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

291–300 of 600 posts

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

#291

Post by puranjay »

waffle_ss wrote: post #55
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…

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…

One of my favorite interviewers is Sean Evans from Hot Ones on Youtube. Fantastic questions every time. Most guests also remark how good his questions are.

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

#292

Post by gizmo686 »

sucrose wrote: post #269
mr_overalls wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

(Off-topic) Does anyone know why `[flagged]` posts are censored instead of hidden? I often have to use web archives to view them.

In your profile settings, enable show-dead.

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

#293

Post by bad_user »

vfc1 wrote: post #88
andrew_ wrote: post #13

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…

Dr. Khan is not just a cardiologist, he's a vegan and my problem with him specifically and with veganism in general is that it's often ideological.

Chris Kresser is not an "acupuncturist". And this is a classic ad-hominen ;-)

Joe kept interrupting Khan because Khan was avoiding answering the asked questions.

And Chris kept mentioning the elephant in the room, which is that the randomized-controlled trials (the gold standard in nutrition) don't show a statistically significant link between heart disease and meat or saturated fat consumption and that's a fact, being also the subject of recent meta analysis, that used GRADE to reach the conclusion that there is no good evidence for the claim that meat causes cancer and that adults should probably continue their current meat consumption:

https://examine.com/nutrition/red-meat-is-good-for-you-now/

This isn't to say that meat or saturated fat is good or bad, but if listening to such a podcast causes anger at the people daring to question a "cardiologist with 20 years of experience", then maybe you should consider that you yourself have stepped in the land of ideology / religion and that's just not compatible with science or health for that matter.

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

#294

Post by puranjay »

peatmoss wrote: post #171
maroonblazer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I thought his recent interview with John Carmack was great. Though a lot of that has to do with Carmack himself being a great communicator.

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

#295

Post by sjwright »

asar wrote: post #157

I have to be honest here, I was very disappointed with this episode. It's basically a very long monologue and feels like a marketing gig for his book and not like a podcast with Edward Snowden. For someone who's familiar with Snowden and his story, this had very little informational value. I would've wished they talked about a bit more about other topics to see what Snowden and his opinions are like outside of the ge…

I think Joe’s style benefits from being physically in the same room as the interviewee. Had it not been a remote interview I think it would have gone very differently.

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

#296

Post by busterarm »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #284
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.

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.

There's a sizeable difference between judges and cabinet officials who have long been media pundits (though I do mostly agree that it's disturbing) and folks whose primary experience is in intelligence and counter-intelligence.

The era of rampant, selective intelligence leaks to the media started when these very same people were in administration.

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

#297

Post by lern_too_spel »

mieseratte wrote: post #193
mr_overalls wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Three years of investigation and nothing. Yet you insist we're willfully blind? Are you privy to information the rest of us aren't?

Three years of investigation and multiple prison sentences and impeachment hearings. If that's nothing, I'd like to know what your idea of "something" would be.

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

#298

Post by [deleted] »

bad_user wrote: post #293
vfc1 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Dr. Khan is not just a cardiologist, he's a vegan and my problem with him specifically and with veganism in general is that it's often ideological. Chris Kresser is not an "acupuncturist". And this is a classic ad-hominen ;-) Joe kept interrupting Khan because Khan was avoiding answering the asked questions. And Chris kept mentioning the elephant in the room, which is that the randomized-controlled trials (the gold s…

[deleted]

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

#299

Post by thismyrealone »

EpicEng wrote: post #272
vfc1 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does have some shared responsibility for the accuracy of what gets said on his show and the guests that he invites. 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.

Why does he? He's not a journalist, he's a talking head. He'll challenge statements he can't get behind, but this is an opinion/entertainment show, and he's not throwing up slogans that read "fair and balanced" at every opportunity.

I don't fundamentally disagree with what you're saying, but with great power, comes great responsibility.

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

#300

Post by puranjay »

typon wrote: post #62
andrew_ wrote: post #13

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.

There are interviewers out there that are far more knowledgeable than him and conduct genuinely interesting interviews with smart people. For example, check out Intelligence Squared podcast. It is true that Rogan's breadth of types of guests is probably unmatched.

The breadth is what I really come for. Like he interviewed John Carmack and Chuck Palahniuk, two people I've admired immensely but who come from two very different fields. Sure, he only covers surface level stuff, but if you knew nothing about writing, game design, or rocket science, you wouldn't get that within two podcast episodes anywhere else
Post reply on HN