121–130 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He is a world famous standup comedian. He does MMA coverage and podcasting as side gig for fun. I doubt that his life depends on the podcast.
He was also the host of a prime time game show for 5 years.
Would have been nice to have Snowden actually there in person if he were not such a coward.
Is a man who chooses not to walk into a pointed knife a coward?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Peter Robinson (of the Hoover Institution) is a good example of a master interviewer, with his Uncommon Knowledge series. Here's one of the last ones I saw: Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRleB034EC8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really depends. Go listen and to his interview with Adam Connover where he uses him as a foil to spout off a lot of nonsense about trans people and their agency.
What is his “nonsense”? It’s reasonable to not allow people to cross their biological gender league. He’s seen how biological males have absolutely destroyed in biological female leagues.
Case in point: Rogan talks a lot about fighting. But in that particular case, we already discriminate by weight. So it might be possible to make things more fair by giving a weight penalty to male-to-female fighters that want to compete in the women's league.
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 really like Joe Rogan, and the format of its podcast. I don't know other medias where they let people speak for three hours. I was suspicious the first time I listened to him. I thought, can this beefy archetypical MMA dude say anything interesting? actually he can. He's at ease with all types of guests, he just seems to be an outspoken, honest guy. I agree that he tends to bring up his favorite topics all the time…
The Ezra Klein Show - Ezra Klein
Making sense podcast - Sam Harris
80000 hours podcast - Rob Wiblin
[1] https://www.vox.com/ezra-klein-show-podcast [2] https://samharris.org/podcast/ [3] https://80000hours.org/podcast/
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…
>He is also into things like moon landing conspiracies and all that good stuff that generate a lot of internet traffic, but 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. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k He used to believe that, and now he doesn't.
He will gladly give his huge platform to the most complete wacko as long as it makes a good story and gets him his clicks, spreading a ton of misinformation and reinforcing common ignorant beliefs in the process.
Would have been nice to have Snowden actually there in person if he were not such a coward.
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.
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.
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".