Menu

ymiwgabrusFB
Episode 186

You Made It Weird

Jon Gabrus

user avatar

You Made It Weird #186: Jon Gabrus

Just an incredible conversation with the hilarious Jon Gabrus, one of the funniest actors and improvisers around! Jon makes it VERY weird!!

Follow @jongabrus on Twitter!

Follow @peteholmes on Twitter and Like the show on Facebook. Buy YMIW shirts! Order his new special “Nice Try, The Devil”!

Tags , ,

31 comments

  • Legendary opening. I’m still only halfway through but this is a really great episode.

    Observation: An Eminem song, slowed down and stated as badly told jokes, is eerily close to a Neil Hamburger set.

  • The form of reincarnation that you guys talked about in the episode reminds me a lot of the Albert Brooks movie “Defending Your Life.” We all want to be Rip Torn making fun of the little brains before they move on in the universe… Now I have to go watch “Defending Your Life”

  • I love this podcast. Pete Holmes is so likable. He makes you feel like you’re sitting down with a friend having a laugh. I have been in tears cracking up at times. He apologizes for talking to much and sometimes he does but he’s so damn engaging and curious you don’t mind. I’m pretty sure he’s always in therapy, even when he’s not. His therapist must love him because it’s the easiest money he/she makes all day. Just say “How are you Pete?” and let him go. :D

  • I’m so glad they talked about the trite “Fast and Furious” comments. I got into it with someone in Facebook about that. My comment: “I am not without a sense of humor but if the body not being cold yet isn’t motivation enough, avoiding the predictable, trite band wagon should be.”

  • Pete,

    I’ve been a fan for along time, and have listened to all of your podcasts.

    I use to appreciate how open and inquisitive you were, but I’ve come to the realization that it is really just a facade, and you actually don’t care if any of these new age claims are true or not. I say this only because you have been spouting the same nonsense for years about astral projection, remote viewing, and now this cloud idea to name just a few. And you still think that they happen… Please point to even one proven case.

    I’m not sure if this has been your secret persona that i’m just realizing now is fake, or if you are actually this willfully ignorant.

    If it is the latter, a simple wikipedia search would do you wonders.

    I really don’t want to see a death by Pete Holmes body count like Jenny McCarthy has, but I have a feeling it is going that way unfortunately.

  • Re: The remote viewing farce. Now I’m seriously worried that Pete’s going to get into Scientology (who supports RV’ing) and try to espouse it on the podcast. Please learn how to learn things with an analytic eye!

  • It’s called Pascal’s Wager, but I think Pascal’s full of it.

    It breaks down once you consider that there are a gazillion religions that often paradise, but have conflicting tenets. Then there’s the whole “act as if God exists even if you don’t believe.” What kind of low-rent deity would consider going through the motions like that as acceptable?

  • Love you pete and your show. Saw you at the 9:30 club a while ago. but just like don’t say nigger, ever. don’t let your guests say it either. don’t let me down man, because you are a pretty funny dude.

  • @David I’m so glad you know everything…Tell me, what is the meaning of life? Why do good people die? How can we cure all the incurable diseases? Oh, you don’t know those things? Then get off your high horse please. Dont listen if you think hes full of shit. Thanks!

  • @ Arabrabba

    Ah i see, false equivalencies…. I have never claimed to know everything. If you would like to help pete out and show me one case of either astral projection, remote viewing, or a near death experience, I would love to see it, but I have a feeling that you can’t provide it because they actually don’t exist (at least that’s what the evidence says).

    See there is a huge difference between trying to figure out how the world works, and being willfully ignorant. Unfortunately Pete has chosen the latter on many of the topics that he is “interested” in (yes I use quotes, because I don’t actually think he cares about them, and is just talking about them now because he thinks that’s what people think is cool). I would have no issue if he thinks that these topics are interesting and wants to explore them, but he is purposefully not exploring them, and is just regurgitating anecdotal evidence (and often times dangerous information). If he really cared about these subjects he would actually investigate them.

    When I first started listening to Pete, I felt like he actually wanted to figure out these phenomenon, but after years of listening to him, its obvious that he doesn’t (and hasn’t), and honestly I find that frustrating. I feel like he is either being bamboozled, or is being a charlatan himself.

    I still like Pete, but I find it dishonest and worrisome that he is continuing to peddle these claims as if there is a shred of evidence to support them. Frankly there just isn’t.

  • I too think remote viewing and most other new age stuff is hogwash, but I don’t see how wanting to believe in it makes someone a bad person. What you see as willful ignorance, I see an outlet for personal faith that is making someone happy.

    It also is irresponsible, or at least disingenuous, to compare Pete to Jenny McCarthy. You’ve invoked a milder version of “Reductio ad Hitlerum” with that (and yes, I am implicitly comparing Jenny McCarthy to Hitler).

  • Astral projection can exist, in the own viewers mind. How does one prove one’s dreams? Just because science can’t prove it (yet) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist because we don’t have the evidence. We have still yet to figure out what consciousness is and where it resides. We all know it does exist but yet cannot prove it.

    I don’t think we can tell these people who have had these extreme experiences like astral projection, out of body experiences and near death experiences that they don’t exist when they’ve experienced it themselves.

    Here’s a fun song for you:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgBr1pt9r44

    Warning:
    Extremely Catchy.

  • I am okay with using things like psychics and astrology as a lens through which to interpret your own life as long as people who are into it know it’s not really “true.” So I was okay with the new age-y stuff in this (and many other) episodes and I respect the sense of wonderment that can go along with thinking that mind-blowing things like astral projection can exist. I definitely am not that person, and that’s fine too.

    So as long as Pete keeps those things in and leaves out profiteering quacks like David Wolfe in, I’m still in.

    Please no one become a scientologist. I think there are social bubbles in which things like that can seem really normal, especially in show business and LA, but truly… it is a harmful and well-documented scam.

  • @ David
    Depends on what you mean by investigating, since when have science ever been able to prove or disprove anything spiritual or religious? It just doesn´t work that way… Most of the topics he brings up is of the “either you belive or you don´t” type, and I do belive he investigates these topics, in the sense that he is constantly refering to new books and theories he reads and disucusses with people. Willfully ignorant is probably not the right word for it, it´s not a subject you can tackle with science and get a yes or no answer from.

    I personally don´t belive in any of it, im and atheist and im studying chemistry and biotechnology, i belive science all the way. But I don´t really care wheter or not somebody else thinks god or whatever exists because you can´t really prove it. Im more irritated with some of the weird nutritional claims he throws around, those on the other hand could be proven or disproven with some research. But how would you design an experiment to disprove for example remote viewing? There just isn´t any way to get around the simple argument “you chose the wrong people, just because these guys couldn´t do it doesn´t mean that other´s have not been able to”. It´s like disproving god with science, can´t be done. And “statistics” grabbed out of thin air, like “Ive never seen or heard about a proven case so it must not be true” is as far away from scientific reasoning you can get. No discoveries would ever have been made if that was how people reacted to new things.

    When it comes to these weird new age topics you get what you are looking for, thats just how it is. Alot of people belive in it and write about it, and alot of people think it´s utter bullshit and write about that. You end up reading what catches you eye, and that´s usually something that agrees with you views.

    What I find suprising is that you expected pete to have changed his mind by now, that seems weird to me.

  • I loved this podcast, and still do, sometimes. But all this new age BS is really becoming a drag. Its all such nonsense, and seems to be becoming the focus of the show. I vacillate between annoyance and sadness that Pete seems to believe anything that he finds interesting whether or not it’s true. I used to eagerly wait for wah new show, now maybe I listen at some point. The older podcasts versus the last few months there’s such a stark difference. I think Pete is probably going through something and is looking for answers or reassurance but that doesn’t necessarily make an interesting show. Pete, I love you, do some research from REPUTABLE sources, and I hope you find what you’re looking for, just not on my time anymore.

  • Pete, I’m grateful for you. Your conversation about systemic cultural misogyny was so smart & generous & funny, I kept going back to the beginning & starting all over again. Wonderful episode, and now I have RAP GOD on repeat in my brain: “I’m out my Ramen Noodle, we have nothing in common, poodle/
    I’m a doberman, pinch yourself in the arm and pay homage, pupil”
    Genius! And the video makes me feel so excited! And it wasn’t on my radar ! You delivered it like a Christmas present!
    Thanks, Pete. St. Pete! Your podcast makes me happy.

  • @Divad

    Ok, maybe willfully ignorant was the wrong phrase to use, but his standards of evidence is completely lacking. It appears he has no way of actually evaluating the merits of a claim (most likely because he was never educated in how to do so).

    “it´s not a subject you can tackle with science and get a yes or no answer from.” actually a lot of these claims can and have been tested, and have yet to show results. (The Randi million dollar challenge, is just an example)

    There are remote viewing experiments, astral projection experiments, and near death experience experiments that have all been tried, but have yet to have shown any positive results.

    I do agree that his nutritional claims are probably the most dangerous of all his unfounded beliefs.

    “I’ve never seen or heard about a proven case so it must not be true” ” i never said that. I asked for evidence, because if there is, I want to know about it. (I did say it didn’t exist, but I should have said it has never been proven to exist)

    That does not mean that they can’t exist, but it means that as per current understanding that there is no evidence to support that they do. (even though people have claimed they do, and in any type of controlled study they have failed to show efficacy).

    See science is about identifying phenomena, then finding out the mechanisms behind that phenomena. I hope you keep this in mind during your studies.

    “What I find surprising is that you expected pete to have changed his mind by now, that seems weird to me.”

    I don’t find it weird at all, I find it sad. If I was interested in something, thought it was real, and had read about it for years, I would want to evaluate the evidence; especially if others claimed that my evidence was flawed in someway. But again I think this goes to Pete’s underlying issue of not ever learning how to properly evaluate evidence.

  • The hard thing about dismissing people for their obnoxious online posts, blogs, etc. is that we only notice it when *other* people do it. For example, to dismiss people for transparently self aggrandizing statements and then to follow it up with several minutes about how you would never be like those people who made terrible Paul Walker jokes is hard to reconcile. We’re all just our version of the same stuff.

    Glad to see a new podcast was up.

  • @ David

    Well, the thing with the sceintific method used on things of this nature is that you can never fully disprove anything. Let´s say you investigate astral prjoection, if you manage to prove that it exsists then that´s that. You can then go on with the how question… But if you come up empty then all you manage to prove is that none of the people investigated could do it, there will always be the possibilty that someone else might be able to. And it´s this hope/belief that people cling to.

    I do agree with your mindset (which i share) that proof of existance is needed for something to be belivable, or atlest a theory that manage to explain and predict certain things within the subject. But there are alot of people who do not share this mindset, proof of exsistance is not needed for them.

    “If you can´t disprove it then it might be true, and im chosing to belive that it is true”
    -is the reasoning of a large gourp of people, as evident by religion for example.

    If I were pete, I would follow your logic and try to find a proven case and try to get some clear evidence. But as I said, that is not the reasoning of everybody. You are trying to force logic on people who have chosen faith, its like to different languages. It just doesn´t work.

  • God bless the conversation on forced public sadness and the level of ridiculousness it gets to sometimes. Everyone should feel sadness of the death of another human regardless if they are famous or not and they do not need to write in on their facebook page on how that sadness actually affects them. We are humans, we have the same feeling of sadness universally. The fact that you type it out does not enhance it.

  • Wow, love the podcast but c’mon! Pete needs a corrections episode after these past 3 episodes to call out all the New Age BS he’s been spouting lately. The CIA doesn’t hire psychics, Laury Cabbot isn’t a successful psychic (there’s no such thing), and remote viewers did not guess what Saddam Hussein’s hiding spot looked like. A quick Google search cleared that right up, Pete is welcome to make this podcast as New Age-y as he likes but you’re losing long-time fans like me. Take some notes from Duncan Trussel yo

  • I so enjoy the podcast and the show. I panicked a bit because the show did not come back in Jan 2014. I thought my mojo was slipping. Anything I love NEVER gets cancelled. I just have the very best taste. Proof = Pete’s show returns February!! Yippy-Skippy!