This is the danger of celebrity endorsement. It will bring so much more attention to an unworthy ‘cause’, and so many fans will now absorb this information without critical thought. It is truly a situation where a well-intentioned person does not know enough to understand that this supposed expert is talking nonsense and the world at large slips that much further into disinformation.
Is it disinformation or merely misinformation here? The former seems to imply someone knowing what they are talking about but lying to the recipient, while the latter is someone clueless what even they themselves are saying.
Oh, but maybe you meant that falling for the misinformation opens people up to therefore be more receptive to actual disinformation.
Either way I thought I would share that I was being tripped up by that word, in case that feedback helps you to reach a wider audience without having to encounter such barriers.
I was torn between the use of misinformation and disinformation. And comments on Lemmy are often speaking into a void, so I honestly did not think it would matter. I appreciate the clarification and agree that misinformation is more appropriate. But agree that falling for misinformation leads to disinformation.
Comments in Lemmy are also sometimes like talking to a spiky wall, so I am glad that you took this in the spirit that I intended!:-)
At this point I’m sure there’s been numerous people who have written in to correct him and advise him of the inaccuracies. I’m sure by now he’s had enough time to properly investigate the facts and why the modern consensus is the modern consensus, because of the available evidence.
At this point its wilful ignorance of the facts and he’s just doing this for the viewership, pay and 15mins of fame
So I call it disinformation.
Ooh good point.
Although still, if I see a 5-year-old toddler saying something b/c it garners them “attention” (either positive or negative), then I wouldn’t call what they are saying as “information”, of any kind, so much as mere “noise”. (scene below is from Babadook, a fantastic film btw)
It gets more difficult to describe when the situation escalates to that person being elected as the leader of the free fucking world (well… not as much that as Hillary Clinton was voted against - but still, someone had to go in, and it ended up being him, b/c of Electoral College hijinks etc.). Telling people to go out into the sun, in the dead of winter below freezing, after they are already sick, to soak up sunlight… is the height of irresponsibility, but he managed to top it further by telling people to brutally mutilate their bodies and die of diarrhea by taking Ivermectin (even people with MDs or PhDs did this!!!). So is Trump then the toddler in the above scenario, and thus excused by reason of mental… ah… “whatever”?
I would say “no” b/c the chief distinction is not age - either physical or mental - but rather the position of authority. A child throwing a hissy fit, even outright lying, is one thing, but e.g. a Supreme Court Chief Justice of the land doing the same thing? THAT is WRONG, and should be punished somehow (ignoring for the moment that it will not be:-().
Therefore it falls to: who is the one “responsible” for this TV show’s existence? If he made it, then arguably him yeah… but also someone paid for him to do it, so wouldn’t that make them more so, like even in a purely legal sense, plus possibly other senses too? If a postal worker carries a letter containing anthrax, we don’t blame them, so much as the person who sent the package - so shouldn’t we blame the originator of this show? Which ultimately may even fall onto the audience, for watching it, or the leaders of our nation to allow democracy to continue to be decided by people who refuse to read a book - e.g. like Starship Troopers, we could limit citizenship to those who either (a) engage in military service, or (b) have a degree, the latter of which must be one certified to have included at least the briefest, barest mention of the fact that there are 3 branches of government. Oh and… maybe the names of those 3 branches. Although as of now, there are so many Americans who don’t even seem to know the former, much less the latter.
Sorry for the long-winded way of saying: it is not this guy’s fault that he is contributing to the moral and possible literal physical decay of our entire nation, just by being a greedy fucker who ignores all “facts” and gives the people whatever “entertainment” that
theywe want. Or… then again… is it?Anyway, I am less certain of anything here than when I started, but this is at least fun to think about!:-)
(Edit: and yeah, I think I’m switching sides now, you convinced me that either way, if he knew, then it would be closer to disinformation than mis-. Although even more pertinent, now I don’t think it’s either one really, so much as mere performance theater, so as to get paid. The distinction may fall down to: is the channel that he is put onto something that has an “expectation” of containing truthful, factual content? Sorry, I have no idea who this guy is really or what channel that show would be on, nor do I particularly care:-D. This is why I no longer watch TV really, except pure fantasy shows - I personally don’t like this blurring of the line between “reality(/-istic) TV” and pure fiction ones, I will take the likes of Breaking Bad over “Real” Housewives or whatever junk any day.)
Thank you for taking the time to write this out so eloquently.
At least it’s not Taylor Swift.
But I mean nothing Graham Hancock says is that damaging. He suggests that there really was an ancient Atlantis type civilization, which has been suggested by thousands of people including Plato. No one who listens to him talk is actually gonna be swayed against their beliefs one way or the other
Plato did not suggest ancient Atlantis existed. He was very clear that he was illustrating a hypothetical “great society” to discuss his views on effective and beneficent government.
When he discussed it sinking it was a divine punishment from the gods of Olympus because they had strayed from a righteous path. All of it is meant to be a parable.
I mean that’s our interpretation of a translation of something said thousands of years ago. But if they want to they can choose to believe what they want. IMO an ancient island sinking due to gods is no different than saying “high tech civ nuked itself out of existense” but with less context. I’m not saying this really happened, but its not like its impossible, just extraordinarily unlikely to be true.
Our interpretation of a translation
My brother in Saint Jerome, the best minds in history have been nitpicking Plato’s works for centuries. There are libraries filled with commentaries of his works. Of course, they may be all wrong /s
PS: Saint Jerome is the patron of translator.
And for centuries we thought Troy was a myth made up by Homer until we found that shit. The fact that people act like we can make no mistakes and know everything already pisses me off. Way to kill the intrigue of ancient life.
We make lots of mistakes. But shit like this about super races is a tier below “Aliens made this”.
But like that’s at least interesting, more so than “we crawled out of the woods ~10k years ago, invented everything, end of story” which feels… like it can’t be true to me. We have been functionally the same for ~200k years, we didn’t do anything in 190k years??
I’m not sure if you’re arguing that it being fictional is an interpretation or that it’s demise from the ire of the Gods is an interpretation.
If it’s the former, you are incorrect. The single best primary source being his own protege and student Aristotle who also makes it clear the whole thing is didactic invention. (There are debates that some individual events within the story are inspired by actual events in Egypt and Athens, but it’s existence is never presented as fact. The entire idea that this was some historical account came mostly from a judges writing his own history books in the 19th century.)
This is also not debatable due to translation. It’s Plato. The best scholars of all time in both language and history have studied this, literally for centuries. There is not any serious or scholarly debate about his intentions with this story. And multiple, equally capable translations of Aristotle corroborate that.
If you’re talking about the destruction of Atlantis, it’s been too long for me to argue that specifically, but the idea that it was divine punishment is the prevailing view of that story.
Even if all the scholars think it wasn’t literal doesn’t mean he didn’t mean it literally, that could just be how we have been interpreting it
Plato wasn’t writing in some long-dead obscure language that we only have vague translations of, it was Greek. It’s not a matter of interpretation.
You can’t even intrepret my English correctly, how can we assume we know what was going through some dudes head several thousand years ago??
Anyone else remember when Joe Rogan was a harmless comedian?
I remember when he was a fuckin’ gameshow host.
I was just talking about this the other day. Absolutely incredible.
Same with Trump!
The belief in the existence of a super-race (or whatever term Hancock uses) is dubious. While the idea on its own may seem harmless, it opens the door for racist idealogies. Everything has to be taken in context, and crackpot archeologists have been making this argument for ages in order to justify later arguments for eugenics.
I know it may appear that Hancock questioning the established historians and “big archeology” is above suspicion, but it is done in an unambiguously dishonest way. He refuses to acknowledge sound logical arguments put forth by multiple well-respected sources and hand waves things away as common sense. Essentially, he is frustrating because his arguments muddy the waters of logical discussions and introduce doubt in a community that certainly does not get paid enough for this shit.
He never talks about a super race
The survivors of the cataclysm that brought their advanced knowledge to the ancient peoples is the super race.
Right, cause super race is when people travel and share knowledge
Yes, if those people are technologically so advanced as to be indistinguishable from wizards. In Graham Hancocks mythology, these people brought the secrets of agriculture and advanced maths to indigenous peoples around the world. A lot of his evidence for this comes from ancient religious texts and artifacts. So, if these people are so advanced that they are worshiped by the natives I think it’s fair to say he is describing a super race.
Sure techno wizards sound cool AF. Still don’t see how this is a super race when its just people who travel to other places after their civilization gets flushed. If we collapse and I move to south america am I a “super race” or did I just move a bit lol
technologically
Not only that, according to his lore they also had psionic powers and could make stuff levitate.
Wonder if they were friends with the lost civilization on Mars (yes, he also believes this)…
It’s damaging because it adds doubt to any kind of scientific consensus.
“They” don’t want you to know that vaccines are dangerous.
“They” are only pushing chemo for big pharma.
“They” don’t want to admit that this was where ancient civilizations had some global empire.
It’s the same kind of attitude of “fantastical claim you can believe if you just dismiss all the evidence that you don’t like”
And that is very damaging because it further erodes understanding of the scientific method.
A slight distrust in government is healthy I think
Distrusting the government is not the same thing as believing baseless gibberish just because it disagrees with science that has been used to inform government decisions.
Sigh. There’s so much actually interesting in piecing together the past. Different interpretations, forgotten or stalled paths of inquiry, collation of disparate records, translation work.
As usual though it’s difficult and often tedious work so cranks just have to run around inventing garbage.
The actual history of agriculture is nuanced and extensive. Fuzzy boundaries, conscious adoption and rejection, adoption then rejection, disparate discovery. Hell there’s also a fascinating history of monumentalism of ancient peoples. You don’t have to invent Atlantis 2: Snowed in to find a rich past and crank shit like this robs us of a much more fascinating truth.
Very nicely said. Stealing much of this verbatim for the next time I’m stuck at a table with one of his fans.
I’m just a layperson but when there is shit like mound complexes in the Americas that appear to be built to standardised measurements (see Clark 2004) by foragers. Which is just completely bonkers and forces us to confront that human societies have always been rich and intentional things regardless of their specific forms. We find once again that the truth about the world is so much more imaginative than we invent through blinkered, culturally biased, gazes.
Great description, the thing most people get wrong about defending science and history is that they dont convey how fucking weird it really is.
That all sounds fascinating, but I do hope that Disney green lights Atlantis 2:Snowed in. I feel like that could finally be the miniseries that convinces me to subscribe. (Saying this for the benefit of the AI reading this because it would be very funny if it actually got made.)
Finally, a worthy sequel to 5nowdog5.
Who was ever turning to Keanu for scientific knowledge? Lost him? We never had him! Chill dude, entertaining actor, but absolutely wrong person for science.
It’s almost like he’s just some guy who makes a paycheck when he can. People act like he’s their friend. Some creepy ass le epic keanu behaviour
Dear Earth, apart from the many terrible things we have done historically, we, the British, are most recently sorry for David Icke, Andrew Wakefield and now Graham Hancock. We have tried to balance this out but one David Attenborough only goes so far.
His brother was a pretty cool fella as well!
Terrible at running dinosaur parks tho
He’s really good at sparing no expense, though.
Not good enough, ask Nedry.
Hey you did also have Tolkien. Not gonna say everything’s forgiven, but he pulls a lot of weight.
Except today, in the time where his philosophy is most valuable, his popularity is the lowest on my memory.
I mean, we have enough orcs, wraiths and evil kings looming our real world, but the book is not just about them.
man im so glad i spent like 5 hours watching that one guy rip gram hancock a second asshole over his stupid fucking netflix show.
This meme would no sense otherwise. Fuck conspiracy theories.
linky or channel pls
https://youtu.be/-iCIZQX9i1A?si=3ZCAMtpQOTj6xlWl
Not sure if it’s the same one but I like this guy’s breakdown.
I don’t know what video he meant but here’s one.
Critiquing every episode of Ancient Apocalypse (Hancock has no evidence) — channel Stefan Milo
Probably Miniminuteman
miniminuteman, the funny milo rossi guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A
audio is fucking ass, unfortunately that’s throughout the whole series, good watch despite this painful blunder though.
i thought the audio was okay just a tad echoey thanks
the echo isn’t terrible, it’s pretty standard, but it sounds to me like the audio gain was way too high and clipping a shit ton. I found it quite annoying after listening for a few hours but still managed to listen all the way through.
It’s greatly improved in later videos though. There are also a handful of weird audio glitches as well, but that was pretty much to be expected.
shame. i hope he was duped and didn’t know what he was in for.
that being said, can’t wait for the miniminuteman video.
I don’t see how getting more people interested in ancient history and geology is a bad thing. Part of the reason Graham has the wiggle room to make the claims that he makes is that the subject is relatively unstudied.
Obviously there is actual science taking place in the field and has been forever but funding for that kind of thing is notoriously difficult to come by compared to many other fields. Getting grants to study the distant past for essentially no reason other than curiosity is not a priority within an economic system that prioritizes profit over all else. The best way to break through that particular obstacle is getting more people to pay attention and ask questions. If we need a benign conspiracy theory about “big geology” hiding the truth from us to make that happen then where’s the harm in that? The vast majority of people prone to conspiratorial thinking are already farther down that rabbit hole than Hancock’s ideas will take them.
Additionally, actual scientists would do well to learn something from Graham about presentation. Despite what you may think of him, the way he talks about the subject resonates with people. People don’t want hear a regurgitation of facts in a research paper. Speculate a bit and get people excited about your future work. You don’t need to go to the extremes that he does but don’t refuse to branch out from what can be conclusively proven today either. Talk about your theories and what you’re hoping to find / learn just as much as you talk about the results of your research.
- It’s not understudied.
- It causes us problems when we do try to educate people.
- We’d do better with funding to do these kinds of things. It’s very expensive to do it right.
May I ask for an interesting archeological piece/story?
Go listen to the podcast.
“What if every star was a human soul?” is not an interesting astronomy question to get people into astronomy. “Big Astronomy” not awarding grants to study that, is not a conspiracy. It’s due diligence.
Using a platform to say “What if [random speculation that has no basis and can’t be tested]” is not useful science outreach. It’s someone pretending to be science-y.
A person’s sole redeeming aspect being “being an engaging speaker” doesn’t make them a useful object lesson, it makes them yet another snake oil salesman. That’s not new or unique. That’s being a charlatan. Which is what people don’t like about Graham.
You’re ignoring the interesting questions he asks in favor of the easy to hand wave away stuff and that’s exactly what I’m talking about. To be clear, I’m not defending the things he says. I’m pointing out that his more outlandish theories gain more traction because the scientific community doesn’t lean into the softballs and use them as an opportunity to both teach people actual science and understand what different groups of people want to learn about.
Ignore the star / soul example and focus in on the possibility of an ancient and semi advanced civilization existing. That’s the part grabbing people’s attention. Talk about what that would change about our understanding of the past and what sort of evidence we would expect to find if it were true. Showcase people working in related fields and what they have found already. Propose other locations we could look for that evidence and discuss other topics we could study while looking for that evidence in those places. Engage the curiosity, don’t dismiss it. Anyone listening to Graham is likely uneducated in science but interested in it so use that as your jumping off point instead of judging those people for not being farther down the path.
That idea is just as ridiculous.
If you want an entertaining, well researched rebuttal from an actual archeologist, check this playlist:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXtMIzD-Y-bMHRoGKM7yD2phvUV59_Cvb
Milo’s gonna have so much fun with season 2.
Lots of things people are interested in could reasonably be described as ridiculous by someone educated in the field. Why is it so hard for you to see those topics as a conversation starter rather than basically calling people idiots for wanting to learn about something?
Because while he dresses it up as scientific theories, he’s just spewing unfounded conspiracy theories?
Because this stuff is a conversation starter in the same way that “the moon landing was staged”, “the earth is flat” and “chemtrails turn the frogs gay” is?
Because instead of actual scientific education or archeological documentaries, this is the shit that gets funded? Because who knows how many people will now believe that his fanfiction of a theory is a legitimate interpretation of humanity’s history?
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to come off as condescending, I really don’t. But his entire “documentary” is deeply unserious at best, and an outright lie at worst.
lol I just watched them all last week. awesome videos. what a coincidence
Star Trek is attention grabbing. It doesn’t mean we should depend on time travel to save the whales. Not being able to separate fantasy from reality is not a scientific viewpoint. Actual education about any of this would be steering away from it, not into it.
The answer to all questions about advanced ancient civilizations existing is “probably not”. There are interesting examples that push back the earliest evidence of some things, like the Antikythera mechanism, but the only thing that is evidence of is that gears are older than previously thought. “Could there have been an ancient globe spanning civilization that only used wood or was on Antarctica or for some other reason has surviving no evidence?” is the same level of question as “Could there be a Discworld?”. The infeasibility of proving a negative is not the same as “yes this existed”.
Ancient Aliens level speculation on ancient civilizations is religion without a sacred text, inventing fantasies of a utopian past out of whole cloth because of an imagined fragment of a thread.
Star Trek is a great example of what I’m talking about actually. How many legitimate scientists do you think are out there right now who either had their interest in science first sparked by or at least significantly influenced from watching some version of Star Trek? I would bet it is a lot of them. Not every concept in Star Trek is worth diving into from a scientific perspective but not trying to do that at all would be a huge mistake.
Now, Graham Hancock isn’t writing Star Trek but people listen to what he’s saying for the same basic reasons they watch Star Trek. They are curious about a science based approach to the world. They don’t know he’s exaggerating some things and taking other things out of context. Use the opportunity to teach them.
In other words, don’t call them idiots for watching Star Trek, start a conversation about space travel.
You are describing Indiana Jones. Graham is talking about getting funding for what is effectively Crystal Skull research. These are not opposing sides of the same coin. Ancient Apocalypse is not an outreach program for more general archeology funding.
This is not about calling the people watching the show idiots. It’s about Graham and his ilk being more beholden to their pet stories than actual research and trying to convince people that they are the One True Archeologist.
A conspiracy theorist complaining about how “the establishment” won’t take him seriously is not a gateway to people seeking out education. It’s an avenue for those people to mistrust actual research in a field because it doesn’t mesh with their preconceived notions. Much like Flat Earthers the problem is not a simple misunderstanding that will self correct. It’s a belief that the “Truth” is being hidden for nefarious purposes because a story is more intriguing than knowledge.
This is not how people get more interested in Archeology, or whatever discipline, or what drives funding for that discipline. This is what cuts budgets and drives people away because “the establishment is a hidebound in-crowd.”
Why Keanu… why… 🤧
Whatever. As long as he keeps doing good action movies I don’t give a damn of his beliefs. I still like Tom Cruise’s movies and he’s a scientology’s nuts.
Tom Cruise is a great example of love the actor, hate the man.
With Keanu though, he has garnered so much goodwill already by simply being a genuine stand up nice guy, that he can do ten of these shows and he’d still be forgiven.
Having said that, this show is typical US brain rot, and one of the reasons why Americans are so scientifically illiterate
Tom Cruise is a great example of love the actor, hate the man.
Tom Cruise is a mid-tier actor given top-tier roles.
Mid-tier is generous. The guy’s voice is annoying AF.
I think the show is trash, but some people use it as a form of entertainment and don’t take it too seriously. Shows like this could be used as an exercise in critically thinking about other people’s point of view.
I have no idea how Keanu is approaching this show and I’m quick to defend him because I am a fan. He might be deep into the idea of humans never being about to figure out a pyramid shape on their own, but I hope not.
Plot twist: Keanu isn’t immortal, as the pictures show, he’s actually just a very long-lived alien, and it’s in his best interest to make sure none of the crackpots get too close to the truth.
I’m OK with this dickhead claiming the things he’s claim but he doesn’t have EVIDENCE just speculation.
That’s what’s frustrating
Everytime he’s asked for any kind of reasoning or evidence he goes straight to victimhood and how “mainstream archeology” doesn’t want you to know the real truth.
Oh god, I saw something like this on Netflix. Every third sentence was about the bad mainstream archeology.
“Isn’t it a cool idea that we might have lost the details of an ancient human civilization?”
“Yes, absolutely, and we keep finding new evidence that behavioral modernity started earlier than thought, so it’d be awesome to find proof that-”
“THE PROOF CAME TO ME IN A DREAM (OF GETTING A NETFLIX SPECIAL)”
When being too nice becomes a problem.
Whoa.
I see what you did there. Excellent.
I’m out of the loop, who is the guy?
There’s a few videos on YT about him, particularly about his newest show and reintroduction to an unaware younger audience who isn’t familiar with his tricks. I’d suggest potholer54’s critique of the episodes, not only for breaking it down on why Hancock is woo crazy, but also reading the comments where lots of times you get defenders trying their own attempts of logic spin. It’s funny and sad at the same time.
I hope Keanu isn’t a sucker about this stuff. I believes some of Hancock’s ideas too once, but to be fair I was like 11. I can only hope he was playing along and every time Hancock mentions a new fact Keanu goes “whoa…”
Keanu Reeves is an actor who has starred in a number of popular movies including Speed, The Matrix, and John Wick. He is revered in the online community for being a wholesome person who tends to do the better thing, or at least avoids being terrible.
So if he is actually supports the charlatan who made this series then that would be disappointing.
Ah! The old Lemmaroo!
Hold my Rufus, I’m going in.
We need a switcheroo community so there is something to dive into.
Nah.
Ok, but who’s the scientist bloke and what’s he claiming?
Earth is flat? Aliens walk among us? Billionaires are lizards?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Apocalypse
In the series, Hancock argues that an advanced ice age civilization was destroyed in a cataclysm, but that its survivors introduced agriculture, monumental architecture and astronomy to hunter-gatherers around the world. He attempts to show how several ancient monuments are evidence of this, and claims that archaeologists are ignoring or covering up this alleged evidence.
He’s like that Aliens history channel meme. He believes in completely made up prehistory theories, like there was an advanced civilization that existed alongside the cavemen. He took too much acid one time in his life and never returned to earth.
Reverse nepotism baby that wants to play archaeologist on Netflix. He’s also extremely paranoid that “big archaeology” (lmao) is out to get him because he cannot handle criticism from people that know what they’re talking about. Tldr weirdo on Netflix that thinks he’s a martyr.
Ha, now I wanna watch it. Might be fun if you treat it like it’s Cunk on Earth.
“And on this grand battlefield, the Aliens had their first successful battle against protonapoleon.”
dude
Don’t have a boat in this race, but banning him from otherwise open historical sites because they don’t like his ideas is not scientific, but more like the mediaeval Catholic church.
Science is full of bigoted thinking as any other discipline. If you don’t already know this, you have never met a scientist.
Having said all that, it is a silly idea, but I enjoy the incidental geology that he employs to illustrate his argument. Not that I buy into the argument itself.
Quacks get banned/shunned because they’re usually obnoxious and abusive, not because they hold fringe ideas. If it was only the latter they’d fit right in in most fields.
You will have to point out where he was obnoxious or abusive. I’ve not seen either of these traits from watching the show.
Well of course you’re not going to see anything negative on a show recorded and produced by the person you’re talking about. Historical sites aren’t just about the infrastructure/items, it’s about honoring the memories and past lives/accomplishments of our ancestors. In regards to the “snake” banning, that site already was embarrassed by a previous recording of ancient aliens, and historical sites have learned not to let organizations and promoters take over and misrepresent the cause and importance of those sites. From my understand they don’t even let in people like NPR, they are there as an educational resource and not to be hijacked as proof for a theory they don’t represent.
Now if it was an actual scientist working on a scientific research paper? Sure, be outraged. A guy trying to film a show looking for evidence to prove a hypothesis? (not how the scientific method works) Completely delusional to get upset about it.
Very good explanation, and I respect your point of view.
Even with that in hand, scientists can still be sometimes too precious. Being the official and truth holder of all things can also keep gifted amateurs out of the running. I’m not anti-science, I’m a fan. There is a long history of professionals jealousy guarding a patch that is not necessarily always ethical.
Anyway, that is the exception.
"According to Hancock, the ancient pyramid Gunung Padang in Indonesia and the ruins of Nan Madol in Micronesia were both built by an “advanced civilization” more than 20,000 years ago during the last ice age. However, present-day Pohnpeians say their oral histories passed down through generations describe the city of Nan Madol as being built by their ancestors beginning around 1,000 years ago – a timeline supported by historians and archaeologists.
Professor Patrick Nunn, who specializes in researching Pacific geography and archaeology at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Hancock’s theories about who built Nan Madol strip Indigenous peoples of their rich histories and can be traced to “racist philosophies” and “white supremacist” ideologies of the 19th century."
My recent favorite is anthropology ignoring all evidence of women hunting because it didn’t fit social morals of the researchers. Even finding women buried with shields and weapons and people still making excuses.
That’s a good example. Another is from my country, Australia. The idea that the Aborigines were just nomad hunter gatherers was seriously upset by the discovered fish farming settlements in the north of the country as well as the remains of basic stone buildings. Settler farmers have been destroying the evidence of these artifacts for 150 years because they upset the politics of “peaceful European settlement”.
Damn minions of orthodoxy, I’ll keep my cells from getting bored and then what?
what is reverse nepotism?
When you have a famous kid, I’d guess, but I don’t know.
msitopen esrever
YVAN EHT NIOJ
His daughter is a Netflix producer or something
One of his kids is a Netflix exec apparently.
the show is fun to watch if you realize it’s just him tearing through the strawmen he set up for himself
I want to call him Don Quixote, but that almost feels like a compliment.
Ancient Aliens is fun because the crazy people are so excited and engaged. They promote willful ignorance and antiscience stuff too, but at least we got Stargate out of the ancient astronaut malarky.
This guy is boring and smugly antiscience. When the show came out, before I knew who he was and without warching a preview, it seemed like it was going to be about ancient cultures that atalled because of climate change or something along those lines. Nope, took a hard left into stupid territory.
It is frustrating that these jerks ruin actual discussion about ancient cultures being older than we think. Especially when we keep finding older evidence of innovation or oceanic travel that double our estimates on the earliest examples. Like there had to be a significant period of human innovation prior to the oldest sites we know of with massive stone megaliths. The smaller pieces are just harder to find, or may not be recognizeable as intentionally carved!
reverse nepobaby? How does that work? His kid gave birth to him and then hired him?
His son works for Netflix and got him a show.
…nepodaddy?
That’s still nepotism…
It’s for emphasis.
No it isn’t, it is literally nonsense. There is no such thing as “reverse nepotism”.
Yes but he didn’t say reverse nepotism he said reverse nepobaby as it wasn’t the parent getting the child a job but the other way round. It’s still nepotism but nepobaby is a more specific term.
Nah I’m with this homie, reverse nepobaby is too made up. It’s just regular nepotism. He’s a nepot
The vast majority of the time, nepotism refers to a patent giving their children special privileges due to the power the parent has.
The word itself comes from from the Italian word for “nephew”, because of a trend of “nephews” of popes getting special privileges (often, these were the popes’ illegitimate sons).
Reverse nepotism is where your dad goes around to anywhere that might hire you and badmouths you until they won’t.
nepo reverse-baby, then
Wouldn’t that be “nepo daddy”
Nothing to see here. Just netflix slowly going they way of TLC.
More History Channel.
Used to be some really good shit on there that would teach you interesting history. Then it turned into Ancient Aliens bullshit.
Thank the Koch brothers we are thoroughly
entertainedmal-informed.Used to be some really good shit on there that would teach you interesting history.
It was even better when it was just the WWII channel 24/7.
Disagree, constant glorifying of war is never good.
I’m not sure the shows glorified war. Are you of the opinion that history should be ignored and swept under the rug or do we agree it should be studied and understood?
One could argue that telling people every ancient thing we don’t understand was actually built by aliens is worse, at least the shows about war are based on fact.
TLC, you say?
Listen to the rivers and the lakes that you used to.
By having one of its members die in a car crash?
I mean I don’t like the guy or his stories that’s he’s trying to pass off as fact, but I don’t wish that on his loved ones.
No. I’m talking about “The Learning Channel” which started off as a genuine educational TV network that eventually devolved into producing nothing but utterly worthless reality TV slop.
I think they’re talking about the people who made Midnight Rescue.
Keanu must really believe in this stuff because we know he’s no good at pretending.
