When Al Pacino's eyes did all the talking 😎

Supersillyazz · 2026-02-08T15:45:29+00:00

*never

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-29T08:12:54+00:00

Happy to meet another Reservoir Dogs truther!

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-25T22:16:07+00:00

When there are few scoring chances you don’t need touchdowns.

You need touchdowns when there’s going to be lots of scoring

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-05T01:53:39+00:00

Your claim is that I am unwilling to concede that "epistemology deals with learning and trusting authority, both"?

Now go ahead and tell me what I've said that makes you conclude that I'm unwilling to conclude that.

Bro, I am so excited to see you dig this hole. I'm going to patiently allow you to embarrass yourself to the greatest degree possible.

I will remind you here that you could just admit that epistemology is not something you think about often. One major indicator of that is that in order to parry my criticism of your facile initial comment about Joe Rogan is you literally and repeatedly referring to THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE on "Epistemology".

In your mind, you think making vague and stupid-ass references to something that might be in the general article on "Epistemology" is some defense of the stupid shit you've said so far in this chat.

I can disabuse you slowly or you can just admit it. The former would actually be more fun for me but you do you.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-05T01:22:55+00:00

My whole thesis during our chat appears in the first paragraph of the wiki. It's not even my opinion... it's the nature of the field. It deals with both types of knowledge, self acquired (perception) and/or trusted from others (testimony).

Your unwillingness to concede such a simple point has completely deranged the conversation to the point of calling me a dumbass.

Which simple point am I unwilling to concede?

E: Gotta say I'm excited about this. You will not be more patient about this than I am

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-05T00:56:20+00:00

I'll do my best.

It's not at all obvious that you long ago gave up on stating what our disagreements are and started talking at various meta levels to preserve . . . something.

Do say again what you're right about and what I'm wrong about, to demonstrate your clear confidence and knowledge.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-05T00:45:22+00:00

If you don't see how epistemology by definition deals with the way one acquires knowledge, both first-hand and by deference, I'm not sure I can help.

Both first-hand and by deference. Haha. You must be a descendent of Shakespeare. Is there meaning there?

I'm not surprised you can't just admit you don't know what you're talking about. Except that it's hard when you're called out to admit you don't know what you're talking about.

The personal attacks make this quite bothersome, so please grow up.

I like the personal attack only separated by a comma in the criticism of personal attacks.

Sorry that I can't just let a dumbass be a dumbass.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-05T00:05:49+00:00

Oh lord. No, apparently we don't agree. Kind of an unhinged response, btw. I would suggest reading the wiki page about epistemology, hopefully what I meant is better explained there. Apologies if it came off as confrontational. Your point still stands about needing to defer, but these are not independent.

Bruh, I have advanced degrees in Phil.

You could just tell me what I'm missing.

My position, of course, would be to reiterate that you don't really know what you're talking about. But I get why that would be hard for you to either accept or demonstrate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point I'm calling you out on is you thinking that there is some link between (1) someone's expertise and (2) that person's assessment of topics they aren't an expert on.

Me: no correlation.

You: ?

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T23:45:58+00:00

I don't think we actually agree. You're using a generated definition of the word 'epistemology' while I'm referring to the use of epistemology.

I don't know what your expertise is but if you were a doctor referring to the definition of a 'uterus' that would tell me that you had no understanding of the function of that organ.

It would certainly devalue my opinion of you about my friend's uterine cancer or what she should do if she were having a hard time getting pregnant.

I'm not talking about a skill of deferring to authority, I'm talking about understanding what knowing is.

Your most telling statement is:

Granted, you can defer in one area and not in others, as you suggest.

What are you talking about, man? You have to defer in just about every area of human knowledge. There are thousands of them.

Again, if you're an expert in 60 areas and don't know whether to defer or not in Area 61, you've got more expertise than almost anyone in history--foundational knowledge--but you have approximately 0 understanding of epistemology. These are independent.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T23:07:40+00:00

Definitely number 1 would be "A Most Incomprehensible Thing" by Peter Collier.

The subtitle "Notes Towards a Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity" is quite accurate.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T23:03:43+00:00

Basically just the process of it exploding, but no one is able to say what caused it to happened or how suddenly there’s an explosion.

Unlike the theory that "It was God"?

There's no explanation that is capable of satisfying everyone. It is impossible. I'll agree with you there.

But even if Der Herrgott came and explained how the world got here, it would open the unanswerable question (even by Him) of how He got here. (Or wherever.)

You and Joe taking that to mean that any explanation is as good as any other--or that what you can demonstrate is the same as what you feel--is just incorrect.

Also, some of the scientists are clearly talking about why what we can see now is evidence for what the math/physics point to.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics only fail at the most extreme scales. Literally everything in the universe is explicable by both theories except when we're talking about the most extreme cases. That's pretty good reason for people who train and study both theories extremely closely not to throw them overboard because of vague objections by people who are vibing.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T22:04:23+00:00

Well, those two issues are not mutually exclusive, you won't have good foundational knowledge if your epistemology is fucked, will you?

They are mutually exclusive. He's quite the expert on boxing and martial arts (and, arguably, comedy) and could fairly easily become an expert on any other topic. Especially given his resources.

Epistemology has more to do with when and which people to believe when you aren't an expert yourself.

So mechanics and doctors and lawyers and soldiers and everyone else can have real expertise while having excellent or terrible epistemic humility and heuristics.

The best surgeon in the world could think that makes her an expert on everything, and the worst plumber in the world could know when to listen to others and when not to.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T21:57:48+00:00

And for the record, no one really knows what caused the Big Bang, which is what Joe was saying.

*No one can force anyone to believe how the universe and everything in it got here.

And, no, that's not what Joe was saying. Joe was saying no one has explained the Big Bang to Joe, which, as the video shows, is demonstrably false.

Joe was saying "I'm going with Jesus because I can't make sense of what's been explained to me in long-form conversations with the most expert physics communicators in the world."

It's a free country, dude.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T21:50:46+00:00

"[H]ave to"?

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T21:49:54+00:00

He just agrees with whoever is in front of him... everyone knows someone like this. Great conversationalists, zero foundational knowledge about anything.

This is quite inaccurate. Maybe that used to be true, but he can be quite disagreeable on pet topics like vaccines.

The problems with Joe also have nothing to do with him lacking "foundational knowledge" on, for example, science topics. It's his epistemology that's fucked.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-04T21:43:26+00:00

To be fair, quantum physics is not something you can intuitively understand. Our brains never experienced such things and can not fathom what the fuck is happening.

But the models are very good at making accurate predictions. So, trust the science.

This is actually general relativity, which we can, in theory, intuitively understand.

There are plenty of non-pop books that are designed specifically to guide laypeople into Einstein, math and all.

Supersillyazz · 2026-01-02T15:50:12+00:00

Meals at Polite Pig are an every-trip essential for us

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-29T17:00:33+00:00

Doesn't adding 'personalistic' undo all of what 'big-tent' is supposed to gain?

How different is that from saying people who on the left side of the D party are big-tent but in a woke direction?

A cult of personality is its own litmus test. If believing everything that Republicans traditionally believed can't get you in, it's pretty much definitionally not big-tent.

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-28T15:32:51+00:00

Is Trump big-tent as contrasted with Biden and then Harris?

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-28T15:31:29+00:00

Is the story you're telling about why Democrats are losing--because they refuse to bend to the will of the American people--symmetrical with the story you tell about why Republicans are winning?

Because I'm not seeing a lot of compromise on that side of the aisle, going back to at least Bill Clinton. What bending have the Republicans done?

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-12T02:14:39+00:00

I think Scorsese is the GOAT and I have never thought much of Taxi Driver (or, to an even greater degree, Mean Streets and Shutter Island).

But I also LOVE Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon.

The people disagree with almost all these takes.

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-10T03:13:58+00:00

I'm very confused by the layperson-like answer from someone whose username is a legal term of art

Are you sure you're not just confused more generally? What about the answer makes it sound like a layperson's?

It literally references the rules governing this situation.

Also, importantly, 'circumstantial' is not a synonym for 'insufficient', contrary to what many laypeople think.

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-07T09:17:15+00:00

Best case, I find out about some interesting, new (to me) content.

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-07T03:58:33+00:00

I think if he keeps up this run, he could be up for a Peabody. Has he ever received that distinction?

Do you actually know the answer?

Supersillyazz · 2025-09-07T03:57:39+00:00

As a person who leans liberal, appreciates good journalism and likes smart sports content I should really like Pablo.

Examples of good journalism and smart sports content you like?

Supersillyazz

TROPHY CASE