"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick Denialism or falling uncritically for disinformation can only take one so far, until it blows up in someone's face and someone is hoist by their own petard.
Philip K Dick was a peculiar person. One has to bear it, what I believe as fact is your conjecture. Trump is a basic human, and he appeals to our base elements, and most humans are self absorbed animals with unrealistic importance of their existence.
14:20 Isn’t this an attempt to create classism within archaeology? Wouldn’t that kind of structure of a science stunt growth in the field, viable careers in the field & subject the field to more dependence on the private sector further complicating the integrity of the work?
Without a doubt, yes! Not to mention the inevitable (further) narrowing of voices and opinions in interpretation. Archaeology often likes to talk a lot about inclusivity and diversity, but in practice the sector has a terrible record... Partly because people from poorer, diverse and other backgrounds don't see themselves as being able to earn a living, let alone being welcome to contribute!? Frankly, I'm only doing archaeology because I wasn't aware of these issues. Growing up in a working class environment, first in family to go to Uni etc, I haven't been able to achieve any financial social mobility at all. If anything my bank account is worse off haha!
Interesting opinion. Classism is always there, it is just masked by an appearance of tolerance, and media time. What I get from what is happening in archaeology is that archaeologists are now navvies.
I’m trying to gather all the foundations, organizations, businesses and affiliates for all the people who invested big money in the campaign who promoted project 2025 to have the opportunity to become law. The politicians all have silent partners, the money. Politicians won’t make laws that risk their silent partners interests (profiting with less internal cost). So in light of the upcoming American government, I am going to boycott all those silent partners that invested in bigotry to become law for 4 years & I’m hoping as their horrible plans evolve that the rest of the world will continue hitting them in the only place they care about, their wallets. 😉
Speaking about Archaeology and history, I have seen it for a while now. I mean the devaluing of the Mediterranean people in its effect on civilization and cultural achievements. All manner of less civilized groups are offered as been more important: Angles and Saxons, Vikings, the Germanic speaking movements around Europe... those groups are the ones that gave Western civilization more. Paganism over Christianity. Christianity is Middle Eastern in origin. It goes on and on.
Completely not relevant to archaeology, but relevant to some of the issues with how things are valued in greater society: Sri Lanka’s UN committee on investigations into Israel’s actions (given on 11-17-2024) was concluded to find Israel guilty of genocide with the suggestion that the un act accordingly. This should have been the top headline of every newsfeed this morning, but it’s nearly impossible to find (I went to the Sri Lanka representative’s channel on TH-cam to get it. Posted below).
The Dibble v Hancock Joe Rogan vid (I watched the 14 min version, life is too short) seemed to me a fair fight. Joe Rogan wasn’t acting as a mediator, he was far too intrigued to do that which led to Dibble getting probed harder than Hancock but then Dibble is a real academic and it is both good for him and his role to be challenged like that. Dibble quite rightly asked, how do you date it, these are my dates and Hancock didn’t have an answer. This was both a private chat broadcast and a piece of (irregular) public broadcasting, in my opinion. Rogan had clearly researched some good and bad accounts beforehand and was satisfying his curiosity in an entirely natural way but Dibble held his end up well. That is how you respond to irreason, what are we complaining about again?
Complaining? At this point, primarily observing. If you couldn't manage the full four hours, fair enough, but that context is important as are follow up episodes with just Hancock on the show and most recently with another pseudoarchaeologist. They simply state that Dibble is a liar. Fact. The observation (aside from the less than edifying arguing and insults back and forth in the comments and elsewhere) is that Flint and other archaeologists shouldn't expect those platforms to be 'fair' or play by rules of objectivity, evidence or consistency. Yes Rogan was interested in what Dibble had to say, but that didn't last long. This is just part of the landscape we find ourselves in and the fact that Dibble claimed to have (capital letters) DESTROYED Hancock was... ambitious to say the least. The observation is that this loosening of acceptance of evidence in favour of opinions is a dragon that cannot be slain by a single 'hero' and not necessarily with provable, repeatable evidence. Something else is likely required.
@ all right, I need to watch-deep breath!-four hours of Joe Rogan. Being called a liar is par for the course for any public debate, he was tough enough in the part I saw to not be deflected and press his evidence. Incidentally I was sat next to someone in a public debate who had a writ taken out on him in the high court. The only difference I can see between us is that I didn’t make it personal it was the opposition’s statements I rejected and it looked to me like Dibble was doing that. Is that the problem, what looks to British eyes like unpleasant personal attacks? Secondly, this is a private channel, it isn’t a public broadcaster, there is no requirement to be all that objective. You go into that sort of thing with open eyes. Thirdly, I think if Kamala Harris had gone on the show she might have done some good for herself. Rogan has supported liberals before. It is possible the infernal algorithm is only feeding me Joe Rogan episodes that I won’t hate but if it isn’t it is worth being aware of the kind of things millions of people are into. I do feel despair over this, I had a very close friend tell me the Egyptians couldn’t have done what they did. This nonsense is infectious but it is debate and evidence tha5 is needed. Are there no more doctors of archæology over there who cangive Rogan a call?
Joe Rogan is a person from the bottom of his society, and due to athleticism been put on a higher level. He seems eager to learn due to his ignorance and lack of education, but he is not choosing wisely, and drinking out of the wrong chalice. Hancock can be quite convincing, and many people want to believe what he believes is fact. I stopped watching Rogan ages ago because of his lack of discernment.
Interesting talk.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Denialism or falling uncritically for disinformation can only take one so far, until it blows up in someone's face and someone is hoist by their own petard.
Philip K Dick was a peculiar person. One has to bear it, what I believe as fact is your conjecture. Trump is a basic human, and he appeals to our base elements, and most humans are self absorbed animals with unrealistic importance of their existence.
14:20 Isn’t this an attempt to create classism within archaeology? Wouldn’t that kind of structure of a science stunt growth in the field, viable careers in the field & subject the field to more dependence on the private sector further complicating the integrity of the work?
Without a doubt, yes! Not to mention the inevitable (further) narrowing of voices and opinions in interpretation.
Archaeology often likes to talk a lot about inclusivity and diversity, but in practice the sector has a terrible record... Partly because people from poorer, diverse and other backgrounds don't see themselves as being able to earn a living, let alone being welcome to contribute!?
Frankly, I'm only doing archaeology because I wasn't aware of these issues. Growing up in a working class environment, first in family to go to Uni etc, I haven't been able to achieve any financial social mobility at all. If anything my bank account is worse off haha!
@ haha a fitting assessment of the state of things
Interesting opinion. Classism is always there, it is just masked by an appearance of tolerance, and media time. What I get from what is happening in archaeology is that archaeologists are now navvies.
I’m trying to gather all the foundations, organizations, businesses and affiliates for all the people who invested big money in the campaign who promoted project 2025 to have the opportunity to become law. The politicians all have silent partners, the money. Politicians won’t make laws that risk their silent partners interests (profiting with less internal cost).
So in light of the upcoming American government, I am going to boycott all those silent partners that invested in bigotry to become law for 4 years & I’m hoping as their horrible plans evolve that the rest of the world will continue hitting them in the only place they care about, their wallets. 😉
Speaking about Archaeology and history, I have seen it for a while now. I mean the devaluing of the Mediterranean people in its effect on civilization and cultural achievements. All manner of less civilized groups are offered as been more important: Angles and Saxons, Vikings, the Germanic speaking movements around Europe... those groups are the ones that gave Western civilization more. Paganism over Christianity. Christianity is Middle Eastern in origin. It goes on and on.
Completely not relevant to archaeology, but relevant to some of the issues with how things are valued in greater society: Sri Lanka’s UN committee on investigations into Israel’s actions (given on 11-17-2024) was concluded to find Israel guilty of genocide with the suggestion that the un act accordingly. This should have been the top headline of every newsfeed this morning, but it’s nearly impossible to find (I went to the Sri Lanka representative’s channel on TH-cam to get it. Posted below).
Sri Lanka’s report th-cam.com/video/ZZW_3Q6o_Fg/w-d-xo.htmlsi=lmJDT4DiZK88qmSH
The Dibble v Hancock Joe Rogan vid (I watched the 14 min version, life is too short) seemed to me a fair fight. Joe Rogan wasn’t acting as a mediator, he was far too intrigued to do that which led to Dibble getting probed harder than Hancock but then Dibble is a real academic and it is both good for him and his role to be challenged like that. Dibble quite rightly asked, how do you date it, these are my dates and Hancock didn’t have an answer.
This was both a private chat broadcast and a piece of (irregular) public broadcasting, in my opinion. Rogan had clearly researched some good and bad accounts beforehand and was satisfying his curiosity in an entirely natural way but Dibble held his end up well.
That is how you respond to irreason, what are we complaining about again?
Complaining? At this point, primarily observing. If you couldn't manage the full four hours, fair enough, but that context is important as are follow up episodes with just Hancock on the show and most recently with another pseudoarchaeologist. They simply state that Dibble is a liar. Fact.
The observation (aside from the less than edifying arguing and insults back and forth in the comments and elsewhere) is that Flint and other archaeologists shouldn't expect those platforms to be 'fair' or play by rules of objectivity, evidence or consistency. Yes Rogan was interested in what Dibble had to say, but that didn't last long.
This is just part of the landscape we find ourselves in and the fact that Dibble claimed to have (capital letters) DESTROYED Hancock was... ambitious to say the least.
The observation is that this loosening of acceptance of evidence in favour of opinions is a dragon that cannot be slain by a single 'hero' and not necessarily with provable, repeatable evidence. Something else is likely required.
@ all right, I need to watch-deep breath!-four hours of Joe Rogan. Being called a liar is par for the course for any public debate, he was tough enough in the part I saw to not be deflected and press his evidence. Incidentally I was sat next to someone in a public debate who had a writ taken out on him in the high court. The only difference I can see between us is that I didn’t make it personal it was the opposition’s statements I rejected and it looked to me like Dibble was doing that. Is that the problem, what looks to British eyes like unpleasant personal attacks?
Secondly, this is a private channel, it isn’t a public broadcaster, there is no requirement to be all that objective. You go into that sort of thing with open eyes.
Thirdly, I think if Kamala Harris had gone on the show she might have done some good for herself. Rogan has supported liberals before. It is possible the infernal algorithm is only feeding me Joe Rogan episodes that I won’t hate but if it isn’t it is worth being aware of the kind of things millions of people are into.
I do feel despair over this, I had a very close friend tell me the Egyptians couldn’t have done what they did. This nonsense is infectious but it is debate and evidence tha5 is needed. Are there no more doctors of archæology over there who cangive Rogan a call?
Joe Rogan is a person from the bottom of his society, and due to athleticism been put on a higher level. He seems eager to learn due to his ignorance and lack of education, but he is not choosing wisely, and drinking out of the wrong chalice. Hancock can be quite convincing, and many people want to believe what he believes is fact. I stopped watching Rogan ages ago because of his lack of discernment.
@@Ponto-zv9vf There it is! Didn't occur to you for a second he got where he is today through hard work and ability did it?