1. First time I've seen Joe with Airpods 2. First time Joe has done a podcast with someone OTA (as far as I know)
For 2 its not like he had a choice to do it in person...
Regardless, Joe's getting so many good interviews in the past two years.
11–20 of 600 posts
1. First time I've seen Joe with Airpods 2. First time Joe has done a podcast with someone OTA (as far as I know)
For 2 its not like he had a choice to do it in person...
Regardless, Joe's getting so many good interviews in the past two years.
1. First time I've seen Joe with Airpods 2. First time Joe has done a podcast with someone OTA (as far as I know)
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 of course the interviews which are actually him being interviewed (he does most of the talking)... But I think that's part of why it makes for good listening. He keeps the conversation going. Even with a reticent guest, most interviews go for 2 hours or more. So in the end you extract something useful out of it.
It's not strange many interesting people want to visit Joe Rogan podcast. First, he is willing to give a voice to many who won't be able to tell their stories on mass media. Who other will let speak people like James Damore? What major broadcaster is willing to interview Jordan Peterson without protraiting him as a villain? He respects his guest, when in disagrement. His interview to Jack Dorsey (not much of his liki…
Not a fan of Stephen Crowder (sp?), but that interview was pretty uncomfortable. Generally though, yeah, I think he does well interviewing people.
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.
He's the best out there now as he's got the pick of his guests (the result of a forward feedback loop of being a good interviewer).
But view/listen to enough of them and you'll learn to pick the gems from the drivel, like almost everything.
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.
But mostly Joe gets it spot on and does a great interview. What this does to popular discourse? When a small % of the population watch these types of long form interview and get deep, thoughtful and insightful answers to complex ideas .... and some % of the population watch Fox and read tabloids to get their news.
How does society fix this huge knowledge divide?
What is democracy?
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.
The separation of powers in three branches is not strictly necessary for a democracy, just a mechanism through witch it is attained. Surely, there could be examples where the powers are slpit another way that could still qualify as democracies.
If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone of their society, trading privacy for safety, would it still be a democracy?
Anyways, sorry, for nitpitcking, but something just sounds... incomplete in your answer.
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.
Interviewing Nick Bostrom was cringe worthy. I don't know what Joe was trying to achieve - maybe forming an argument against the simulation theory? But it was so bad. The youtube comment section is amusing. But mostly Joe gets it spot on and does a great interview. What this does to popular discourse? When a small % of the population watch these types of long form interview and get deep, thoughtful and insightful ans…
I also imagine on some other forum out there someone is lamenting the popularity of the Joe Rogan Experience while the media of their liking gets even less exposure, and wondering how they fix that knowledge divide in society.