Edward Snowden on The Joe Rogan Experience [video] • Hacker News Board

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

#341

Post by jammygit » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

polymatter wrote: post #130

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.

"It is from their foes, not their friends, that cities learn the lesson of building high walls" -Aristophanes The public learns the lesson that X is necessary when they see the consequence of not-X. Hopefully there is a gap between total lawlessness and the public realising that some laws are good and not just "red tape".

I had hoped that things under trump would have been much worse, so as to shock the public into re-evaluating their civic values.

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

#342

Post by jammygit » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #108

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 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.

Is there really anything simple about “running the media”?

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

#343

Post by z3ncyberpunk » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

resters wrote: post #184

rpmisms wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That matches with what I remember, and I don't understand why that's a controversial thought here. Changing gender is a big deal, it can wait a few years so you're sure.

That’s not what it was. The guy was venting about how irritating he finds trans people.

Uh thats exactly what it was about... For 20 minutes Mr flamboyant Adam tried to spout bullshit about how it should be perfectly acceptable to give children, who don't even know themselves or bodies, incredibly powerful psychoactive drugs that drastically alter their behavior

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

#344

Post by xeromal » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

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…

Perhaps him acting as uninformed and a layman helps bridge the gap between an average joe and someone who is very informed. Sometimes acting stupid or being stupid is a great way to help smart people explain their points.

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

#345

Post by asveikau » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

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 find I want to reply, but I don't know how to do that without getting wrapped up in a discussion that's too easy to be misinterpreted or dismissed here as political.

I think you are conflating a few issues.

On the one hand there is the bipartisan surveillance issue that Snowden shined a light on.

More recently we have a bunch of Trump and anti-Trump narratives and sometimes conspiracy theories.

I suspect some people on the thread have squished those into one. But the intelligence community is likely complicated, motivations multi-faceted, people holding diverse opinions. I don't think these things are the same, or you can dismiss or endorse one cause for the other.

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

#346

Post by watt3rpig » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

I love the long form discussion. I feel I can actually here someones thoughts and perspectives rather than short meaningless soundbites. The lack of guests shouting over each other is great as well. He has also exposed me to some wonderful thinkers like Sean Carrol who I otherwise would not have come across.

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

#347

Post by iamthirsty » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 5:00 PM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #306

bad_user wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

> 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.

This is an extremely closed minded view—not everyone with formal training is automatically an expert. This is the appeal to authority fallacy, and a poor one at that.

> 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.

This is not true either, and I find it ironic it’s stated authoritatively with no sources.

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

#348

Post by emiliobumachar » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

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.

Care to name a couple examples? As it is, it sounds like a classic No True Scotsman to me.

No True Whistleblower gets "glowing plaudits" and "ongoing adulation".

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

#349

Post by unethical_ban » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #310

program_whiz wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

The freedom from worrying about hunger and basic needs and violence from others is security. It isn't referencing total physical security, it is referencing government vs. no government.

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

#350

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 5:02 PM UTC

streb-lo wrote: post #336

jessaustin wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Parent claimed that media coverage was a sufficient criterion; I disagree. You've interpreted the discussion as concerned with a necessary criterion. That abuse of the idiom will come later, after the war media has moved the Overton window a bit further.

You need to re-read what I wrote. My claim is that media coverage cannot say anything meaningful about the authenticity of a whistleblower. To say otherwise is a terrible argument -- Snowden himself had widespread media coverage, both positive and negative.

Snowden's revelations are massive. They should be cited anytime every time an intelligence reptile anonymously leaks something to the press, which is every day. Instead, the only time Snowden makes the news is when they want to announce some new persecution like this recent lawsuit over his memoir. Here is on Joe f@#$ing Rogan for goodness sakes! That is not widespread coverage.