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

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

#581

Post by Kaius » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 12:44 PM UTC

KnMn wrote: post #131

Timpy wrote: post #96

Snowden is really clever with these interviews. Right away in the interview he establishes his concerns about the government, then briefly mentions the government smear campaign against him without hanging on the point too much. He calmly explains himself in an articulate way, establishing himself as perfectly sane. Then he reaches out to connect and empathize with his interviewer: > When I hear you just speak, I go…

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…

Completely agree, he rambles all over the place with no clear narrative arch. And he completely failed to build any rapport by making weird comments about the shows logo and his lack of engagement with Joe at the start. Given he knew he was going to have 2+ hours to make his points, and the audience was going to be several million, he should have considered his approach far better.

It was an interesting discussion however.

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

#582

Post by carapace » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #395

carapace wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"No permanent allies; only permanent interests." A pithy summation of realpolitik .

I don't know what that means as far as what I was saying goes.

Y'know, re-reading the thread, neither do I. Sorry for the noise.

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

#583

Post by resters » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

stOneskull wrote: post #254

resters wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There has to be conversation. There are some who just want to shut it down with 'bigot-transphobe' type spit-words. Gotta let it grow. Transcend the offended feeling.

Not sure why you characterize my comments that way. I was just mentioning how I reacted to it, not calling for it to be shut down.

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

#584

Post by resters » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #531

jessaustin wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the timeline you're implying. Snowden did blow the whistle on this program, in 2013 . Your link was from 2015, and now it's 2019, if I'm not mistaken. Snowden has lost the access he had before his whistleblowing. It will take another whistleblower to reveal the scale of current unsupervised malfeasance.

You're not following the point. The point was that people did care about the leaks and took appropriate action. Secondarily, you're not understanding the leaked documents. The leaked documents showed that the NSA believed that the phone metadata program was legal. Once there is a court ruling that it is illegal, its lawyers cannot justify the program. Thirdly, your phrase "another whistleblower" shows that you do not…

> Snowden was far more interested in PRISM, an obviously legal program) is not whistleblowing

The public outrage was due to various top officials denying that anything like PRISM was going on, when in fact it was.

So either the program was illegal, the false statements made by officials about them, or the classification of the process that prevented democratic oversight. One of the three had to be illegal, it's not really relevant to split hairs over which was one actually was.

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

#585

Post by carapace » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #369

rpmisms wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you're welcome to that opinion, just as he's welcome to his. That's kind of the point here. Opinions are valid, even if they're stupid.

(I don't want to wade in here really, but I have to take exception to your statement: Stupid opinions are not valid.)

(rpmisms and hnbroseph both make excellent points! I want to add that "Stupid opinions are not valid." is, of course, just my own stupid opinion, eh? Combine that statement with "Opinions are valid, even if they're stupid." and you have a logical self-referential paradox, eh?)

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

#586

Post by resters » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #260

resters wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. My comment was just that I found it to be low quality content. It was like something you might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.

And you're welcome to that opinion, just as he's welcome to his. That's kind of the point here. Opinions are valid, even if they're stupid.

I was responding to a comment that introduced the transphobic comments, simply to attest that I had heard the episode and that the skinny guy who is on that episode with Rogan was venting/ranting in a way that I found very dumb.

Rogan himself was holding back from joining in, and I think some of the commenters here mistook my comment as critiquing Rogan for being transphobic, which I did not observe. It was the skinny guy (whose name I don't know).

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

#587

Post by resters » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

tudelo wrote: post #307

resters wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We all have some dumb opinions. I appreciate it when people help me develop awareness of my own.

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

#588

Post by late2part » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 5:45 PM UTC

bumby wrote: post #579

late2part wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant if he were tried, he should be found not guilty. Separately, because what he did is prima facie for the greater good, he should not be tried.

A jury or pardon could conceivably provide the first, but the latter would require a movement away from the rule of law. Outside of a jury or prosecutor, who has claim to make the call that what he did was for the greater good?

The prosecutor is sufficient.

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

#589

Post by jakeogh » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 6:48 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #580

jakeogh wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17175011

And some are so sure of their worldview that they believe in a wholly-manufactured conspiracy theory long after the reasonable evidence has discredited it, including physical evidence like the fact a building has no basement. It's a big world with a wide variety of people. Not jakeogh though. like I said, he's part of a conspiracy to make us believe people still believe Pizzagate. The purpose of which is to undermine…

Pointing to a specific claim that was not made as if it was. Anyone can find something to point to that is false. It's an effective way to avoid specific things that were brought up.

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

#590

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Oct 25, 2019, 8:36 PM UTC

jakeogh wrote: post #589

shadowgovt wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And some are so sure of their worldview that they believe in a wholly-manufactured conspiracy theory long after the reasonable evidence has discredited it, including physical evidence like the fact a building has no basement. It's a big world with a wide variety of people. Not jakeogh though. like I said, he's part of a conspiracy to make us believe people still believe Pizzagate. The purpose of which is to undermine…

Pointing to a specific claim that was not made as if it was. Anyone can find something to point to that is false. It's an effective way to avoid specific things that were brought up.

Since you've brought up nothing but a couple of links to emails with the word "pizza" in them somewhere and a couple of links to your own posts in the past (without any context to explain why those posts are relevant to the topic), I think I've avoided nothing specific you've claimed because you've claimed nothing specific.

Does it even count as "JAQing off [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]" if one party in the conversation doesn't even bother asking questions?