Tucker Carlson is a Creationist Tool 

Just to play devils advocate, I imagine a lot of powerful right wingers think he's a useful idiot?

@@MrRancidity Well Putin used him like a tool certainly and it had real impact on people. There are legitimately people in the US who think Putin is a strong leader and they advocate for the same in the US.

I feel like that’s the point of calling him a creationist tool? He is a tool used by creationists to push their agenda. Not all tools are for good purposes. I think this joke works better when the insult is “pig” or something.

And tools are created, Tucker was not.

There are tools that serve bad purposes. Tucker's one of them.

👏

sure eyeglasses exist, but I'm not foolish enough to believe in contact lenses

@-Me_ a good effort, first comment still wins atm

Adapting is a fact of life, and we've all experienced it. Adapting multiple times, especially over a long period, is called evolution. Someone needs to give Tucker a dictionary. Or a first grade education.

I think they don't believe organisms can change *THIS* much. Still stupid, but yk

Exactly! Say rather that Tucker laughs like the ape he is.

lets see your giggle then.

You gotta crazy laugh don't you? Tucker not you. Crap this isn't RM Brown. Toilets

Yeah it's a psychopathic laugh. That's the correct term for it.

And is as unscientific to also reject the arguement to simply "lack of evidence" is a flawed arguement

@@hasannawaz228no it’s not… rejecting an argument isn’t necessarily saying it’s false.. it’s just not being able to just “accept” as true because… well.. why would you accept as true if there’s lack of evidence? That’s just another concept the right wing religious science deniers can’t grasp is that the rejection of an argument isn’t saying it’s false… it’s just NOT accepting as true yet.. This stuffs so easy. So no, it’s not “unscientific” to reject something based on lack of evidence. The only other alternative would be to accept it based on lack of evidence which is possibly THE dumbest thing you can do

Step 3: Creationists completely ignore any provided proof, evidence etc.

@@hasannawaz228 Eherm, an argument from incredulity or requesting to prove a negative are intellectual bankrupcy and that's all that believers can invoke... A creationist saying "evolution is too complex to happen at macro scale because I say so, why don't you prove that god doesn't exist first and then I'll believe an alternative reason you suggest" it's moronic

@@yakopc6600 well the arguement of god requires both sides to prove claims hence why no scientists will entertain it properly as there's no way to measure a abstract being you can throw fancy words and phrases towards me to make it sound like you know what your on about but both sides need a claim this is why philosophy exists

Creationism is just a theory!

@@alexalke1417 It’s not even a theory.

Not even a hypothesis. Falsifiability sucks bro

That's in the Bible! Praise God. *Yoko Ono Noises* Sorry, force of habit.

B-but my holy scriptures!!!

And that was the only argument his lawyers could provide for him because that's all they had to work with. "Please forgive my client, your honor, because he's a shite-talking idiot."

​@dtcdtc8328 nice attempt at deflection

​@@dtcdtc8328cope

The term "decently reasonable" coming from a judge is a loaded term. What is reasonable is only reasonable if we agree with it.

​@@dtcdtc8328There's a key difference between the rulinga though. The ruling on Maddow found that she was using hyperbole because her segment was a comedic talk show, not a news source of any kind. She never broke news, only repeated other news in an exaggerated way. She has no problem with this because she does not pretend to be a journalist/newsbreaker. Tucker didn't get this same treatment, instead having to rely on the claim that "his reputation" was such that nobody reasonable would believe him. It's nothing to do with the context of his show, they're basically saying the ruling for him is a personal one given his reputation of insane and false statements. He isn't exaggerating a fact for comedic effect. He just straight up lies sometimes.

​@@SimrealismLet your participation in it end. 😆 Feigning superiority 🥱 My husband and I are expecting!!!

​@@Simrealism it's an observation based on his behavior to simply adhere to and parrot those "above" him, that's what that is

Congrats, you just figured out a political media pundits job.

@@Simrealism You mean that thing Tucker did constantly on his failed opinion show? "This infernal species"? And what're you, Posadis? A Nephilim baby?

In the podcast he says Darwin’s theory of evolution wrong, he was already talking about Darwin’s theory of evolution

When a comment that's meant to be a metaphor ends up being literal

Underrated comment😂

He isn't wrong about fox viewers

Is he referring to the time when Christians were burning each other at the stake? Not that we aren't still ignorant, I'll give him that one.

Only maybe concerning the shape of the earth, that's quite a new one. I've yet to find any evidence that there was any belief at the time that there was another stabber on the grassy knoll when Caesar was killed, so there is that.

@@jimb9063 It’s not that recent, it’s quite old actually, ancient really. Unless you’re talking about the belief in a flat Earth that is popular among the conspiracy theorists across the internet, then yes that is a recent development that has grown above what it originally was

@@MetastaticMaladies Yes, the second! Edit. Would've made more sense if I'd ended with 'so there is that too'.

Mindless, spineless, soulless husk spewing any talking point that will make him money.

That's what all liars for Jesus do.

Typical science-denier.

Really? I mean I have no doubt that he does, but that he'd actually say out loud?

​@drdrew7475 he said in an interview with Dave rubin. He also said competing cable networks have their hosts do the same so it's fairgame

A lifetime of effort to avoid learning and to get paid for lying. This is why compulsory schooling is needed, so you don't turn into MotherTucker.

​@@archapmangcmggoober

Because he's trying to push a narrative that aligns with his religious beliefs.

🧢

He's the typical Republican.

@@StudSnob OK, I accept your challenge. Name some scientists who don't accept evolution as a fact. PREDICTION: You either won't or you'll name someone who's profoundly religious. GO!!! 🤣

@@StudSnob So FEW. Fewer than a thousand people were willing to sign a statement expressing mild doubt. And to get even that number, they had to LIE to the signatories about the statement AND had to include non-biologists and also non-scientists. Meanwhile, Project Steve got far more signatories just among the ~1% of people named some variant of Steve, no lies required, no non-experts required. Cretinism is a lunatic fringe belief.

"We have to go in with humility........ the aliens are spiritual beings." Same interview, same idiot

I went to med school and even there the religious people didn't believe in evolution. Scary stuff.

Not to mention his crazy laugh.

If I were his parents, I'd be demanding the money I spent on his education, back!

@@capt.bart.roberts4975 wdym education?

@@capt.bart.roberts4975 Yeah, it's like all those bribes to get him passing grades at [Entitled White Boys Only] prep school were utterly wasted.

As an european the interview with putin and the part about convenience stores was so fucking hilarious. How disconnected from reality is this guy? WOW RUSSIANS HAVE BREAD ... WOOOOAAAH

This is something that pisses me off as a biomedic, they act as if we don't understand evolution or as if we don't have evidence of it, this shows a complete illiteracy on the subject because evolution theory has almost two centuries of research and evidence to back It up, so much that the whole field of modern biology is based in evolution.

Av yes and you're a genius I presume? 😅

@@AboveEmAllProduction You wrote, "Ah yes and you're a genius I presume?" Did he say he was a genius? What does being a genius or not being one have to do with knowing that Carlson is full of horse-pucky in his remarks about evolution? Everything Tucker stated - I mean, literally, every statement he made - displayed complete ignorance of any of the science. So, did you have any actual point? Or not?

@@AboveEmAllProductionjackass

​@@AboveEmAllProduction You don't need to be a genius to understand evolution, you only need a basic knowledge about biology, which tucker shows little of.

Le epic Reddit moment.

Shuuuut uuuuup, we're meant to deny it.

I mean, I had a child as soon as I went into AI just to cover for it, apparently that didn't work as a distraction.

As a childless software developer myself, I was not aware of these plans. Did I miss a meeting? Perhaps it's because I'm not in California.

Don't worry guys, they'll just call anyone who believes that a conspiracy nut. There's always a flock of contrarians about every little detail on the Internet these days.

@@mikesimms1 No meeting, it's just the result of taking optimisation to its logical conclusion

I also learned Creationism as a kid. However, my parents allowed me to study real science on my own Religion is 👎😫

@@kaudsiz Some religion that which makes the news. Plenty of devout Scientists supporting evolution.

There is irony in that these are on the Protestant side when in the early Protestant movement they would reject the creationist argument because they believed in Predestination . Especially the Calvinist movement. This was from Theology that realized over time that if you worshiped an all knowing, present everywhere and all powerful God that God could insure everything thing they wanted to happen at the moment of creation that God would not need to do anything after that point other than direct talk to leaders and have a Son. Predestination in part what got the Catholic Church to switch sides to the Evolution side after the evidence for Evolution became overwhelming. That evolution is how god expressed god's will in the area. Note under Predestination God can hear prayer and answer it at the moment of creation no need to modify things currently. Here is God is not limited by time a logical theologic thought. Predestination fell out of favor over time as it meant your dammed to hell or to heaven when the Universe was created you don't actually have a choice it a very anti free will doctrine. Of course you were still expected to pray and follow all the teachings it just that what seamed to be a free will choice on your part to do so or not was illusionary.

It's fantastic that you've managed to crawl out of that shroud of ignorance your family pulled you into. For every one person who escapes it, there's probably a few who don't...

To give you a further perspective beyond the debunking of biblical literalism, i recommend reading some of Friedrich Nietzsches work. He does a lot of critiques against modern culture and Christian morality that are very thought-provoking.

Have you ever actually looked at the “theory” of evolution? If you put creation and evolution side by side and looked at both with a totally objective mind, creation is far more believable than evolution.

@@bretttrommler756 science is more believable than myths.

@@arcioko2142 not always. Science says that everything was created from nothing, I.e. the Big Bang. What’s more believable; “nothing” suddenly exploded and became everything… or a supreme being created everything we see?

​@@bretttrommler756 Yeah sure, I can take an objective look at the Genesis account of creation. Hmm, I see there's a contradiction in Genesis 1:2 about the Earth existing before the Sun, in contradiction with the astronomical theory of star and protoplanetary formation. I'm reading a passage in 1:6 about the sky forming from the ocean, contradicting atmospheric geophysics and Genesis 1:2 where the water has a surface? I'm reading a thermodynamic paradox in Genesis 1:11 about liquid water existing without a source of heat, at below freezing point? Now I'm reading a contradiction in Genesis 1:11 to the basic biology about plants functioning without sunlight? Now I'm reading in Genesis 1:12 about fruit trees functioning without animals present, which contradicting angiosperm botany? How many contradictions are in this creation story? Oh and what's this on the next page, in Genesis 2? A different account of the same event but with a contradictory order to the events of Genesis 1? Two accounts of creation in the bible that contradict each other!? An objective mind should have no trouble dismissing a creation story filled with contradictory and self-contradictory statements as false. But just in case you have to be spoonfed your epistemology through bible verses (it's Matthew 23:28 btw), rather than understand the Aristotleian laws of thought, here's what the laws of thought say about contradictions. The law of noncontradiction states that contradictory accounts cannot be true at the same time in the same sense. At least one of the accounts must be wrong. Now let's look at evolution with an objective mind, a concept that requires just one more ingredient after you have accepted adaptation occurs like Comrade Tucker did in this video. One ingredient only - and that is time. Once you have adaptation and once you have time, evolution via genetic variability, is inevitable. Didn't even need to bring in natural selection (not that it doesn't occur), and we now have an explanation for the common descent of species, the appearance of transitional species, mass extinction events, the appearance of phenotypes, and an accepted theory that doesn't have to contradict the laws of physics or chemistry or biology or geology or history. So what evidence do we find that the Earth is more than 6000 years old? An objective mind sees that evidence in the stars & the years that light takes to reach us. That mind sees it in the solar system and the age of meteorites and the planetary craters, sees it in archaeology in the caves of Lascaux. That objective mind sees evidence in nuclear physics with the half life of uranium-238 or carbon-14 or potassium-40, in hydrocarbon exploration, in geological rock formation, in the African savanna, in the comparative anatomy of animals, in the directly observed domestication of the banana and tomato. So does my openly objective mind, accept the epistemologically sound evolutionary theory of life more than the contradiction-filled Genesis story and contradicts not just science, but also archeology, geography, history, logic and itself? My mind chooses the more parsimonious explanation. It was 17 contradictions I counted in the Genesis account of creation.

@@bretttrommler756 evidence has a definition... one you clearly do not know.

Ouch! Bullseye

What false things has Joe Rogan said? I'm not stating you're wrong.

@@Maraien _"What false things has Joe Rogan said? I'm not stating you're wrong"_ I never said false, I said smart and reasonable. But if you look at all the false information that Joe entertains, you can easily claim he's also saying false things. His support of Hancock is one example or his continued support of dangerous medical misinformation including HIV isn't linked to AIDS. Is Joe spreading that false information on purpose? Or is he just a moron who has been fooled? Does it matter? He's insanely popular with a huge platform and that should demand he have responsibility for what he says or promotes. But since he appeals to the anti-woke crowd, he ends up bulletproof to responsibility.

Joe Rogan is reasonable stupid, Tucker Carlson is unreasonable stupid, so of course Rogan sounds smart in comparison

@@Maraien I believe Rogan is in good faith, he has that attitude of “I’m just asking questions,” unfortunately many of his questions are stupid. He has many questionable guests too.

And "population genetics," which is basically what boosted the science of evolution into scientific stardom back in the early 1900s.

To be fair, none of that is Darwinian except the fossils. To me, the Darwinian aspect of evolution is natural selection. His main discovery and contribution.

They have a book full of really disgusting, outdated bullshit that a child could debunk and that's all they need

I wouldn't even call it evidence because evidence exists in relation to a model. Creationism doesn't have a model. Magic does poof doesn't tell us anything.

Okay then, how about "Let there be cladistic phylogenetics, fossils, DNA, etc". How does that theory work for you

Yes

He would probably talk about fighting and been in shape and would try to push a macho sort of vibe as he has done in the past with guest’s that he doesn’t feel the smartest o coolest guy around. No hate on joe but someone needs to talk about that shit.

Rogan interviews people with interesting ideas, not people without interesting ideas

​@@sarsaparillasunset3873 Science is interesting.

@@sarsaparillasunset3873 Rogan has invited hundreds of scientists who discuss science on the platform like Roger Penrose, Sam Harris, Brian Cox, etc. Science is interesting and Rogan knows that.

In fairness to first graders, most of them know that a hypothesis is as-yet-unproven speculation. Tucker and his ilk think their "theory" is divine truth provided by the creator of the universe.

Also DUHH GOD DID IT is not a hypothesis

​@@ProfessorDaveExplainscare to provide your reasoning?

@@yag-yet_another_gamer I'd argue that a key aspect of a hypothesis- or one that's useful, anyway- is falsifiability. If your "hypothesis" entails the existence of an eternal, omnipotent, nonphysical consciousness that exists somewhere beyond space and time, I'm not sure how you falsify that.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains wrote, "Also DUHH GOD DID IT is not a hypothesis." You beat me to the punch here.

I unironically agree Mr. Rick Sanchez from the hit Adult Swim television series Rick and Morty (no hate just having a laugh)

@curtis1905 I feel like it's more "not enough people are calling them out *correctly"*_ Great thing about Dave (one of them, anyway) is he doesn't use arguments or talking points people can worm their way out of by "agreeing to disagree" or such things without looking like their perspective has _little to _*_no_* basis in fact

@@ivoryas1696 I agree I just think he would reach more people of he wasn't so hostile to anyone who doesn't already know what he knows

@@spoon8754 The hostility isn't necessarily that bad to people who simply don't know and act in good faith. But people who _clearly_ are ignorant or dishonest in making statements they say are "correct" relative to people who _aren't_ such, are being disrespectful by their nature, and so he throws it back at them. I'd advocate for more patience but honestly... I feel like it's fine if some people go the harsh approach as long as we don't *_all_* -Also... it's funny 💀-

@@spoon8754 or willing to consider things that he isn’t capable of.

Everyone lies and everyone is lied to, he has a platform because people like him

Everyone is entitled to contribute their opinion.

​@@CATKYBNM Even on topics they very clearly and provably know nothing about?

@@JohnGardnerAlhadis I would say that if someone believes in a religion, they're entitled to argue how the world was created. Regardless of whether you beleive it to be inaccruate or not. There are credible scientists from cambridge that argue similar arguments (maybe a bit more structured). Why would gatekeeping bhuddist monks, hindus, christians, muslims etc from creation debates be beneficial? If people think Tucker doesn't have a leg to stand on and science is irrefutable then that's okay, but to gatekeep anyone with an opinion is wrong.

⁠​⁠@@CATKYBNMif you want to have a scientific discussion about how people came to be, you need have evidence for your theory. People aren’t gatekeeping, they are simply ignoring theories that add no value to the discussion.

Drunk on the misguided feedback of their self importance.

And what makes it even better, is that segregation is far from the worst thing America has ever done (it still wasn’t a good thing though).

I was shocked to learn that Lincoln advocated for segregation and wanted to encourage blacks to return to Africa: "On August 14, 1862, Lincoln met at the White House delegation of Black leaders to make his case for the voluntary emigration of African Americans to countries outside the U.S. “Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,” Lincoln told the delegation." Intermarriage between the races and political equality were too much even for Lincoln - today we would label such views as white supremacist.

okay tucker is a bloke but that was obviously just him stumbling over his words. using that against him is unreasonable. everyone messes up their words sometimes.

@@tma2001Yeah, kinda wild how backwards progressivism was then. I try to focus on appreciating the steps taken back then that let us criticize them for being so small today.

@@tma2001 That’s why people today say that the founding fathers and hero’s of the revolution were white supremacist, yet they get shouted down at by others that worship them with no historical context and lots of bias. There is lots of propaganda about our history and the notable people in it.

"The theory of gravity is just a theo r r r y!!" The ground definitely exists though.

Never mind the applied sciences. Music Theory is also "just a theory."

They would if they could monetize it

Along the lines of questioning Germ Theory. Unsurprisingly, massive amounts of people still avoid washing their hands because they can’t see the microorganisms with their unaided eyes.

I'm sure the flat earthers Peter and Pete would call it "just a theory".

I assumed it was like a meme following. Like people just followed the bow tie guy John Stewart destroyed for laughs. The fact that old people take him serious is concerning and hilarious.

It's fairly small, all told. He was such a big draw for Fox prime time that they kept him on even though they had no ads to show on his slot, but eventually he became too much of a problem for even them so they dumped him. If people were truly invested in him, they would've turned wherever he went into the new megahit, but they didn't. Turns out the prime time Fox News slot is what makes a conservative pundit successful, not the other way around.

@@Nothingseen Sure, but he still has some following. And when he was on Fox and more popular he was already spewing garbage.

@@chlorophyllphile Oh yeah I agree. I watched Jon Stewart tell him to stop hurting America like 15 years ago and I thought "oh, dude's done for" AND YET, here he still is! The conservative movement is beyond shame, and seems to take a measure of glee in being hated by most people. It's a real anti-social personality disorder type thing.

I think (sadly) he's more popular than we'd like to believe. e.g. he was ahead of the curve in being pro-Russia. The MAGA / QAnon nutters love him, which is probably about a quarter of the country.

False claim, they explain this frequently and in great detail

​@@cosmictreason2242 False.

​​@@bean7039Considering the fact we have extensive evidence of something at least resembling the Big Bang Cosmological Model, then yes it sounds perfectly reasonable. That we don't know exactly what caused it yet is irrelevant. Once upon a time we thought a deity was responsible for rain and sacrificed people to it. Now we understand climate science. That science has not yet got a specific for explanation something doesn't mean it will never be explainable.

I don't think the Tucker even believes in THAT. It's just going to be a new and convenient pivot.

@@TheDarkSide11891 but that also doesn't mean we need to subscribe to mythology without any reason to believe it, either.

@@j0j0dartiste21 I'll say one thing - if the Tucker Carlson's of the world are right about the Biblical god, they are going to be in for an unpleasant surprise in the afterlife...

It seems to be a product of habitually small thinking. Inches? Sure! But miles? No way!

Yeah I believe 2+2 equals 4! But 2+2+2+2+2 equals 10 is crazyy!

​​@@0okaminoRight! I always thought the whole "microevolution" argument was the stupidest argument among the myriad of stupid arguments science deniers use. "You can have small adaptation, but not major changes leading to speciation"? Guess what happens when you take something, and then make small changes to it for a hundred million years? You get a damn different result than what you started with, that's for sure. Many, many small changes make for a big difference in the "end" result.

It's like believing in adolescence but not 200' tall giants

@@cosmictreason2242 Who claims that there were ever 200' tall giants?

He does get that sweet check signed by Putin.

Off the deep end and into the toilet.

His function is to spread Russian propaganda and white christian nationalism

True, but don't forget that tools are used by others, not themselves

The function is to appeal to his in groups propaganda. Without people like him the doubt for creationism will increase and people will stop believing in it. Though intuitively the evidences are different, in terms of structure and quality of evidence flat earth and evolution denial are equally ridiculous positions. You could chalk this up to how the round earth is just way more intuitive to explain and understand. But even creationist believe in quantum physics despite the evidence and explanation for that science is all over the place. Many flat earthers even will appeal to quantum physics. Confirmation bias is more of a factor in my opinion Without this function evolution denial becomes an equivalent position to flat earth

Look how divided the US is right now, are you really going to suggest he had no part to play in this?

Oh, he has a function. It’s terrible and detrimental to those who aren’t into his brand of fascism, but it’s a function.

Yes, they think a scientific theory is what scientists actually call a hypothesis. A scientific theory is an explanation that corroborates lots of data by the scientific method. A well-established theory is when there is so much evidence that enough of the entire field agrees that it is the best explanation of what is really going on. A hypothesis is a potential explanation that doesn't yet have enough corroboration to call it a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a very well-established theory. People who make this mistake give themselves away as scientifically illiterate.

Yeah, pretty much. A lot of people have the "I have a theory as to how this works" and the scientific "theory of evolution" mixed up all the time. A theory is just an idea to some people or it's derived from the classic "in theory" expression so then when they hear the word theory, they think "oh evolution exists in theory".

Colloquially, theory means either substantiated or unsubstantiated speculation. It is unfortunate it means something completely different in science, and people aren't familiar with science. Tools would always find a way, thought. Every day the universe creates a better tool ;)

Not even a scientific hypothesis since scientists have to have facts to base their hypothesis before they'll even accept it themselves, not to mention that hypotheses must be testable. Mother Tucker can't even get to the first step!

@@stavrosrahnos6071Nail on the head there

he's not dealing with ppl like this. tucker doesn't even know who this guy is, so, there's no dealing of any kind, on anyone's part. he seeks out ppl minding their own business, and then attacks them, in this case he goes after one of rare anti imperialist voices in the media, up until recently, the only anti imperialist voice in the mainstream media, and attacks him on the grounds that he, who never claimed to know jack about science, doesn't know jack about science. this reminds me of those right wing guys (who differ from "dave" only in being aware that they are right wing) who whine about r-word left, cause some rando had a meltdown somewhere in public. both are just trying to cash in on the outrage and 5 minutes of hate, w/o either contributing to science, I mean, if this is your first time hearing about evolution, I stand corrected, but I'm pretty sure you haven't learned anything from this video, or in case of those guys contributing jack to improving lives of ordinary people, cause instead of attacking that f-ist in white house, they go after ordinary ppl who hold no power and no one asks them about anything. no one asks tucker about science either. no one watches tucker for science either, I've also never heard anyone say that tucker is an intelligent man. so what in the world was the purpose of this stupid video? you ppl need to learn about communism, and start uniting instead of hating. not "dave", he's flat out f-ist, he literally made this video to showcase how much he hates tucker, but you know, ppl like you

He sings himself that theme song of his before he starts. It gives him the strength of 10 men.

Fr fr professor Dave 💪😎

fr

His name is MR. FARINA!

Isn't he a journalist?

@@AboveEmAllProductionDid you ask that in the “I’m just asking” Tucker voice? Because objectively no he is not. He is a washed up bow-tie wearing ex cnn employee who also got fired from fox’s opinion show.

​@@AboveEmAllProduction well-paid propagandist.

@@AboveEmAllProductionwhoosh

@@mikelxanadu Hahaha. No sir, the wooosh is on you

Idiocracy for the win! 😂

@bpa5721 My dog has been struggling with differential calculus. Must be something in the food he eats.

@@LetsCook64 let me know if he gets the hang of it, cause i also struggle with it

Lucky you. My dog has trouble having any thought at all. Very much a "No thoughts, head empty" type of dog.

It's the same talking points they all have to use because they're running out of justifications for their made-up imaginary and delusional nonsense.

Unfortunately, that last group comprises like 90% of RU-vid commenters (not including you).

I don’t believe Tucker is really _that_ stupid, but he knows a significant part of his appeal is to people who are. That’s not to say that he’s a disingenuous grifter in all aspects, though, as he is genuinely a right-wing fascist, but a grifter as well.

How is Rogan unreasonable ?

Y'all portray him as way more of an unreasonable idiot than he really is, he's a smart guy who listens to really varied perspectives

Give 3 examples of joe rogan being unreasonable.

I’m not a loyal Joe Rogan fan by any means, but I’ve seen a ton of clips during my times of mindless scrolling on RU-vid. I’ve never seen anything from him that really screams unreasonable, I’ve heard some of his opinions that I completely disagree with, but he honestly seems quite open minded if given good reason or evidence.

@@user-vt3vo1yd3v I don't need to give you three. Just one. I am taking the kitchen sink approach to unreasonableness. I see one instance of unreasonableness, and I throw out the whole show. And I refuse to give even one, until you watch 14 hours of Professor Dave content

they all are, i call them "new christian" no interest in the teachings of jesus, solely interested in subs, likes, patron, course sales and book sales. if you want to be a good christian, be atheist....

All political pundits are grifters and type of audience U have doesn't really matter much

He’s damaged humanity for decades

“A collection of texts that are extremely loosely correlated and compiled and edited by countless people says a bunch of things with zero evidence”

@@josephmother2659Tucker: A book and my modern, ideologically motivated literal interpretation of that book within a specific cultural context said this is true so it is true

Hey, it’s not being wrong that is really bad; it’s being unwilling to be corrected. You have allowed yourself to do better, and be better, and that’s great.

The angels of non-stupid rejoiced

I am an atheist but I think you can be a christian and believe in evolution. Just don't read a text dating back centuries and millennia literally. There are tons of texts, religious and otherwise, and very few of them are to be taken literally.

Nobody is born knowing anything. We all come from a starting point of total ignorance. There is no shame in growing at different rates, or being at a different spot in your journey of discovery than others. Only in stopping for fear of what's ahead.

I'm sorry you lost your way. Why do you believe man over God?

Out of nowhere fear-laugh

Chimps have better laughs than him.

The reality of it all is kind of depressing and difficult to process, so most people, even the non-religious, will do all they can to avoid it. Everybody likes to wax lyrical about the importance of truth, but for most people, it's really just an inconvenience.

Yep. this is the problem with the world. Too many stupid people with no self awareness or anyone to tell them they're very stupid, or at best guide them away from their own stupidity. Then they have access to the internet so think they're really really clever because they ''dO thEiR oWn ReSeArCh''. Then tucker Carlson comes along and acts like their saviour (in the same way andrew tate does with basement dwellers) so they hang on every word he says, they don't push back and tucker then feels even more clever, spouting more nonsense that they in-turn lap up.

*she doesn’t even go here

Best nickname, stealing it if you don't mind

none of the creationist are good though....

@@hilmanh2832 you should read The Genesis Flood, then. PhD fluid dynamics professor at VTech wrote that in 1961. It's a hugely relevant piece of history you owe it to yourself to know about

If someone proves that you exist, do you become a legal chemist, or a chemical law? Lol. Also, look on the bright side, at least you're not a hypothetical chemist.

and he's also said that "the adaptation theory is obviously true" in which case, if such a theory did even exist, why'd he call it a theory?

The only group of people allowed to say "it's just a theory" are the hosts of the Theorist channels

As a fellow (former) theoretical chemist, I just go with the Fallout response: "they asked me if I had a degree in theoretical chemistry; I told them I had a theoretical degree in chemistry" Now I just teach Gen Chem and O-Chem, so I just handwave right past all the math in quantum and most of the 1st and 2nd years seem to be OK with that...But I don't let them off the hook if they can't explain the difference between a scientific law and scientific theory by the final exam

What these science dumbos like Tucker are doing when they say "it's just a theory" is to dumb everything ever done by science down into just everyday theories, like gut instinct or "I have a hunch" types of theories. As if scientists are all sitting around hitting a bong, sipping tea, and saying, "Hell yeah, that sounds cool, we'll publish that," like that's how peer review and research work to them.

That’s the only reason he’s happy to stay on the Creationist track. He knows his flock will support him.

That's funny but in reality he's dumber than almost anyone

it's both

It's both. He's a grifter and dumb.

Tucker doesn’t _think_ his audience and supporters are that dumb. He _knows_ they are that dumb. He is well aware of the ignorance to which he appeals.

There's hyena somewhere in his genetic past ...

Not quite everyone. There is at least one person (that I’m aware of) that so far he refuses to have on his show

It definitely skews more towards the BS pseudoscientists.

@@exhumus More recently yes, I will give you that. When he has the bs ones on though, the community at large make countless videos pounting out the bs and why it's bs. So hopefully by having them on, many of the people who might fall for the bs might see the response videos and be spared from detrimental beliefs. Otherwise all they hear is the bs generated by whomever they are listening to on whatever platform that guest has and are more easily influenced into taking their position. It isn't the people down the rabbit hole that matter, they have already made up their minds. It is those peering over the edge that need to be reached.

@@user-eo3bm9sg7n Most people who watch Rogan are not watching debunk videos with an open mind. He's a great comedian but he's done a hard pivot towards the darker side of the anti-establishment for the $$$. He's not as bad as Russell Brand, but let's hope he never gets there.

The Nazis always thought atomic physics was “Jewish science”

If it's in regards to the Manhattan Project, then by definition he is correct: "To make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act." And while it may not have necessarily been unlawful, you can't tell me it wasn't harmful. Don't get me wrong. Fucker KORORL SON! (walking dead meme) is a dangerously confused individual!

Oh, but it is! It all started with this secret cabal of scientists working on "The Manhattan Project". Which, I gotta say, even if the bomb is one of the worst things mankind has ever created, that is a DOPE name for a project. Also, I don't actually know when the study of atomic science started.

No, not a conspiracy, secret demon knowledge

"More attention should be paid to him implying the development of atomic science was part of some sort of conspiracy." To be fair, the Oppenheimer project was in fact a highly secret military "conspiracy." Seriously. It was a Top Secret project. There were severe penalties for disseminating information about it. Now, I actually have no idea what you're referring to specifically - I don't even know who you're referring to by "him."

Its a interview/podcast its not like he is setting up debates with hiya guests. Let the idiots speak. Him arguing south them is not going to change their minds anyway.

I don't have a problem with it at all to be honest. It's kind of the point of an interview. He asks the guest questions so that the audience can learn more about the guest. If the audience ends up learning the guest is an idiot, so be it. It's not his job to protect them. I actually find it really annoying when the interviewer constantly interrupts the guest and derails the conversation. It's actually pretty entertaining listening to people say the most insane shit, to be honest. Lex Fridman also has this interview style. Even when his guests are saying some blatantly ridiculous things he just calmly keeps asking them about it while trying to maintain a straight face. Much prefer that to them randomly debating them then and there. Imagine all the funny quotes we would be deprived of. To use the old sun tzu quote "never interrupt your opponent when he's in the middle of making a mistake"

​@@user-fg5xs9lh7sIt's more of a problem because he's giving these people a platform that people may view as trustworthy. By putting them on the same stage as some of the legitimate professionals he has on the podcast, it gives them an unwarranted air of legitimacy. Now, while people SHOULD be able to distinguish between the two, not everyone will, and for a lot of these hacks it empowers them to spread their quackery to the masses even more when they can say "hey look guys, Joe had me on his podcast! *insert educated individual* was also on the podcast, so my ideas must be real!!".

@TheDarkSide11891 people have brains that are allowed to think. It's a podcast, not a lecture. You cannot silence those you disagree with by deplatforming them. It's amazing that Spotify didn't give in to those who wanted to cancel him and have him removed. It's better to let them speak so that their views can be challenged.

Agreed too many anti gov, anti mainstream and conspiracy theorists love Rogan. He certainly does not want nor pushes enough to expose this fraudsters.

Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive, and Tucker is a fucking idiot. Candace is a climate change denier. You don't know what ad hominem means. Thanks, chief.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains calling creationism and evolution mutually exclusive is not as simple as one might think: 1-they are indeed mutually exclusive in biblical context, "god created the world in 6 days" obviously contradicts the fact that LUCA organism was 3.8 billion years ago. 2- one form of creationism is theistic evolution, which is basically the belief that god created the earth/primordial soup and then created evolution itself as a mechanism for life on earth. meaning that these people believe that humans are related to amoeba and monkeys through LUCAs. 3- another form of theistic evolution, is the belief that all life and life-like things (prokaryotic, eukaryotic, virus, prion...you name it ) were related to LUCA but humans are an exception, they were created by god separately, and that God made man similar to the already existing primates at the time because it is the most suitable form for humans to have. some also believe that God intentionally made humans and other primates very similar as a test of faith (a challenge) having said that, the relatively large gaps between the fossil records between primate species poses a challenge for strict evolutionists. in conclusion, the fact that the subject is more nuanced than one might think, it would be better to formulate arguments without resorting to calling people names. maybe you despise tucker because of his political opinions and that's fine, but you shouldn't allow it to undermine your own argument (it makes it appear as if it is coming from emotion, not logic) although in this case, you were actually perfectly logical in your arguments. as for the ad hominem terminology, I admit that I am not knowledgeable in the field of debate and the field of logic/rhetoric, I might be wrong, though I would appreciate it if you clarified why you said I do not know what ad hominem means. as for candace, you were right, after investigating that video myself i now know what you mean, I totally agree that denying climate change is a threat to mankind, climate change is happening before our eyes and we need to act fast to avoid having climate caused humanitarian disasters, that is if we haven't already crossed the line of no return (sadly) kind regards

@@courage936 Theistic evolution is not creationism. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy which means it must take the form of an argument. It does not mean insult.

Yes I agree with you if by any means someone called you a professor or a scientist doesn't mean you are always right all the examples maintained in this video is just about some creatures lived billion of years ago also how can we evolve just from one cell ? That's the bigger question for Darwin supporters it's rhetorical question deep inside we know the truth it's just you don't have nothing to say or to do so no offense it's just about you don't like to admit that your theory are all wrong you know you're discussion is just bullshit also you can't say these stupid things about Allah just shut it I am reporting your video please just delete professor word before your name you just think a paper will give you the authority to criticize others on their beliefs and also scientifically prove them wrong it's just simply you can't

@@courage936 1) Yes. 2) That is not creationism. That is evolution. 3) That's utterly ridiculous to think that evolution occurred for billions of years and created organisms that are so similar to humans that they are nearly indistinguishable, and then god somehow had to make the last tiny little tweaks for no reason whatsoever. Anyone who believes that is as dumb as young earth creationists.

He went to trinity college. So, yes.

@@jerms_mcerms9231 lol I'll take all of the above!

Tucker 100% knows what he says is BS. He’s said so himself in leaked text conversations and argued it in court. I think he’s just a moral imbecile who doesn’t see the problem with peddling destructive lies as long as there’s a career to be made in doing so.

He is one of Russia's favorite talking heads, so yes.

His argument is that having a child means you are married which is impossible for a software developer to do because they don't believe in God. Or something like that probably.

it goes back to the twisted conservative view that you must have children and start a family in order to be a good person. So yea, Tucker was making a kind of insult.

It’s just one of his usual dog whistles, for his whacko audience to assign some kind of meaning to.

It's not an argument because that's not how Tucker's new crowd thinks. They think by stereotypes, so they want to build an unflattering picture of their opponents to be as distant as possible from what they think is a virtuous person (which is also a contradictory mess) so they can attribute all positions they're opposed to to that stereotype and dismiss it while feeling good about themselves and how not like this dumb, ugly person that totally exists outside of their heads.

Its an insinuation that they only have their own egos to give self validation. Due to not having children, they don't care about the future of the world or future society. Its fallacious resoning, and probably a lot of self projection.

As someone deep down the rabbit hole, joe Rogan has a lot more dirt on him than that lol. Outside of the fake vitamins scam he shares with his buddy Alex jones, he’s also “friends” with multiple p files. That LA comedy scene is a filthy scummy place.

He did have an episode where he argued with a flat earther for an entire 40 minutes. If he can carry a conversation that long without losing his mind or the guest walking off, that’s honestly impressive.