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

281–290 of 600 posts

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

#281

Post by waffle_ss »

ghostpepper wrote: post #160
waffle_ss wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe is not a master interviewer. Compare him to someone who does a lot of research ahead of time and comes prepared with thought-provoking questions, and can keep pace with the deep conversations, like say a Tim Ferriss. Joe does little research on most guests (mostly due to the sheer volume of guests I'm sure), which could be a more stylistic choice if he were a deft interviewer who could think on his feet and dig d…

Since others are posting examples of who they consider master interviewers, I need to include Sean Evans from the spicy-chicken-wing-gauntlet interview show Hot Ones. His guests routinely compliment him on his prep and the questions he ask. The show would be just as good without the hot sauce gimmick.

It's been quite a long time since I watched a Hot Ones but my impression was Sean Evans does great research with excellent questions, but he's often pretty stiff when he has to steer the conversation - it's like he has a clipboard with questions that he is focused on getting through. He is pretty quick and capable of riffing off guests' comments, but - perhaps due to time constraints - he jumps right back to his list of questions.

The Hot Ones episodes I found the most entertaining were the ones where the guest was the dominant one, steering the conversation, and the questions were incidental / not necessary.

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

#282

Post by RosanaAnaDana »

lawrenceg wrote: post #90

Someone made a comment that Joe Rogan is the dumb man's celebrity smart guy. I tend to agree, but I do enjoy some of his podcasts.

I would take the inverse. Joe Rogan is the smart man's celebrity dumb guy. I as well enjoy some of his podcasts.

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

#283

Post by puranjay »

jumpman500 wrote: post #97
senorjazz wrote: post #44

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 think you’re right. But... Joe Rogan often claims he’s not a genius, and not an expert in many topics. I also feel his fan community strongly understands this. There are a lot of YouTube videos making fun of his mannerisms and when he might be too high on an interview. To me this is as good as it gets for a talk show that has a wide ranging set of topics like the JRE. Joe Rogan isn’t an expert and doesn’t pretend t…

I'm a frequent listener and the only subject I assume Rogan is an authority on is martial arts and nutrition. I ignore much of what else he says, but I respect his knowledge on those two topics.

Other listeners I've spoken to feel the same way. And I reckon Rogan knows that too

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

#284

Post by boomboomsubban »

busterarm wrote: post #247
asveikau wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were partisan politics I don't think we would see the continuity that we did between Bush and Obama. I think it was clear and overt during the Bush era that there were some dubious claims thrown around about "we need this to prevent another 9/11", with "this" being vague, broad, varying with the particular speaker. It was disappointing to many when Obama embraced some of these conclusions.

> If it were partisan politics I don't think we would see the continuity that we did between Bush and Obama. If it weren't partisan politics, you wouldn't be seeing roughly 15 senior officials from the NSA/CIA/FBI leaving the public sector to take jobs at CNN & MSNBC. I'm curious why most people don't find this to be deeply disturbing.

I don't find it disturbing as Fox News and the other "conservative" media outlets were already full of ex-Bush era public sector employees. Both sides have an aggressively pro-intelligence agency bend, even if there are partisan differences.

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

#285

Post by alfromspace »

katmannthree wrote: post #188
alfromspace wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose there isn't really any such evidence, your opinion is all there is, your intelligence agency has an awful reputation and is infamous for steering the country into conflicts and crises through falsified evidence and statements, and you work to remove the president.

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?

Sure? Please get back to me when there's more evidence of that than what I just outlined.

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

#286

Post by sjwright »

cygx wrote: post #175
meschi wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But again, the female leagues were established because of the physical differences between men and women. Yes, some trans people who undergo some medical interventions have some of their physical sporting attributes brought closer into line with the opposite sex, but it’s not all attributes and it’s not all athletes. It’s exceedingly complicated.

The reality is that female leagues was a cultural hack that worked well enough in the 20th century. But in a world where we recognise that neither sex not gender fit neatly into binary categories, it is impractical to assume that we can fit people into two sporting categories.

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

#287

Post by busterarm »

hannasanarion wrote: post #273
busterarm wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it were partisan politics I don't think we would see the continuity that we did between Bush and Obama. If it weren't partisan politics, you wouldn't be seeing roughly 15 senior officials from the NSA/CIA/FBI leaving the public sector to take jobs at CNN & MSNBC. I'm curious why most people don't find this to be deeply disturbing.

CNN and NBC are not partisan entities, contrary to Republican smears. If they have any faults, it is in how desperately they bend over backwards to maintain the appearance of nonpartisanship amidst bad-faith attacks from the right, to the point that CNN just this week hired an alt-right conspiracy theorist as a full time contributor.

1) I'm a progressive and I'm saying this.

2) CNN and MSNBC absolutely are partisan entities, though CNN does try hard to appear less so. As long as MSNBC keeps employing Maddow and she keeps pushing debunked conspiracy theories, they will absolutely be seen as partisan. Her coverage as of late has been absolutely disgraceful and a huge stain on that network, IMO.

3) None of what you said addresses the very alarming fact that the heads of our intelligence agencies are taking senior posts in these media organizations.

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

#288

Post by generalpass »

0898 wrote: post #174

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 rig…

What I have found interesting about Rogan's show is that on the rare occasion he has more of a previous generation personality as a guest, I find these personalities are about 15 minutes of interesting. It's as if this new format requires personalities of greater depth, which, somehow, feels more gratifying.

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

#289

Post by cookie_monsta »

RankingMember wrote: post #185
KnMn wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I imagine being cooped up in an embassy gives you a lot of time to think and plan what you want to say and, eventually, you end up with a real fire-hose of pent-up expression.

Who's cooped up in an embassy? Snowden is free to walk the streets.
Post reply on HN