Joe Rogan Experience Hosts Debate Between Jack Dorsey, Tim Pool, and Vijaya Gadde (On Social Media 2)

After a controversial first appearance, The Joe Rogan Experience welcomes back Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey /> with Twitter-critical independent journalist Tim Pool and head Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde

Rogan’s guests (from left: Tim Pool, Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde) just before the mics were turned on; clearly no one has any idea what’s coming

Rogan’s guests (from left: Tim Pool, Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde) just before the mics were turned on; clearly no one has any idea what’s coming

4/2/19, 5:10 pm EDT

By John Corry, photo from The Joe Rogan Experience on Facebook

Last month, The Joe Rogan Experience, hosted by comedian/UFC commentator Joe Rogan and produced by Jamie Vernon, did something unusual:

They hosted a political debate.

Or: ish /> a real political debate can no longer include anything but grandstanding, finger pointing, and at least THREE (3) random personal insults, two of them including a 'curse-word’ or some type of identitarian insult (or, for the over-achiever: both (fuck-tard cock-bleecher 2pac-fan-from-the-Bronx (Pencil Neck Adam Schiff (think about it)))). Gone are the sequitur days of Plato and Aristotle at the Academy conversing over the nature of humanity and holding politicians responsible for conversing over the nature of humanity; any sense having to do more with the state of calmness necessary for critical thought than the most recent rendition of the possibility of Judas being a real person is antithetical to the existence of power (or: human existence (because all human existence is is the struggle for power (obviously))), even outside of human input– outside of its most fundamental relations with humans, or with consciousness/intellect, or within humans themselves.

It’s ‘just the algorithm.’

The ‘debate' came after weeks of criticism of Rogan’s first interview with Twitter/Square CEO Jack Dorsey for an alleged lack of pressure on Dorsey for Twitter’s policies regarding violence, politics, and free speech. For some time, and especially in the most recent two-to-three years, Twitter has been accused of political bias regarding how they go about banning or suspending certain accounts on its platform. For example: the site permanently banned conservative pundit Milo Yiannopoulos for ‘abusive behavior’ (purposefully misgendering someone) (also: the fact that Milo’s a dick is not in question here (no shit, Milo’s a dick)), while accounts advocating for violence against 16-years-olds have yet to receive any punishment. (For a list of those banned from Twitter, and a fair account of the purported reasons why, see this.) One such critic was independent journalist Tim Pool.

Tim Pool runs several YouTube channels releasing content seven days a week (his Tim Pool channel is primarily fact-based commentary on issues either not covered much by the mainstream, or covered by them in biased ways, and his Timcast channel has more of an opinion style (also see his Subverse)). While one could blame Rogan’s more ‘open’ interviewing style for the–FUCK! (Rogan later explained that his goal in the original interview was to get at what Dorsey thinks of the future of social media, not so much what Dorsey may have been doing wrong in his role in it, or any of that^ with a more confrontational style relegating any natural conversation off the point inherently distracted)–the allegations against Twitter are not to be taken lightly in any context, but especially in how they pertain to the concept ‘free speech’ following the advent of the internet.

For reference: I define ‘free-speech’ as the ability to have one’s voice heard in conversations–in public–regarding politics and the things that affect one on a moment-to-moment basis. The modern world was built on this idea: while freedom is a complicated subject, its relation to speech is not (complicated), because speech is a strictly physical and therefore person-to-person concept (if I’m speaking out loud to myself, I’m just thinking out loud– and ‘thinking’, as a conceptually different thing than ‘speaking’ in that you don’t know exactly what I’m thinking right now while you do know what I’m saying (or: trying to say (for example in this article), is not ‘tangible’, for lack of a better word). Speech is dependent fully on time and space (conceptually-speaking) while thought is understood perceptually (with more of an emphasis on perspective).

For reference: Whereas ‘freedom’ as a concept is more secondary (to space and time, though obviously not fully) and dependent on thought in that its primary content is not action-based but conceptual, freedom can not be directly correlated to any action-based concept (such as speech) without becoming a different concept. A consciousness can’t understand a concept if it can’t focus that concept’s biases in-combination between thought and action, the latter’s existence depending on that context space-and-time, and the former’s on the transcendental absence of it (note the assumption of a possible Absolute ‘space-and-time’ for both /> existential ontologies are the building blocks of intellect #GrandiosePropositionsAreTheOnlyThingsWhichMakePeopleSmart*TheOnlyThings)–

For reference: The concept ‘freedom’, while transcendental in thought (as it is more complex than ‘thought’), cannot transcend the potentiality for its practicality in a world only possibly perceived by a consciousness which could only have possibly perceived that ‘free-thought’ within the context of space-and-time (or: our three dimensions?), and, therefore, the concept ‘free-speech’ acts for the consciousness as a necessary representation, though only temporary, of a concept only partially understood within a context not yet fully developed, or understood, in conscious perception (perceivable ‘representation’ of a complex concept: 20% of the actual concept, at best) (representable ‘thought’ in-time=’speech’; pre-supposed ontological complexity transcending the confines of current conscious perception under the context ‘questioning-thought-and-speech’ and understood out-of-time (complexity subconsciously assumed in-time)=’free-speech’).

Anyway: Pool unleashed on him (Dorsey). Top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde did her best to lighten the blow, but the towel was thrown long before the show even started:

Jack Dorsey has no idea what he’s doing.

And neither do any of the social media heads (like Mark Zuckerberg (FaceBook, Instagram, and What’sApp), Jack Dorsey (Twitter and Square), Evan Spiegel (SnapChat), Jeff Weiner (LinkedIn), Jeff D'Onofrio (Tumblr)) (though some more than others)…

Because ‘social-media’, as a concept, is nothing–nor could it ever be anything–but a branding/marketing tool.

#ThatWasNotThatGrandiose

Though ‘Psychological branding/marketing tool’ would be a better term…

Carl Jung proposed in the first half of the twentieth century an extension of Freud’s ego/unconscious idea with an additional difference between two parts of the ‘unconscious’: a personal unconscious and a collective unconscious, thereby opening the door to a more complex understanding of the psyche (conscious/subconscious perception on both individual and societal scales) and, more specifically, how that psyche interacts with the world. His Individuation is a process through which that complexity becomes simpler through Perspective (an ontological understanding of conscious/subconscious perception (ontological: the study of opposites with an emphasis on conceptual thinking)), or: at least simple enough to be understood consciously.

Jung’s Individuation goes through four ‘parts’, ‘layers of the psyche’, or ‘steps’ (focused points of reference throughout the connection between ‘self’ and ‘world’):

The outermost part–the part which connects both most directly with the physical world, though most indirectly with other people–is your persona; it’s your ‘brand’: that thing you naturally possess which you ‘sell’ to other beings which have that same potentiality for conscious connection between self/world, conscious/unconscious (which I’d call intellect (that conscious connection), for further reference #ForFurtherReference). It’s the mask which is your face covering those ugly muscles and fatal blood clots underneath it (ew).

The next part is the shadow, which is how it sounds: it’s the personal part of one’s self which is unconscious, and which, in effect, collectively translates the conscious/subconscious ‘self’ into something potentially tangible for the world (the persona/brand).

The next one down, the anima/animus, is the translation between the personal unconscious (conscious/subconscious-as-conscious (different from the potentially conscious/subconscious-as-unconscious which combine to form the self)) and the collective unconscious, being what takes the subconscious/conscious-conscious/subconscious material from the ‘original self’ (the collective self/the ‘self beyond myself’ (determined), and mixes it with the unconscious material ‘for yourself’ (free-will), or personally translates the ‘self’ into something tangible for/by the world (this is HEAVILY paraphrased btw).

The self is the core, the ontological in-time/out-of-time objective/subjective perspective which renders intellectual existence possible-to-understand (I-put-the---to-sound-smart (intellectual existence has thought; primal existence is all action)).

What this has to do with social media (conceptually different from ‘media’ in that the classical version requires a separation between content producer and consumer /> which is a huge difference, but it also holds equally fairly GINORMOUS-GIGANTIC implications for the former (social media)) is existential:

The Internet is physically two-dimensional, while the mind–along with the body which carries it–is not. (The body is in three dimensions.)

The mind may have many dimensions, and while A.I. could obviously in the future infiltrate these thoughts, it has yet to say anything more about where consciousness came from, or what its future is, than a human has, ‘humans’: its creator. Is there no possibility that A.I.–even aside from the fact that it was created by humans, and would therefore (as far as we could only assume) follow in its footsteps, as far as its understanding of the three-dimensional universe goes (unless it’s inherently violent /> in which case you should probably stop being a douche on Twitter and save it for the bar (pussy), because the continuation of the current devolving of intellect into primacy is the only thing which is going to bring such a collective-unconscious as A.I. to that place (if A.I. could be considered a ‘collective unconscious’ (over some kind of Individuation?)))–would ask these same questions regarding the nature of this universe (the one in which the two-dimensional  ‘world-of-the-Internet’ exists , through a portal, not as its fundamental content), or the nature of consciousness, as opposed to no-consciousness (no-thought, all-action)?

It cannot transcend intellect if it can’t transcend primacy, and this is assuming its existence possible in a world so fundamentally different than the one in which it originated (that being the two-dimensional world of the Internet (but again: unless the thing is just a virus hellbent on taking over the universe, which we have yet to be certain of enough to assume)). The only reason we have to assume violence as necessary for the development of consciousness is the history of human beings, anyway; we have nothing else with which to compare it, and while the hysteria surrounding the possibility of a violent A.I. is obviously warranted (also see: Jung’s collective unconscious has a lot to say about the role of art in the psyche), any general assumption regarding the growth of consciousness or its understanding in three dimensions is still at best elementary, for the simple reason that humans are barely any more capable now of understanding the nature, or the epistemological origins, of ‘consciousness’ than they were in the days of ancient Greece (if we ‘knew what consciousness’ truly was, we wouldn’t be talking about ‘artificial intelligence’, as it would be no different than observing some stage of the evolution of humanity which we had to understand in order to understand the nature of the current understanding of it in the first place).

As such: social medianecessarily existent only in those two dimensions of the internet (in three ‘social media’ would be called /> life (;D) (see that (botched) run-down of Jung’s Individuation above^))–can’t understand the dichotomy between intellect and primacy (intellect being a continuation of primacy, however just-as-importantly being based upon its specific content in the same way that a grown adult still can’t escape the horrors of her childhood (*Joke))) without, once again, becoming a conceptually different thing (in this case: the aforementioned /> ‘life’) existing in three dimensions instead of two. FaceBook and Instagram CEO Mark Zuckerberg has repeatedly referenced his company’s primary missions to be to ‘connect people’, and Jack Dorsey’s to ‘hold public conversations’, but these goals are impossible in a world where tone, body language, appearance, and a place in a three-dimensional world are prerequisites for consciousness, even before any understanding, or potentiality for perspective/perception (<important), has been raised within it.

In other words: the topmost ‘layer’ of Jung’s Individuation (the persona) is the only possible representation of consciousness not just on social media, but on the Internet as a whole.

Which is why you see people constantly talking about how great their lives are on FaceBook, or bitching incessantly about some small-ass detail which would piss them off only minutely in real life on Twitter (if I type ‘IRL’ in the content of an article, will that get me banned on Google? #ItProbablyShouldlolomgroflfmlgtfooml): this is not their real selves, and technically: it can’t be (existentially-speaking). But because it’s being sold to them as though it were–not even to the direct fault of guys Dorsey or Zuckerberg (‘direct’ being the key-word there), but in the sense that people have been looking for a simpler way to understand each other for centuries (not to mention a simpler (cheaper) way to sell something…)–and because the human psyche has a such a need to connect in the sense that that’s partly the entire reason for its existence in the first place /> they blank out. Given the nature of the medium (social media), they have to ‘sell’ something–it’s the only existence they have on the internet unless they’re there strictly to learn something–but if they don’t know what it is which they’re trying to sell, the representation–the small outer shell barely scratching the surface of what they think they’re trying to sell–becomes the product–

Which is why you see Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg fumbling around trying to figure out what the hell they’re actually doing: if they can’t psychologically be some kind of ‘connecting’ factor between humans (that being the ‘product’ they’re trying to sell (to us consumers (different from: advertisers)) but only between these ‘walled-off’ representations of them, then they’re publishing people’s thoughts and ideas /> which comes with a HUGE array of troubles and complexities when you’re dealing with millions of users sharing content in some cases hundreds of times per day. And in what context could they even know what they’re doing on the psychological front here anyway: they ‘connect’ us only through disconnecting us by putting us on our phones when we could be having real human contact (avatars). If the assumption was that ‘the Internet’ was as much ‘the real world’ as the world we simultaneously feel, see, hear, think in, and touch is, then that assumption was wrong, and it always was wrong /> but none of the original tech giants had been around tech long enough (meaning: they didn’t grow up with it as an assumed part of daily human existence) to see that people would inevitably confuse such a revolutionary force as A.I., or–the knowledge begot from enabling the potential inhabitance of another dimension–with just another simple way to make some cash.

While that’s not to say that ‘making cash’ is such a horrible-terrible thing to be motivated by, the fact that the phrase ‘time is money’ is so true only exacerbates the totality of this psychological issue, likely the biggest debate of our time, though no one will realize it until their kids have already realized in-time the implications of two-dimensional thinking: man committed to the representation of her psyche as numbers the moment she decreed currency to take the place of morals.

But that’s speculative, and I’m honestly not even sure if I believe it. The ‘question’ of ‘money’ (what it really is) is only relevant here if we’re trying to figure out how to make social media a source for good, and not just for materialistic profits or the parts of the self which need proof from outside sources to commensurate its existence. If primacy is indebted to the ‘survival instinct’ for its continued approbation in these three dimensions, so is intellect, but, as intellect may transcend these three dimensions (in thought), so must that ‘survival instinct’.

“There is a dramatic difference between what Twitter thinks is okay, and what the U.S. government thinks is okay,” Pool tells Dorsey and Gadde on JRE.

Gadde responds: “I think, as a private American business, we can have different standards than what American government has to institute. Those are two different things. I’m not denying the influence. Like anything, whether it’s the American law or the rules of any platform, there are rules,” (bold mine).

Apparently.