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

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

#241

Post by john-radio » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

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…

If he were less calculating he would be dead.

It's very likely that a lot of less calculating would-be Snowdens are lying in unmarked graves out there somewhere.

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

#242

Post by Mirioron » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

mr_overalls wrote: post #177

0x445442 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also live in a time when the CIA and FBI has been trying to remove a duly elected POTUS for the past three years. Why? because they think they know better than the unwashed masses.

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.

>_openly_ soliciting interference in American elections from Russia

Are you referring to the email hacking thing? Because that's a bad joke at the worst.

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

#243

Post by resters » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 2:58 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #208

resters wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

#244

Post by flycaliguy » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:00 PM UTC

0898 wrote: post #174

The success of Joe Rogan is fascinating and encouraging. For a long time there was a view that attention spans were diminishing. Facebook and Tik Tok reduced content to the smallest possible dosage. But look at this. This is one of the world's most popular podcasts and it's nearly three hours long. You see it too in TV: what is a Netflix series but a 13 hour movie? I see a definite trend towards long form content rig…

I think there are a lot of people who smoke a joint and drift to sleep watching Rogan.

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

#245

Post by john-radio » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:01 PM UTC

lagadu wrote: post #106

cyborgx7 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I question the value of letting people like James Damore and Jordan Peterson speak on such a big platform. Edit: The people downvoting me are hypocrites. The function of downvoting to make something less visible. Are you saying what I say has less value and should therefore have a lesser platform? But to be serious, everyone acknowledges that what some people say is of more value than what other people say, and shoul…

Yes, we should selectively filter people whose ideas we don't like from being able to speak them to any audience. In fact I question the value of letting people like speak on such a big platform. /s Surely you understand that what you're suggesting here is totalitarian? The value you mention is the strengthening of a society where freedom of ideas is considered a core value.

Your "totalitarian" remark is such a shameless misrepresentation of what the person you're talking to is saying that you might as well be talking to yourself.

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

#246

Post by EpicEng » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:03 PM UTC

vfc1 wrote: post #127

EpicEng wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That was just an example among many. Anything from alien landings to Atlantis to god knows what is fair game to Rogan. 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.

> That was just an example among many

Well, it wasn't really an example at all as he's petty open about how silly he was to believe it, but ok.

Rogan invites anyone on who he finds interesting. Yes, he has a proclivity to want to believe things that are a bit out there, but he challenges a lot of those "wackos" as well. He also brings on many field experts just to hear what they have to say.

I think you're wrong about Joe fishing for clicks. He's been doing this a long time now and his format hasn't really changes. He's not purporting to be an expert of any kind (hell, he doesn't even claim to be intelligent) and he's an intellectually open person.

His show is not a platform for guests who won't offend your sensibilities, and he has no obligation to censor for you. If you don't like what a guest is saying then great; make up your own mind. He's not trying to convince you.

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

#247

Post by busterarm » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

asveikau wrote: post #207

Pigo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If it were partisan politics I don't think we would see the continuity that we did between Bush and Obama.

If it weren't partisan politics, you wouldn't be seeing roughly 15 senior officials from the NSA/CIA/FBI leaving the public sector to take jobs at CNN & MSNBC.

I'm curious why most people don't find this to be deeply disturbing.

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

#248

Post by Mirioron » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

Ididntdothis wrote: post #240

Mirioron wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent's post means that the overreach has never had the technology we have now. This drastically changes the situation. The government could secretly mandate that all phone manufacturers must secretly record the phone microphone all the time and then this data gets analyzed. If this happens in 10 years, then the general public might not even find out for years, and even if they do, most of the public will just s…

I guess that makes sense but if you take into account technological capabilities then the next overreach will almost always be the biggest because the technology makes larger and larger scale possible.

And this is why we need to care more and more about this issue as a society.

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

#249

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

tfandango wrote: post #230

jessaustin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real whistleblowers: Snowden, Kiriakou, Binney, Drake, Manning, Winner. Notice a theme of career loss, prison, total life upheaval, and a press that DGAF. Fake whistleblower: still works for CIA, whistleblowing has purely political rather than administrative effects, and ongoing adulation in the press. If you don't want to see this on HN, then downvote and move on.

I have a whistleblower hotline available to me at work... If I see something and call that number, my identity will be protected. That is the way my company would prefer I handle ethical issues and I will keep my job. If I gather up evidence and release it to the press, I will lose my job. That is the difference between, say Snowden and this whistleblower. But that does not negate the validity of the complaint.

That's great. Very few people in the unsupervised services imagine that they are so well protected. Thomas Drake and John Crane might have thought using the established procedure would protect them... and we've heard of them.

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

#250

Post by Ajedi32 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

john-radio wrote: post #239

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…

An echo chamber is a place where the local acoustics make it difficult to speak clearly. Medical science is able to speak with brilliant clarity hard-earned from centuries of experimentation on the topic of heart disease. If I hear a discourse involving a cardiologist and a layperson, and it's not really made apparent who is the expert and who is not, then I call that an echo chamber.

That's not the conventional definition of a metaphorical echo chamber.

> an environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered

Source: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/echo_chamber