Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 600 posts

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#171

Post by peatmoss »

maroonblazer wrote: post #87
anonu wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I enjoy Rogan but he's no master interviewer. In fact he strikes me as a kind of conversational Zelig who will nod along in agreement with nearly any idea a guest might put forward. 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.

Oof, I mostly only ever listen to Rogan on long flights and then choose episodes based on whether I have any interest in the person interviewed. I was excited to listen to Nick Bostrom, but came away from that episode wanting to scream. I feel like there are other episodes that have been reasonably good... I’m struggling to think of any that stood out in recent memory.

But yeah, Rogan’s a mediocre interviewer at best, though he can be entertaining himself. And the long format of the podcast means that interviewees can sort of talk themselves out, which can give real insight into what they think.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#172

Post by resters »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #136
kiba wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I would argue that government officials can be reliable, efficient, conscientious, when they are properly incentivized. Instead, there are various pathologies that infect various organs or agencies at various time, often at time seemly mutually exclusive but they coexist nonetheless. The government isn't given the trust needed to regulate or otherwise do its job efficiently. See various civil engineering…

> Relatively nobody cares. If nobody cared, the only illegal domestic data collection program in the Snowden docs wouldn't have been shut down. It has been. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsas-... If nobody cared, Google wouldn't have encrypted its cross-datacenter traffic. It has. https://gmail.googleblog.com/2014/03/staying-at-forefront-of...

How do you know?

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#173

Post by katmannthree »

0x445442 wrote: post #150
duxup wrote: post #111

We live in a time where the president of the United States himself questions any law that inconveniences him personally, same goes for any oversight, and he retains a great deal of support from the population and his own party. I wonder how / if it is possible to convince the public that laws and oversight are necessary for good government.

We also live in a time when the CIA and FBI has been trying to remove a duly elected POTUS for the past three years. Why? because they think they know better than the unwashed masses.

Hypothetically, suppose you work for an intelligence agency. Suppose that your specific role is to monitor foreign influence in the US.

What do you do when in your opinion (possibly supported by classified evidence) that duly elected president is compromised by foreign intelligence? What do you do when the president makes decisions that hurt the US and help countries opposed to us?

Suppose there's some irrefutable classified evidence that he's compromised and under foreign control. Do you really sit by and do nothing?

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#174

Post by 0898 »

The success of Joe Rogan is fascinating and encouraging.

For a long time there was a view that attention spans were diminishing. Facebook and Tik Tok reduced content to the smallest possible dosage.

But look at this. This is one of the world's most popular podcasts and it's nearly three hours long. You see it too in TV: what is a Netflix series but a 13 hour movie?

I see a definite trend towards long form content right now, which I think is quite positive.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#175

Post by cygx »

meschi wrote: post #158
cygx wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His views on the topic lack nuance. First, you need to determine that the presence of male-to-female trans athletes is indeed a significant problem in a given discipline. Then, we as a society have to decide whether or not we want to do something about it, which is not necessarily a given. For example, are you aware that the top 30 male marathon runners are all from Kenya and Ethiopia? It sucks for Europeans that we…

The whole point of female leagues is, that females don't become overpowered by males. So the decision you are talking about is already made. If one starts to introduce biologically males back into the female league one could arguably instead remove the female league and introduce a unisex one. This would be more coherent with your reasoning in my eyes.

The decision about female leagues was made at a time when transsexuality wasn't socially acceptable and hence did not factor into it.

My point is, there are options to explore besides an outright ban. For example, a trans woman that goes through HRT will lose some of the advantages of her birth sex. However, she might still enjoy the advantage of the male frame, hence my suggestion of an additional penalty.

A unisex league as you suggested could also be a posibility, and one could think about introducing not only weight classes, but testosterone classes as well.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#176

Post by nickik »

heyflyguy wrote: post #60
hnarn wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, what about the things he did do you "hate"?

Love - revealed to us that our constitutional rights were being absolutely trampled to death. Hate - revealed to the world endless amounts of national security data that was not directly relevant to these constitutional encroachments.

> revealed to the world endless amounts of national security data that was not directly relevant to these constitutional encroachments.

How were those documents not still incredibly valuable and shed a lot of information on the functioning of the American Empire. US citizens should just be interested in their constitutional rights, but also in the absolute shit-show that is their foreign policy.

Sadly those insights got mostly ignored, as the US really has no actual foreign policy debate anymore.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#177

Post by mr_overalls »

0x445442 wrote: post #150
duxup wrote: post #111

We live in a time where the president of the United States himself questions any law that inconveniences him personally, same goes for any oversight, and he retains a great deal of support from the population and his own party. I wonder how / if it is possible to convince the public that laws and oversight are necessary for good government.

We also live in a time when the CIA and FBI has been trying to remove a duly elected POTUS for the past three years. Why? because they think they know better than the unwashed masses.

It's incredible to me that someone can be this willfully blind.

POTUS has been the subject of multiple investigations because he has a long and ongoing history of doing incredibly shady things - money laundering, tax evasion, consorting with Russian mafiya figures, _openly_ soliciting interference in American elections from Russia. And now we know he's done the same with Ukraine.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#178

Post by streb-lo »

jessaustin wrote: post #146
patentatt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Fake” whistleblower? This is a hop and a skip away from Q-anon territory, and shouldn’t be on hn.

Real whistleblowers: Snowden, Kiriakou, Binney, Drake, Manning, Winner. Notice a theme of career loss, prison, total life upheaval, and a press that DGAF. Fake whistleblower: still works for CIA, whistleblowing has purely political rather than administrative effects, and ongoing adulation in the press. If you don't want to see this on HN, then downvote and move on.

Well we could strive for a base level of critical thinking, something clearly missing from your statement.

A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'.

A whistleblower blowing the whistle on a hierarchy unable to directly fire him will also, not surprisingly, not lose his job.

Re: Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video]

#180

Post by KoftaBob »

roenxi wrote: post #70

There is a real lesson here about just how cavalier the American government - and to some degree the public - is about civil liberties, but that isn't the biggest problem. The problem here isn't even so much the government is being shady - that has happened before, it will happen again. I can understand people not feeling threatened by constant snooping even though I disagree. To me the real problem is how effectivel…

I would argue that the JFK assassination marked the moment that the intelligence agencies officially gained supremacy over the government. That pt is long gone, our goal now should be to make their job of subverting our democracy as difficult as possible.
Post reply on HN