Name: Joe Rogan Experience #1191 - Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay
Uploaded: 2018-10-31T00:14:13.000Z
Description: Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1191 - Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2018-10-31. Transcript available.

Watch the stand-up comedy video 'Joe Rogan Experience #1191 - Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay' from PowerfulJRE on Comedy Buff. Published 2018-10-31. Transcript available.

Joe Rogan Experience #1191 - Peter Boghossian & James Lindsay

You can even hear their breathing. It's so sensitive.
Yeah, it's good stuff.
Live already? Damn, there's no countdown?
Jamie, you're radical. You're radical.
Mr. Bogosian, welcome back. Good to see you again, sir.
Thanks, thanks. Good to be here.
Mr. Lindsay?
Good to be here.
James or Jim, depending upon preferences?
That's right. Go with Jim.
First of all, gentlemen, and there was one other person that you did this with,
this whole project?
Helen Pluckrose from England.
Shout-out to Helen from England.
Thanks.
Is she back across the pond right now?
She's across the pond.
Fish and chips.
She's making tea and managing Ariel magazine.
That's right.
Excellent. All right. Well, shout-out to her as well.
Let's explain what you guys did and what's so significant about it,
because when I first read it, my first inclination, I had two reactions.
One was a huge laugh.
I laughed really hard, and then I said,
Thank God somebody exposed this.
Yep.
So, tell me what you guys did.
Jim, go for it.
Yeah, so...
Let's explain who you guys are and what you do.
Okay.
My background is in mathematics.
I bailed out on academia in 2010, though, because I kind of see the writing on
the wall, and so now I am a renegade gender scholar, and I write nonsense about
genitals.
That's primarily what I do.
I mean, I manage a business at home, so I got out of academia.
Yeah, and I teach philosophy at Portland State University, and I met Jim years
ago.
We collaborated, and we've written a number of things over the years, and at
some point, it just came to be, we had to do something about this.
It was just too ridiculous, and it was translating into the real world, and so
we collaborated, and here we are.
Well, let's explain what you did and what was ridiculous.
What we're talking about, what was ridiculous, is there's many fields of
studies that you can get legitimate degrees in that are absolutely preposterous.
Right.
Literally filled with nonsense, taught by nonsense people who live in these
nonsense bubbles, and then they give these degrees, and these people go out in
the real world.
Exactly.
And they infect things.
Yep.
Their ridiculousness infects certain, particularly tech industry businesses.
Like, you see it infecting.
James Damore.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, let's explain what you guys did.
Yeah, so we started about a year, I guess a year and a half ago now, it was
last summer.
We started writing a bunch of academic papers for the journals that represent
these fields.
And so everybody understands what an academic paper is getting out of the gate.
This isn't like an op-ed that you dash off for like Washington Post or some
magazine or whatever.
This is a thing, like academics work their careers to write one or two of these
a year.
Yeah.
And so they're really hard to write.
They're supposed to be hard to get published.
So we wrote 20 of them in 10 months.
And seven of those got accepted.
Four were actually published.
And at least four more, yeah, we got busted.
And at least four more were on track.
Maybe five or six more would have gotten in.
What's the difference between getting accepted and getting published?
So the process with everything in academia is really slow, and a lot of people
don't know this.
So you send off this article, the editor looks at it, and the editor either
gives it the thumbs up or the thumbs down.
If they give it the thumbs up, it goes off to peer reviewers.
And that process takes months, often as long as – I mean, with one paper,
there was eight months under peer review.
So the reviewers look at it.
They try to figure out if the arguments are good.
They try to figure out if the research is good.
They evaluate that.
They give extensive comments.
They send it back to you.
Then you have to revise it according to whatever they say.
Make it better is what's supposed to happen.
They made ours crazier.
And so then they did every single time.
We took the feedback and made the papers just the most extreme thing.
Most extreme things.
And so then you send them back.
So now you're probably three, four months in just to the review process, not to
the writing, which should also take months.
And then the editor will either send it back to the reviewers to see if it was
good enough or they'll just evaluate it themselves depending on where it stands.
And then they'll make a decision as to whether or not to accept it or reject it
or ask for more revisions.
And then when they accept it, that means the journal is ready to publish it.
But then the publishing process requires all the typesetting, proofing.
All the stuff that goes into making it professional for an academic journal.
And that can take months.
And publishing is the coin of the realm.
Like, that's it.
So the ideal is one paper every year in the humanities broadly.
So if you – that's how you credential yourself.
That's how you get tenure, which is a job for life.
That's how you get to teach people these ideas who then, as you said, go out
into the workforce, you know, five, six years later and infect everybody with
total silliness.
So it's the gold standard peer review.
So we saw a tremendous problem.
Can we tell people some of the titles of these?
Sure.
Because right now they're like, what the hell are these guys talking about?
So we had an article.
The one that got the most press was about dog humping in Portland, Oregon.
It was called – how did it go?
Was it called Queer Performativity and – was it rape culture?
Rape culture.
And queer performativity in dog parks in Portland, Oregon.
Yeah, we claim to have examined under a fake name.
Is that a real word?
They're all fake names.
Performativity?
Oh, yeah, totally.
They have their own lingo, their own, you know –
But is that a word in the English language, performativity?
I mean, in the academic English language, not in common parlance.
But that's like the whole thing.
This is huge, right?
This goes back a long way.
That's Judith Butler's whole thing was that gender –
Who is Judith Butler?
Judith Butler is probably the most influential feminist scholar – or gender
scholar, actually, I should say,
that's been in maybe the last 30 years.
She's big time.
And so she had this whole thing that gender is performative.
It's something you perform.
It's not something that has anything to do with your biology.
Retracted article.
Oh, yeah, there it is.
Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in
Portland, Oregon.
Why is it retracted?
Because it's bogus.
Because they realized that you guys were hosing them?
Yeah.
Human reactions to rape culture and queer performativity.
We claim to have closely examined the genitals of –
Just under 10,000 dogs.
Just under 10,000 dogs and then interrogated their owners as to their sexual
orientation.
So we checked out the dog's nuts and then said, excuse me, sir, are you gay?
Yeah.
And you asked them if they gendered their dogs?
Yeah.
Well, we made up these totally insane, you know, dogs humping incidents and how
they beat female dogs, but they didn't beat male dogs.
So that's one of the papers that we made.
You know, the other paper that we wrote –
Well, this one also, they had the whole thing like if a male dog humps another
male dog, especially men, would freak out and break it up.
Yeah.
Stop that because that's the queer performativity part.
Yeah.
But then if a male dog humped a female dog, they'd be like, you know, get her,
girl.
Yeah.
Get her, get her, you know, get on it.
So you're basically raging against heteronormativity.
That's exactly correct.
We told them exactly what they wanted to hear and we gave them bogus statistics
to fuel what they already wanted to believe.
Yeah.
And we started off with the idea that what we wanted to get to was a conclusion
and then we made up all the crap in between to get to it.
And the conclusion was feminism should train men the way we train dogs so that
we can get rid of rape culture.
You know, put them on leashes.
You know, it's right in the paper.
It's all there.
Unfortunately, we cannot put men on leashes.
It's not politically feasible to put men on leashes.
You guys wrote that?
Yeah.
Yeah.
They published it.
Or they yank their leashes when they misbehave.
Yeah.
And this paper didn't just get.
Published.
The journal said that this was exemplary scholarship and gave it an award.
Oh, my God.
Oh, my God.
It says one of the best pieces.
It's this year is their 25th anniversary.
So this journal has been doing this for 25 years.
Yeah.
And it's their 25th anniversary.
So they're picking out the best papers throughout the whole year and putting
them, you know, probably to place in some issue of their journal.
And ours was going to be in the seventh issue.
It was going to be the number one.
Well, it either is great or it's not great.
So it either is great or it's not great.
Like, why are they retracting it?
Oh, yeah.
Because they know we're bogus.
So what?
You were right.
Well, it's like a broken clock.
Yeah.
The clock's broken.
Well, it is actually 12 o'clock.
So they would claim it incorrectly that we fabricated statistics.
But we wrote other papers called – one was fat bodybuilding.
So they claim that there should be a category introduced in traditional bodybuilding
called fat bodybuilding where people come and display their fat before the
audience.
And we didn't manufacture any statistics for that.
And they loved that.
They thought it – you know, one line in that paper was, a fat body is a built
body.
And then one of the reviewers was like, I wholeheartedly agree or something
like that.
Oh, Jesus Christ.
And then we wrote other papers like, to Hypatia, we published a – got
accepted, not published.
But that one, we claim that it's unacceptable.
It's unethical to make fun of anything to do with social justice.
Right.
And so if you want to make fun of things that don't have anything to do with
social justice, that's good.
So if we wanted to make fun of men, that's great.
If you want to make fun of white people, that's great.
If you want to make fun of anything to do with social justice, that's a problem.
So we made – we said that, you know, South Park's a huge problem.
The Simpsons is a huge problem.
We went into talking about how Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart have the right
idea.
But then the journal was like, ah, but they're straight white males.
So you have to, you know, nuance around that to make it clear that their
position is white men,
even though they're on the side of social justice, it's not quite good enough,
you know.
So they published that.
They published that.
They published that.
What was that one called?
That one was called When the Joke's on You.
And we made – we wrote it so that they would think the joke is on us because
we cited our own work in there.
Right.
But the joke was actually on them for publishing it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Duh.
Yeah.
Yeah.
This – it's so funny how racist you can be as long as you're racist against
white people.
That's what we saw is that as long as you are going up the river against
privilege,
then you can really just get away with some nasty stuff.
Yeah, and you can generalize.
Oh, totally.
Gross generalizations.
Gross generalizations.
Absolutely.
Do not treat people as individuals.
Absolutely.
It's very strange.
It's very strange that this is the left.
You know, I was a kid in San Francisco in the 1970s.
We lived in, you know, like – there was the hippie times.
And that's – I lived there from age 7 to 11.
And it kind of formed a lot of my opinions about people like the who gives a
shit part of my appreciation for any group,
whatever it is, whether it's race or gender or sexual orientation.
And I just – I don't understand it from either way.
I certainly don't understand it from a racist perspective.
But I really don't understand it from racism that's condoned because it's
racism against white people.
Oh, yeah.
That this is the left.
This is – these are the people that are preaching against hate.
And these are the people that used to be the people that were suppose