaw on Jan 17, 2012 from John Jachetta, Government affairs leader at Dow AgroSciences, urges Shaw to submit comments to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to approve Dow’s Enlist soybeans, and provides three pages of helpful suggestions about topics and arguments. The Enlist crops are resistant to glyphosate and 2,4-D herbicides, and are the industry’s response to the epidemic of glyphosate resistant weeds caused by the first generation of glyphosate resistant crops. This strategy has been criticized as futile and one that will lead to greatly increased herbicide use and more herbicide resistance.

In a February 20, 2012 email from Shaw back to Jachetta, Shaw supplies his draft comments and asks for feedback from Dow.

In several emails in the spring of 2013, John Sorteres of Monsanto coordinates activities with both Shaw and, apparently, Prof. Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, on how to counter public comments to APHIS that argue against approval of Monsanto’s dicamba resistant crops, including detailed arguments and analyses. Dicamba is an herbicide similar to 2,4-D.

An August 30, 2013 email from Mississippi State acknowledges unrestricted gifts from Monsanto to Dr. Shaw and four other faculty members.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:05pm:

rogan is an entertainer and great communicator and doesnt pretend to be anything more.

Yes, he says that, but he knows his audience reach and yet does not take that into account when he starts winging it on subjects he knows that he knows nothing about, or when he repeats half-arsed understood facts he's gleaned from informed, expert guests, gets it all wrong, then laughs it off... rinse and repeat.

Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 4:49pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. ;D ;D ;D Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated.

You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home.

But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable.

Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy?

You're confusing science with capitalism Scoot.

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:16pm:

You're confusing science with capitalism Scoot.

so are all the scientists at the various regulatory authorities  ::)

One of the few times Rogan publicly showed more than a bit of humility over one of his cock-ups was during and after the interview with Australian Josh Szeps over instances of myocarditis in unvaccinated boys over vaccinated ones.

Rogan maintained that there was a greater risk of boys developing myocarditis after vaccination than before.

Szeps corrected Rogan and, when Rogan did a 'pull that up, Jamie', he found Szeps was right. - boys were 8 times more likely to get myocarditis from covid than from the vaccine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_31l9XIzswI

Rogan later tweeted 'that video was cringy, but it's what happens when you stumble in a long-form podcast when you don't know a subject was going to come up and you wing it'

Gee, Joe... maybe just don't wing it on subjects as serious as that!

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:15pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:49pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. ;D ;D ;D Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated. You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home. But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable. Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy?

You are a laughable, pompous fool, as is Meister Icky.

Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory.  You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be  a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest.

So here you are, silly old remnants, smelling conspiracy theories!
No. You are just boring. Pontificating, "Look at me, instead,  I know better" Bbwianesque types are boring. It's not a conspiracy.
You are not compelling. It's not the other guy's fault.

Think of something, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, that we didn't read or hear on the ABC or Granuiad 3 days ago. Go on.

Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 6:05pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 5:15pm: Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:49pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. ;D ;D ;D Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated. You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home. But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable. Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy? You are a laughable, pompous fool, as is Meister Icky. Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory.  You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be  a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest. So here you are, silly old remnants, smelling conspiracy theories! No. You are just boring. Pontificating, "Look at me, instead,  I know better" Bbwianesque types are boring. It's not a conspiracy. You are not compelling. It's not the other guy's fault. Think of something, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, that we didn't read or hear on the ABC or Granuiad 3 days ago. Go on.

Is your local bottle shop having some sort of crazy pre-Christmas sale?

Hilarious when a poster blasts other posters for being pompous with bitchy old-womanish pomposity.

Agatha, much?

Thank you for conspicuously avoiding the point.

Did you not understand it?  Of course you did.
That is why you immediately switched. No other reason at all. It was predictably stupid years ago, it is predictably stupid now. It is all you - predictably stupid. Sad, icky, turdy flapper, Bbwiyawn -  same mental universe.





Quote:

Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory.  You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be  a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest.

Run from that.

Agatha usually gets out his boy-c~nt after a certain Queensland farmer has posted.

I bet that's written on toilet walls close to centres of learning, or something like it.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 6:43pm:

Agatha usually gets out his boy-c~nt after a certain Queensland farmer has posted. I bet that's written on toilet walls close to centres of learning, or something like it.

That sounds like a conspiracy theory, ya silly old poseur.

Whoosh! Over your pompous head.

Yep... Agatha's out again. One hand on his poseur.

At least Brian just posts a yawn.

You stupid old freaks are kvetching about who listens to Joe Rogan.

And then you construct an entire conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories out of that.

And when you are reminded that you are stupid old farts, you instantly go '50s macho sheep sheerers in blue singlets.

Laughable.

Macho sheep shearers in blue singlets, eh Agatha! Like a Queensland farmer?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 7:04pm:

Macho sheep shearers in blue singlets, eh Agatha! Like a Queensland farmer?

Hahaha! You are sooo sophisticated.
Like an illiterate Scots highlander? Aborighine?

The distance between your high minded 'look at Rogan, pleb conspiracy theorist' and instant fat school boy jeering when called out is miniscule. You pretend both times.
Meister Pretend.
Icky.

Aborighine, eh! Dyslexic much?

Should Agatha be referencing schoolboys in public posts? Or is it OK is he's not in a toilet?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 7:23pm:

Aborighine, eh! Dyslexic much? Should Agatha be referencing schoolboys in public posts? Or is it OK is he's not in a toilet?

Aborighine is correct. Short for Epponnee-Raelene Kathleen Darlene Charlene Craig.

What is the aborighine word for aborighine? How do THEY spell it??
(Trick question)

Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist, that's what you call anyone who has a broader mind than normal.

This also opens them up to ridicule, some like Joe are tough enough to handle it. Those that are not tough enough are driven into isolation and silenced.

In fact conspiracy theorists can sometimes enhance our lives if we learn to open our minds, I'm not suggesting you believe any theories but learn to engage and understand massive differences we can have and still be respectful. that is real diversity, not mud slinging anyone we don't agree with,

Leroy wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 8:27pm:

Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist, that's what you call anyone who has a broader mind than normal. This also opens them up to ridicule, some like Joe are tough enough to handle it. Those that are not tough enough are driven into isolation and silenced. In fact conspiracy theorists can sometimes enhance our lives if we learn to open our minds, I'm not suggesting you believe any theories but learn to engage and understand massive differences we can have and still be respectful. that is real diversity, not mud slinging anyone we don't agree with,

Yes, Rogan, himself, calls himself one. He says it took him years to be reasoned out of the moon landing 'hoax'.

It's fine to be a conspiracy theorist... so long as you are aware of it. Schitzy people are typically conspiracy theorists but have no awareness of it and often demand their close relatives and friends believe them and deeply resent being asked to prove their theories.

They usually make giant leaps of logic without feeling the need to explain or investigate how they got there... like Michelle Obama is a man, without explaining where she got Mahlia and Sasha... or the moon landing is a hoax... the first one? Or all of them?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist, that's what you call anyone who has a broader mind than normal. This also opens them up to ridicule, some like Joe are tough enough to handle it. Those that are not tough enough are driven into isolation and silenced. In fact conspiracy theorists can sometimes enhance our lives if we learn to open our minds, I'm not suggesting you believe any theories but learn to engage and understand massive differences we can have and still be respectful. that is real diversity, not mud slinging anyone we don't agree with, Yes, Rogan, himself, calls himself one. He says it took him years to be reasoned out of the moon landing 'hoax'. It's fine to be a conspiracy theorist... so long as you are aware of it. Schitzy people are typically conspiracy theorists but have no awareness of it and often demand their close relatives and friends believe them and deeply resent being asked to prove their theories. They usually make giant leaps of logic without feeling the need to explain or investigate how they got there... like Michelle Obama is a man, without explaining where she got Mahlia and Sasha... or the moon landing is a hoax... the first one? Or all of them?

Michelle Obama is a trigger joke from this video, no one actually believes it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCR296G7hQ

Leroy wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 9:00pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Leroy wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist, that's what you call anyone who has a broader mind than normal. This also opens them up to ridicule, some like Joe are tough enough to handle it. Those that are not tough enough are driven into isolation and silenced. In fact conspiracy theorists can sometimes enhance our lives if we learn to open our minds, I'm not suggesting you believe any theories but learn to engage and understand massive differences we can have and still be respectful. that is real diversity, not mud slinging anyone we don't agree with, Yes, Rogan, himself, calls himself one. He says it took him years to be reasoned out of the moon landing 'hoax'. It's fine to be a conspiracy theorist... so long as you are aware of it. Schitzy people are typically conspiracy theorists but have no awareness of it and often demand their close relatives and friends believe them and deeply resent being asked to prove their theories. They usually make giant leaps of logic without feeling the need to explain or investigate how they got there... like Michelle Obama is a man, without explaining where she got Mahlia and Sasha... or the moon landing is a hoax... the first one? Or all of them? Michelle Obama is a trigger joke from this video, no one actually believes it. [] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCR296G7hQ[]

George Galloway calls her 'Big Mike' on his YouTube channel.

Another one... Stevie Wonder isn't blind!

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 8:42pm:

Leroy wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist, that's what you call anyone who has a broader mind than normal. This also opens them up to ridicule, some like Joe are tough enough to handle it. Those that are not tough enough are driven into isolation and silenced. In fact conspiracy theorists can sometimes enhance our lives if we learn to open our minds, I'm not suggesting you believe any theories but learn to engage and understand massive differences we can have and still be respectful. that is real diversity, not mud slinging anyone we don't agree with, Yes, Rogan, himself, calls himself one. He says it took him years to be reasoned out of the moon landing 'hoax'. It's fine to be a conspiracy theorist... so long as you are aware of it. Schitzy people are typically conspiracy theorists but have no awareness of it and often demand their close relatives and friends believe them and deeply resent being asked to prove their theories. They usually make giant leaps of logic without feeling the need to explain or investigate how they got there... like Michelle Obama is a man, without explaining where she got Mahlia and Sasha... or the moon landing is a hoax... the first one? Or all of them?

Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist - that is your conspiracy theory.

Hello??!!

Joe Rogan calls himself a conspiracy theorist. He says he prefers them to banal facts.

He often bemoans a debunked theory after Jamie 'pulls up' evidence via a search engine disproving his 'theory' by saying, 'Damn... I really wanted my version to be true!'

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 9:28pm:

Joe Rogan calls himself a conspiracy theorist. He says he prefers them to banal facts. He often bemoans a debunked theory after Jamie 'pulls up' evidence via a search engine disproving his 'theory' by saying, 'Damn... I really wanted my version to be true!'

And you poo your pants over this, in multiple threads?

Albo fights Tories. There's a conspiracy theory.  Faruqi aint a Pakistani Muslim, nor Payman an Afghan muslim, but true blue Aussie parliamentarians.  Kamala Harris would have brought great joy, and Joe Biden is the sharpest prez eva.  Putin fights for Russia, Zelensky fight for Ukraine. China is a benevolent cuddly panda.

Joe Rogan, however, is a conspiracy theorist. How OMG!!

What's Agatha been renamed to, again?

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 9:40pm:

What's Agatha been renamed to, again?

A conspiracy theory, knowing you...

The whole world that doesn't agree with you is a giant conspiracy. You cant possibly be wrong, it MUST be some conspiracy that people do not see things your way.

Agatha's new member name, then is?

Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 9:54pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 9:40pm: What's Agatha been renamed to, again? A conspiracy theory, knowing you... The whole world that doesn't agree with you is a giant conspiracy. You cant possibly be wrong, it MUST be some conspiracy that people do not see things your way.

rogan like trump has enormous power

he has it because he is an excellent communicator

he "gets" people

the left dont

they insult people and people feel this "ikk" factor about them

we all know its true

if you took karnal or bwian or gweg or carl to  a suburban backyard BBQ they would be ostracised in the corner

you take rogan or donald and people would be charmed and mesmerised and lining up to get the validation of the natural alpha and to get into the vibe of the natural winner


rogan and trump are winners because they have this gift

imagine biden, pelosi, harris at a party?
its very very sad  :'( :'(

aquascoot wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:21pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 5:16pm: You're confusing science with capitalism Scoot. so are all the scientists at the various regulatory authorities  ::)

What you've been complaining about is the results of unbridled capitalism, not science or the scientific process.

Those exploiting it for profit over the truth are not adhering to the tenets of systematic and self-correcting method of inquiry aimed at understanding and explaining phenomena in the natural and social worlds.

I'm not suggesting a better system, but I just know what your problem is actually with.

aquascoot wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 5:19am:

Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 9:54pm: MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 9:40pm: What's Agatha been renamed to, again? A conspiracy theory, knowing you... The whole world that doesn't agree with you is a giant conspiracy. You cant possibly be wrong, it MUST be some conspiracy that people do not see things your way. rogan like trump has enormous power he has it because he is an excellent communicator he "gets" people the left dont they insult people and people feel this "ikk" factor about them we all know its true if you took karnal or bwian or gweg or carl to  a suburban backyard BBQ they would be ostracised in the corner you take rogan or donald and people would be charmed and mesmerised and lining up to get the validation of the natural alpha and to get into the vibe of the natural winner rogan and trump are winners because they have this gift imagine biden, pelosi, harris at a party? its very very sad  :'( :'(

My god you write some breathtakingly immature, unsophisticated horseshit.

Do you really think Trump or Rogan would work better at a party with the friends of the people you've listed? Are you so truly oblivious that you think such personalities are revered unilaterally?

And enough already with your "popular makes it good" crap. Coke? McDonalds? KFC?

You are nothing short of a pimp for absolute garbage.

Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 6:05pm:

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 5:15pm: Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:49pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. ;D ;D ;D Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated. You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home. But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable. Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy? You are a laughable, pompous fool, as is Meister Icky. Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory.  You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be  a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest. So here you are, silly old remnants, smelling conspiracy theories! No. You are just boring. Pontificating, "Look at me, instead,  I know better" Bbwianesque types are boring. It's not a conspiracy. You are not compelling. It's not the other guy's fault.

I clearly hit a nerve with that one.

If you've rejected my interpretation of the results, why would you suggest the majority of his most popular episodes all focus on conspiracy theories and those pushing them?

if it's not because they're easy to digest and make the listener feel good about themselves for being able to understand them or have their beliefs validated for once in their lives, then why do you propose they're so popular?

[/quote]Think of something, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, that we didn't read or hear on the ABC or Granuiad 3 days ago. Go on.[/quote]

If you’re suggesting my observations and opinions are borrowed wholesale, then let me commend you on your staggering projection. It’s rich coming from someone who parrots the same uncredited sources time and again, yet conveniently declines to cite them here.

If you’re so certain I’ve lifted my arguments, surely you’ve uncovered the original source you claim I’ve plagiarised. So, by all means, share it with the rest of us, unless, of course, your goal is merely to dismiss my points without engaging with them.

In doing so, you reveal nothing except your inability to argue in good faith, relying instead on projection to deflect from your own intellectual laziness.


Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 6:40pm:

Thank you for conspicuously avoiding the point.

Indeed.

Leroy wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 9:00pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 8:42pm: Leroy wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 8:27pm: Joe Rogan is a conspiracy theorist, that's what you call anyone who has a broader mind than normal. This also opens them up to ridicule, some like Joe are tough enough to handle it. Those that are not tough enough are driven into isolation and silenced. In fact conspiracy theorists can sometimes enhance our lives if we learn to open our minds, I'm not suggesting you believe any theories but learn to engage and understand massive differences we can have and still be respectful. that is real diversity, not mud slinging anyone we don't agree with, Yes, Rogan, himself, calls himself one. He says it took him years to be reasoned out of the moon landing 'hoax'. It's fine to be a conspiracy theorist... so long as you are aware of it. Schitzy people are typically conspiracy theorists but have no awareness of it and often demand their close relatives and friends believe them and deeply resent being asked to prove their theories. They usually make giant leaps of logic without feeling the need to explain or investigate how they got there... like Michelle Obama is a man, without explaining where she got Mahlia and Sasha... or the moon landing is a hoax... the first one? Or all of them? Michelle Obama is a trigger joke from this video, no one actually believes it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApCR296G7hQ

Bobbi?

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 6:22am:

Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 6:05pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 5:15pm: Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:49pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. ;D ;D ;D Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated. You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home. But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable. Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy? You are a laughable, pompous fool, as is Meister Icky. Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory.  You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be  a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest. So here you are, silly old remnants, smelling conspiracy theories! No. You are just boring. Pontificating, "Look at me, instead,  I know better" Bbwianesque types are boring. It's not a conspiracy. You are not compelling. It's not the other guy's fault. I clearly hit a nerve with that one. If you've rejected my interpretation of the results, why would you suggest the majority of his most popular episodes all focus on conspiracy theories and those pushing them? if it's not because they're easy to digest and make the listener feel good about themselves for being able to understand them or have their beliefs validated for once in their lives, then why do you propose they're so popular?

Think of something, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, that we didn't read or hear on the ABC or Granuiad 3 days ago. Go on.[/quote]

If you’re suggesting my observations and opinions are borrowed wholesale, then let me commend you on your staggering projection. It’s rich coming from someone who parrots the same uncredited sources time and again, yet conveniently declines to cite them here.

If you’re so certain I’ve lifted my arguments, surely you’ve uncovered the original source you claim I’ve plagiarised. So, by all means, share it with the rest of us, unless, of course, your goal is merely to dismiss my points without engaging with them.

In doing so, you reveal nothing except your inability to argue in good faith, relying instead on projection to deflect from your own intellectual laziness.


Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 6:40pm:

Thank you for conspicuously avoiding the point.

Indeed.
[/quote]

**enter - stage left, fell and wrath - the eloquent interlocatur and Educated Judge Of All Mankind**

Interlocatur: YOU bastard!  Enthralled by News Of The Sky like all the others
I assume not here
But simply state Reality
Based on my unerring observation and arcane knowledge
Handed down to me
By The Gods!

Chorus:  Enter the Voice Of the Gods
Enter, Enter..
Fill the Infidel with Fear
Enter, enter....
Rogan was but joshing ... lo... lo ....

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 6:22am:

Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 6:05pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 5:15pm: Frank wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:49pm: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 4:48pm: Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality. ;D ;D ;D Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision,  interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated. You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home. But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable. Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy? You are a laughable, pompous fool, as is Meister Icky. Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory.  You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be  a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest. So here you are, silly old remnants, smelling conspiracy theories! No. You are just boring. Pontificating, "Look at me, instead,  I know better" Bbwianesque types are boring. It's not a conspiracy. You are not compelling. It's not the other guy's fault. I clearly hit a nerve with that one. If you've rejected my interpretation of the results, why would you suggest the majority of his most popular episodes all focus on conspiracy theories and those pushing them? if it's not because they're easy to digest and make the listener feel good about themselves for being able to understand them or have their beliefs validated for once in their lives, then why do you propose they're so popular?

Think of something, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, that we didn't read or hear on the ABC or Granuiad 3 days ago. Go on.[/quote]

If you’re suggesting my observations and opinions are borrowed wholesale, then let me commend you on your staggering projection. It’s rich coming from someone who parrots the same uncredited sources time and again, yet conveniently declines to cite them here.

If you’re so certain I’ve lifted my arguments, surely you’ve uncovered the original source you claim I’ve plagiarised. So, by all means, share it with the rest of us, unless, of course, your goal is merely to dismiss my points without engaging with them.

In doing so, you reveal nothing except your inability to argue in good faith, relying instead on projection to deflect from your own intellectual laziness.


Frank wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 6:40pm:

Thank you for conspicuously avoiding the point.

Indeed.
[/quote]


**enter - stage left, fell and wrath - the eloquent interlocatur and Educated Judge Of All Mankind**

Interlocatur: YOU bastard!  Enthralled by News Of The Sky like all the others
I assume not here
But simply state Reality
Based on my unerring observation and arcane knowledge
Handed down to me
By The Gods!

Chorus:  Enter the Voice Of the Gods
Enter, Enter..
Fill the Infidel with Fear
Enter, enter....
Rogan was but joshing ... lo... lo ....

Interlocatur:  Someone has blundered
Someone has blundered
The quotes will not quote
As the Heavens command
Oh Woe is the World
Of The Freediver.

Stunningly pointless contribution as always Grap.

Props for not calling for genocide for once.

Odd that this needs congratulating, but here we are.

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 6:37am:

Stunningly pointless contribution as always Grap. Props for not calling for genocide for once. Odd that this needs congratulating, but here we are.

I couldn't work out what he was trying to say well enough to be sure it was pointless.

I did assume however.

mothra wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 6:38am:

SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 17th, 2024 at 6:37am: Stunningly pointless contribution as always Grap. Props for not calling for genocide for once. Odd that this needs congratulating, but here we are. I couldn't work out what he was trying to say well enough to be sure it was pointless. I did assume however.

We are aware of the severe boundaries of your knowledge.

Freediverland is playing up again.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Dec 17^th, 2024 at 6:40am:

mothra wrote on Dec 17th, 2024 at 6:38am: SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 17th, 2024 at 6:37am: Stunningly pointless contribution as always Grap. Props for not calling for genocide for once. Odd that this needs congratulating, but here we are. I couldn't work out what he was trying to say well enough to be sure it was pointless. I did assume however. We are aware of the severe boundaries of your knowledge.

Why is it, no matter what forum, when I engage in a topic with legitimate good faith and write a genuine and on-topic reply sharing my thoughts and opinions, you have to come in and start insulting or, well, whatever you were trying to achieve in that other reply?

Do I really live so rent-free in your head?

It's a little disturbing friend.

wrote on :

You serious?  You comment on me everywhere - must be my propensity to remind you luvvies that 93% of women killings in the NT are by intimate partners and family and known to people in that one minority community, and that discussion of such things is no more 'racist' than any other reality.

You'll be right - stick around long enough and you'll learn this reality thing... I know how hard it is... interesting that finally one state or territory finally had the balls to tell the truth .... what do you think should be done about it?  I mean - other than accusing me of having some dark veiled conspiracy theory of yours that my discussion of the REAL issues somehow is a cover for my real agenda which I never had....

Damn - FreediverGroup IS playing up today.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16^th, 2024 at 5:01pm:

a slight degree of despondency or boredom from Rogan - although he is remarkably skilled at not making it too obvious.

Well, Rogan proved the point in another way with his latest interviewee: Julian Lennon.

Rogan quipped that talking to 'ordinary' people bores him, and after so many interviews, he finds it hard to stay focused on what they're saying.

It seemed appropriate with Julian Lennon.

He's never managed to escape his father's gargantuan shadow, which makes the telling of his life seem... well... boring by comparison.

And when he tries to work within the shadow, he's blocked out by the world's refusal to have the John Lennon myth 'sullied' by an 'ungrateful' or 'less talented' son.

Quote:

I clearly hit a nerve with that one. If you've rejected my interpretation of the results, why would you suggest the majority of his most popular episodes all focus on conspiracy theories and those pushing them?

I never suggested anything of the sort. Meister Icky did, perhaps.
Not me.


Quote:

if it's not because they're easy to digest and make the listener feel good about themselves for being able to understand them or have their beliefs validated for once in their lives, then why do you propose they're so popular?

I told you already. He's not pompous, morally preening, pretentious and scaly like the ABC, Granuiad, you Mothra, Bbwian at al. He let's his guests speak for themselves. He doesnt try to catch them out or expects them to toe any particular pc line.




Quote:

If you’re suggesting my observations and opinions are borrowed wholesale, then let me commend you on your staggering projection. It’s rich coming from someone who parrots the same uncredited sources time and again, yet conveniently declines to cite them here. If you’re so certain I’ve lifted my arguments, surely you’ve uncovered the original source you claim I’ve plagiarised. So, by all means, share it with the rest of us, unless, of course, your goal is merely to dismiss my points without engaging with them.

ABC chairman Williars is a prominent member of your echo chamber



Quote:

In doing so, you reveal nothing except your inability to argue in good faith, relying instead on projection to deflect from your own intellectual laziness.

Nonsense.
You seem to think that arguing in good faith means going along with your argument. It is not.

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 9:35am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Dec 16th, 2024 at 5:01pm: a slight degree of despondency or boredom from Rogan - although he is remarkably skilled at not making it too obvious. Well, Rogan proved the point in another way with his latest interviewee: Julian Lennon. Rogan quipped that talking to 'ordinary' people bores him, and after so many interviews, he finds it hard to stay focused on what they're saying. It seemed appropriate with Julian Lennon. He's never managed to escape his father's gargantuan shadow, which makes the telling of his life seem... well... boring by comparison. And when he tries to work within the shadow, he's blocked out by the world's refusal to have the John Lennon myth 'sullied' by an 'ungrateful' or 'less talented' son.

Although Rogan made Lennon comfortable enough to get through an interview sounding a bit above average, the heavy hangover from John Lennon's treatment of his son leaches through.

While he was still with Cynthia Lennon, John showed almost no paternal interest in Julian.

When they divorced, largely goaded on by Yoko Ono, John begrudged having to provide for Julian for anything, denying him and his mother even financial support.

His will left almost nothing to Julian, with everything going to Ono and to his second son, Sean. It took the threat of a lawsuit by Julian for Ono to negotiate a settlement with him.

Far from being a 'high priest' of love and peace, John Lennon was a mean-spirited mother's boy.

Lennon was a mouthy scouser git.
Imagine!

Lennon was a mouthy scouser git.
Imagine!

Frank wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 12:49pm:

Lennon was a mouthy scouser git.

Who was famous and a great song writer, unlike you. Sounds like jealousy to me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

wrote on :

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 19^th, 2024 at 3:21pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 19th, 2024 at 12:49pm: Lennon was a mouthy scouser git. Who was famous and a great song writer, unlike you. Sounds like jealousy to me.  Tsk, tsk, tsk...  ::) ::)

:D
It isn't possible to be jealous of someone who married Yoko Ono.