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

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

#401

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

parthdesai wrote: post #234

Ajedi32 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 I haven't listened that episode, or really ma…

He has said it time and again, that he is willing to sit down and have a reasonable conversation with anyone and everyone.

which is a silly position to take because putting quacks and experts into a room on topics that require domain knowledge and scientific expertise is counter-productive and gives a false impression that both opinions are equally valuable or justified.

In reality, the show is an excellent avenue to mainstream conspiracy theorists and people who want to sell their latest books or products or whatever, and the people who will listen to it will get a hugely distorted view of what the actual consensus on certain topics is.

This is the same sort of dynamic that recently cropped up around a certain youtube 'educator' who claimed to teach people ML and to have disrupted the cartel of higher education, only to turn out that he had plagiarized a lot of his content and that the education was actually of extremely low quality. The same mentality, gatekeepers are evil, listen to the pot-smoking show-host who brings you the real information that they don't want you to know, yada yada.

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

#402

Post by fluffything » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:34 PM UTC

puranjay wrote: post #283

jumpman500 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would say martial arts and being a comedian.

But he knows a lot about nutrition as well.

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

#403

Post by cronix » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

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…

Some of his best conversations, are with himself /s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xY_D8SMNtE

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

#404

Post by rapind » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

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?

Not sure I would call it "nothing". If Trump could have been indicted (OLC opinion to blame here), it's likely he would have been for obstruction of justice. https://youtu.be/1G9cB4vk7Go?t=31

Also keep in mind how many associates have been indicted. Is it possible that they acted alone without direction or influence from Trump? Sure. Plausible? Not to me.

Also, a nitpick, but I'm pretty sure it was 2 years not 3 years.

I'm not a fan of either parties establishment members, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the obvious.

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

#405

Post by ssully » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:35 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #388

ssully wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He was homophobic because he used homophobic slurs, not because he did a mocking impression (which is just childish, and is also a good reason to not take the guy seriously). The guy is a fucking joke.

The slurs in question were repeatedly and brazenly used by Maza in his past attacks on Crowder, and thus were part of the impression in Crowder's response. Context matters. Otherwise, if simply uttering or referencing homophobic slurs makes one a homophobe, regardless of context, then wouldn't Carlos Maza be a homophobe too?

I don't follow Carlos's work, but looking at his twitter he is very openly gay, so I would find it very difficult to call him a homophobe. Also even outside of this one incident, the nicest way I would ever describe Crowder is a leach - I was shown his work by a family member (who thankfully doesn't watch his bullshit anymore) before this incident. The guy stirs up shit and offers no value; absolutely worthless.

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

#406

Post by dang » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:41 PM UTC

HNLurker2 wrote: post #9

cjfd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Democracy is a system of government where the three powers: law giving, executive, and judicial are separated and at least the law giving is in the hands of (representatives of) the people. In the case of the massive spying by government we are dealing with secret laws and/or the executive branch writing its own law. This is not very compatible with democracy.

T-t-thanks

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments and ignoring our request to stop (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20948393).

We're trying for a bit higher of a signal/noise ratio than internet default, so it's important to post thoughtfully here. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the site guidelines in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#407

Post by artiste » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #147

swebs wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think in a bit of a hypocritical way as I'm pretty sure he doesn't really believe in any of that stuff and just talks about it for the clicks. Or maybe he just finds it interesting? I find myself on paranormal sites from time to time even though I know it's 100% (or at least 99.9%) bullshit. It's still fun to read.

There are a couple of huge differences. You don't have financially anything to gain by that, and you are not influencing the opinions of a huge number of people in the process. There is already so much scientific ignorance in the general public, there is so much misrepresentation of science already. A ton of people actually believe thinks like the Earth is flat, Joe many times gives a voice to that type of quacks for…

It's also quite educational and interesting when he has good guests on. I don't know why people have to judge the entire podcast based on his worst guests when there is simply no other mainstream outlet, or at least one as big as Rogan's, that has nearly as many interesting scientists, philosophers, journalists, etc. on. Yes he also has idiots on. So what? The point is the entire world steps through that studio and people blanket generalize the podcast away whenever he has someone they disagree with on, which is a sad stance to take in my opinion.

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

#408

Post by ar-jan » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:44 PM UTC

Lendal wrote: post #386

xrd wrote: post #195

Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11 and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis. He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book wou…

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule…

Of course if whistleblowers weren't routinely completely destroyed by the state he might have chosen that path instead.

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

#409

Post by pgcj_poster » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

meschi wrote: post #158

cygx wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His views on the topic lack nuance. First, you need to determine that the presence of male-to-female trans athletes is indeed a significant problem in a given discipline. Then, we as a society have to decide whether or not we want to do something about it, which is not necessarily a given. For example, are you aware that the top 30 male marathon runners are all from Kenya and Ethiopia? It sucks for Europeans that we…

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 purpose of female leagues is to allow women can participate in sports. If all sports were unisex, then pretty much all competitive athletes at every level would be men, denying women access to an important part of culture and social life. This is pretty exactly what you advocate doing to trans women, who could not possibly compete against cis men.

Trans women are rare, and transition dramatically reduces muscle mass and other attributes related to performance. In fact, trans women typically have a lower testosterone level than cis women due to hormone treatments. There's absolutely no reason to believe that allowing trans women to participate in sports would prevent cis women from being able to compete. Trans women have been allowed to participate in women's Olympics events since the early 2000s, and not a single one has won a gold medal. You use the term "biological males" to refer to two completely different sets of people, which is dishonest and despicable.

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

#410

Post by root_axis » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

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?

Claiming that the investigations yielded nothing is frustratingly dishonest. The conclusion of the Mueller report was that the president would have been indicted if it weren't for a standing policy that the president cannot be indicted.