81–90 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is a world famous standup comedian. He does MMA coverage and podcasting as side gig for fun. I doubt that his life depends on the podcast.
I doubt he is making much money doing standups in LA clubs. vs having a podcast with an audience of about 10 millions, which is more than most TV shows can claim.
His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting - even if I didn't agree with conclusions being made or the thought processes expressing them.
On the other hand, it feels like most of the podcasts have a shallow content level if you are already familiar with the subject, and sometimes the conversation/questions tend to go into the stoner mysticism realm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interviewing Nick Bostrom was cringe worthy. I don't know what Joe was trying to achieve - maybe forming an argument against the simulation theory? But it was so bad. The youtube comment section is amusing. But mostly Joe gets it spot on and does a great interview. What this does to popular discourse? When a small % of the population watch these types of long form interview and get deep, thoughtful and insightful ans…
> Interviewing Nick Bostrom was cringe worthy. I don't know what Joe was trying to achieve - maybe forming an argument against the simulation theory? But it was so bad. Bostrom really failed there. He simply did not explain the argument very well. Everything Bostrom said is clear to someone who already understands the argument or has experience with statistics, but it was not at all a good explanation for someone who…
What is democracy?
Democracy is a system of government where the three powers: law giving, executive, and judicial are separated and at least the law giving is in the hands of (representatives of) the people. In the case of the massive spying by government we are dealing with secret laws and/or the executive branch writing its own law. This is not very compatible with democracy.
> Montesquieu actually specified that the independence of the judiciary has to be real, and not merely apparent. The judiciary was generally seen as the most important of the three powers, independent and unchecked, but it is also likely to claim to be the least dangerous one.
He also touches on this in the video (around the 1h40m mark). It seems quite difficult to keep our democracies in check if the judiciary doesn't really hold real power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He certainly spouts some "bollox" but I don't think I agree about "authoritative". He tends to show a lot of humility and asks a lot of questions rather than making statements
It really depends. Go listen and to his interview with Adam Connover where he uses him as a foil to spout off a lot of nonsense about trans people and their agency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But he is financially dependent on youtube, isn't he? I am not suggesting he auto-censors himself but he is not "independent".
He is a world famous standup comedian. He does MMA coverage and podcasting as side gig for fun. I doubt that his life depends on the podcast.
His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting - even if I didn't agree with conclusions being made or the thought processes expressing them.
Joe is a master interviewer for the reasons you mention. I'd also add he has broad interests in almost any topic and subject matter, which helps. Another technique he employs is "listening". There are many times when I want to butt in when listening to his podcasts. But Joe just waits and let's the other person speak and soaks it in. There are of course the interviews which are actually him being interviewed (he does…
For a supremely frustrating example of Rogan not 'getting it' listen to the last hour-ish of JRE#1350 with Nick Bostrom, where Joe simply can't wrap his head around The Simulation Argument.
His podcasts are infinitely better than any amount of talking-head punditry available on the major news networks. I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, patient, and interesting - even if I didn't agree with conclusions being made or the thought processes expressing them.
The other day he set up a debate on nutrition where he covered the topic of heart disease, and he put a cardiologist (Dr. Khan) with 20 years of experience debating with an acupuncturist (Kris Kresser) on the causes of heart disease.
And he kept interrupting the doctor and taking the acupuncturist side on the most absurd claims.
He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff that generate a lot of internet traffic, but I think in a bit of a hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that stuff and just talks about it for the clicks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas.
> I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas. This is possible only if those people you disagree with don't have power over you, and acceptable only if the disagreement isn't rooted in a denial of your essential humanity. Both of these conditions are privileges that not everyone enjoys.