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

301–310 of 600 posts

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

#301

Post by lern_too_spel »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #275
jessaustin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forget the public, why don't elected officials themselves act more in simple self-interest? Not all of them are bankrolled by the military-industrial complex, yet not a one ever utters a peep about the trillions we spend on evil security-theater bullshit. No, killing lots of people in the Middle East does not make us safer, which anyone on any of the relevant Congressional committees could tell you. Most of them woul…

There are plenty that do. They end up making waves in the libertarian and conspiracy communities and are generally blacklisted by the mainstream press. The two communities above are receptive to messages about government overreach and corruption, the general public seems not to care much. I suspect this is largely because libertarians and conspiracy theorists (which do overlap to some extent) are already skeptical of…

> It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures

Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.

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

#302

Post by duxup »

raxxorrax wrote: post #277
duxup wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is your explanation for the success of Trump? I'm not sure why I would have to explain that to understand what you're saying. >Because he has a pretty clean alibi for not implementing mass surveillance. I have no idea what that means in relation to the first sentence. Are you saying he wasn't a part of government during the establishment of some surveillance and that means something now? and/or Do you feel vote…

You referenced the current president as an example of someone ignoring the law, while previous administrations were responsible for implementing and extending mass surveillance consistently while ignoring the law. I said that could be part of Trumps success, because his voters had similar ideas. Which laws did Trump break by the way?

This conversation seems to be the status quo for many parts of the internet and I don't understand what the point is.

It starts with some empty taglines and talking points and then lots of questions like:

>What is your explanation for the success of Trump?

or

>Which laws did Trump break by the way?

That don't seem related to anything I said.

It just feels like pushing talking points or a push poll, by constantly asking someone to prove random things in order to provide some support to some weird concepts like because some user can't explain something... that means something or other...

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

#303

Post by defen »

duxup wrote: post #114
jessaustin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest explanation for lots of confusing events is that the intelligence agencies have enjoyed supremacy over the government for some time already. They run the media as well: just look at the glowing plaudits for their fake "whistleblower" as contrasted with the ongoing disdain for actual whistleblowers.

Intelligence agencies "run the media"? How so?

"Run the media" in this context doesn't mean there's some CIA commissar approving every article or broadcast. What it means generally is that access to "leaks", scoops, "anonymous government sources", "high level intelligence officials", etc is predicated on uncritically toeing the "intelligence community" line. Failing to do so means no more access, and you will be replaced by someone else.

Take the lessons of Manufacturing Consent and apply them to the contemporary political context instead of Vietnam and East Timor, even if the elite media seems to be aligned with your own political beliefs.

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

#304

Post by yourbandsucks »

sagichmal wrote: post #78
johnmorrison wrote: post #52

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.

What power does Crowder have over you? He's a joke.

Consider: his viewpoint is a firing offense at FAANG while your viewpoint is constantly validated and endorsed.

Who's got the power there? Of course Crowder is a terrible example to speak up for, but he definitely is not empowered.

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

#305

Post by 0000011111 »

Snowden inspired me to immerse myself in learning more about modern information technology.

He caused me to question what it means to be a patriot.

He drove me to learn about the importance of open-source encryption software for storing (VeraCrypt) and transporting data through networks (VPN).

Knowledge is your power over your government.

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

#306

Post by vfc1 »

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…

It's his formal training, he is a licensed acupuncturist. The man has absolutely no business talking about heart disease, especially with an experienced cardiologist.

The problem of putting someone with acupuncture training debating a cardiologist is that, in the eyes of that huge audience, he presents those opinions as perfectly equivalent, alternative to each other and equally valid.

When in fact, one person has basically no idea of what he is talking about, but in the eyes of the public, and because they are put side by side, they are seen as equivalent when they are not.

Why not put him against a non-vegan cardiologist then? Someone at least with equivalent training.

From a scientific point of view, the only diet that as ever shown to stop the progression of heart disease is a whole-food plant-based diet.

Khan replied to the questions, not sure why you are saying he avoided anything. It's obvious that Joe took Kresser side during the debate.

What kind of tough questions did he ask Kresser compared to Khan?

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

#307

Post by tudelo »

resters wrote: post #191
anongraddebt wrote: post #155

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.

I guarantee you have had a take of similar nature (not necessarily against the same identity) at some point in your life.

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

#308

Post by alasdair_ »

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…

>The scary part is the secret laws and precedents that elected officials aren't allowed to even tell their constituents about

Can't any member of congress simply use the speech and debate clause to make what they know a matter of congressional record?

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

#309

Post by davidwitt415 »

asveikau wrote: post #207
Pigo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The intelligence agencies have proven to be vindictive, and also a back-channel arm for straight up partisan politics. It seems like it goes unnoticed when the outcome is something that aligns with a party's goals. I just can't tell if it's fallible people in positions of power, or a real concerted effort. I think a lot of our problems stem from the undermining of our system of checks and balances, and whatever is up…

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.

The continuity was in foreign policy. Obama, like GW Bush and Clinton, deferred to the 'Deep State' on foreign policy, military and security matters. He started out idealistic, but was quickly subsumed. Trump has bucked the System, and that is why the bipartisan knives are out for him.

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

#310

Post by CamperBob2 »

program_whiz wrote: post #229
program_whiz wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Better that right counsels be known to enemies than that the evil secrets of tyrants should be concealed from the citizens. They who can treat secretly of the affairs of a nation have it absolutely under their authority; and as they plot against the enemy in time of war, so do they against the citizens in time of peace.” ― Baruch Spinoza

“the ultimate aim of government is not to rule, or restrain by fear, nor to exact obedience, but to free every man from fear that he may live in all possible security... In fact the true aim of government is liberty.” ― Baruch Spinoza

That makes no sense. Perfect liberty and perfect security are mutually exclusive.
Post reply on HN