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

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

#201

Post by arielserafini » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:27 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…

Terry Gross is a (the?) master interviewer.

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

#202

Post by IanDrake » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:28 PM UTC

patentatt wrote: post #129

jessaustin wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

“Fake” whistleblower? This is a hop and a skip away from Q-anon territory, and shouldn’t be on hn.

OK, he/she is not fake. So:

What is their name? IDK. What exactly did they hear? IDK. From who did they hear it from? IDK.

People here seem awfully sure about something they know nothing about.

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

#203

Post by duxup » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:29 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #139

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.

”When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” - Richard Nixon The attitude is not a new phenomenon at all.

Certainly not new, but it is notably pronounced now.

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

#204

Post by 0x445442 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:31 PM UTC

katmannthree wrote: post #188

alfromspace wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose there isn't really any such evidence, your opinion is all there is, your intelligence agency has an awful reputation and is infamous for steering the country into conflicts and crises through falsified evidence and statements, and you work to remove the president.

Do you agree that if there is real legitimate evidence of him being compromised then working with congress to legally remove him from office according to the process given in the constitution is the right choice?

Do you agree that if there's real legitimate evidence of the FBI and CIA lying to the FISA court in order to spy on a political campaign that Comey and Brennan should be imprisoned?

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

#205

Post by repler » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

The whistleblower protections that Snowden did not bother to use are the same ones currently providing the spark for the impeachment proceedings in the US House of Representatives.

Really wish he had gone that route instead of the one he chose - and we'll never know for sure how pure his intentions were/are because of it.

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

#206

Post by dnautics » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

kiba wrote: post #115

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…

Interesting. I would argue that government officials can be reliable, efficient, conscientious, when they are properly incentivized. Instead, there are various pathologies that infect various organs or agencies at various time, often at time seemly mutually exclusive but they coexist nonetheless. The government isn't given the trust needed to regulate or otherwise do its job efficiently. See various civil engineering…

> I would argue that government officials can be reliable, efficient, conscientious, when they are properly incentivized.

What do you propose as the magical "proper" incentivisation?

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

#207

Post by asveikau » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

Pigo wrote: post #116

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 intelligence agencies have proven to be vindictive, and also a back-channel arm for straight up partisan politics. It seems like it goes unnoticed when the outcome is something that aligns with a party's goals. I just can't tell if it's fallible people in positions of power, or a real concerted effort. I think a lot of our problems stem from the undermining of our system of checks and balances, and whatever is up…

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.

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

#208

Post by rpmisms » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:32 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.

That's also a valid view, even if it's insensitive. You can be annoyed by whomever you like.

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

#209

Post by dwaltrip » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #139

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.

”When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.” - Richard Nixon The attitude is not a new phenomenon at all.

I don't think we should look to the only president to resign from office for examples of what to expect.

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

#210

Post by duxup » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:33 PM UTC

raxxorrax wrote: post #167

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.

I do think ignoring the rules is part of his success. If you add the ridiculous stories about Russia, which was one of the worse conspiracy theories, but was mainly driven by the intelligence community, the current political situation isn't a surprise at all. The spying was equally supported by the Democrats as well as Republicans. They further try to restrict freedom on the net by their newest attempt with the CASE…

I have trouble parsing what you're saying. Honestly, a lot of it seems like empty taglines that don't say anything.

>It is to evict people that failed to bring forth sensible policies.

What policies? Doesn't every new politician claim exactly that?