251–260 of 600 posts
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…
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…
Its not just the lack of long form interviews, its the lack of long form in general. News is too short to be meaningful. I just checked the word count in the top 10 stories on BBC news. Average number of words per article was 764. While you can get long form fewer and fewer people read it, myself included. If a major player like the BBC resort to news in an average of 764 words the majority of people are not getting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
"Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple commenters have stated his stances are misinformed. Are his stances misinformed or is he simply poor at arguing for one of the many stances people can take on trans issues (issues which, if everyone is honest, are pretty complex)? The stance that it is wrong that there should only be male and female sports leagues AND that trans people should automatically be included in whichever their identification maps t…
I listened to that episode by accident (autoplay). He was just venting ignorantly about his prejudices toward trans people. It was honestly quite an ugly spectacle. It was the kind of commentary one might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you agree that if there is real legitimate evidence of him being compromised then working with congress to legally remove him from office according to the process given in the constitution is the right choice?
Do you agree that if there's real legitimate evidence of the FBI and CIA lying to the FISA court in order to spy on a political campaign that Comey and Brennan should be imprisoned?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've not run across one yet that wasn't well-reasoned, Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not. I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is f…
I thought the episode with James Damore was a good example of Joe ruining what could have become an interesting interview: lack of direction, ranting, pushing James towards particular statements. But I don't mind his show being hit or miss, given the sheer number of episodes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That was just an example among many. Anything from alien landings to Atlantis to god knows what is fair game to Rogan. He will gladly give his huge platform to the most complete wacko as long as it makes a good story and gets him his clicks, spreading a ton of misinformation and reinforcing common ignorant beliefs in the process.
> That was just an example among many Well, it wasn't really an example at all as he's petty open about how silly he was to believe it, but ok. Rogan invites anyone on who he finds interesting. Yes, he has a proclivity to want to believe things that are a bit out there, but he challenges a lot of those "wackos" as well. He also brings on many field experts just to hear what they have to say. I think you're wrong abou…
When he invites a guest he gives them a platform, many people hear what some of those quacks have to say and take it at face value.
He should take more care in not spreading so much misinformation and ignorance to a gigantic audience, there is too much of that in the world already.
Snowden is really clever with these interviews. Right away in the interview he establishes his concerns about the government, then briefly mentions the government smear campaign against him without hanging on the point too much. He calmly explains himself in an articulate way, establishing himself as perfectly sane. Then he reaches out to connect and empathize with his interviewer: > When I hear you just speak, I go…
Oh, man. I completely disagree. I feel like he just talks and talks about whatever he wants to talk about with almost no regard for whether his technical language is being understood or if he's dominating the discussion or anything like that. I don't think I've seen him develop a natural rapport with anyone or even make a firm, memorable point in an interview. I'll always be grateful for his leaks but over 2.5 hours…
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.
Be careful, because his podcast is a bit of an echo chamber. 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…
But as a whole, I do find that he has a very wide variety of guests which show all sorts of view point. Just don't take what you hear in any single podcast as absolute truth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's also a valid view, even if it's insensitive. You can be annoyed by whomever you like.
Right. My comment was just that I found it to be low quality content. It was like something you might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.