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

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

#381

Post by ssully » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:08 PM UTC

drak0n1c wrote: post #367

claudeganon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, but I’ve lived enough of my adult life to know that I can tune out people who do mocking imitations of queer people on YouTube and be intellectually just fine.

Crowder was harangued by Maza for years, Crowder responding by doing a mocking impression of the self-referential non sequiturs that Maza would proclaim amidst his criticisms seems like fair game and not homophobic. I don't see how it is any worse than when Crowder mocks Trump's braggadocios by imitating his common catchphrases. Such material is low comedy, for sure, but not cancel-worthy.

He was homophobic because he used homophobic slurs, not because he did a mocking impression (which is just childish, and is also a good reason to not take the guy seriously). The guy is a fucking joke.

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

#382

Post by meowface » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #83

naasking wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Bostrom really failed there. He simply did not explain the argument very well. Everything Bostrom said is clear to someone who already understands the argument or has experience with statistics, but it was not at all a good explanation for someone who…

I had the opposite impression. Bostrom is just making up nonsense, then dressing it with fancy words and big numbers to prevent people from calling out his bullshit. It's the opposite of clear. If you look a little deeper he has nothing meaningful to offer in any field.

His argument is extremely clear. It's just unclear to anyone with absolutely no background knowledge, like Joe. He didn't explain it in the clearest way on the podcast because Joe was missing a lot of necessary basics, but if he sat down with Joe for longer and perhaps drew a diagram or something, I think he'd get it.

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

#383

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

hos234 wrote: post #144

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…

There is a big difference between Observation (which is what Snowden is doing) and Analysis (followed by Solutions). It's not healthy to confuse the two. Snowden is pointing out an issue. And he has done it with courage that I massively respect. You hardly see it these days. And that makes it anxiety and fear inducing, as the solutions are unknown. But think of it this way - tomorrow someone might hand you a diagnosi…

[deleted]

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

#384

Post by vfc1 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

iamthirsty wrote: post #347

vfc1 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's his formal training, he is a licensed acupuncturist. The man has absolutely no business talking about heart disease, especially with an experienced cardiologist. The problem of putting someone with acupuncture training debating a cardiologist is that, in the eyes of that huge audience, he presents those opinions as perfectly equivalent, alternative to each other and equally valid. When in fact, one person has ba…

> It's his formal training, he is a licensed acupuncturist. The man has absolutely no business talking about heart disease, especially with an experienced cardiologist. This is an extremely closed minded view—not everyone with formal training is automatically an expert. This is the appeal to authority fallacy, and a poor one at that. > From a scientific point of view, the only diet that as ever shown to stop the prog…

Not everyone with formal training is an expert, but its the minimum requirement. Literally no one without formal training can be an expert in such a complex topic as heart disease.

Why is Joe Rogan asking about heart disease to a licensed acupuncturist in a podcast with 60 million downloads a month? It's like asking for legal advice from a massage therapist.

If you had heart disease or someone in your family had it, would you ask an acupuncturist for advice?

For the sources:

"proved decades ago that heart disease could be reversed solely with diet and lifestyle change"

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/our-number-one-killer-can-b...

The video is a summary of the studies listed via the "Sources cited" button, that you find scrolling down after the video.

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

#385

Post by StanislavPetrov » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:12 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.

The partisans aren't, "Democrats" and "Republicans" when it comes to intelligence agencies. The partisans are those who support global US hegemony and those who don't. The intelligence agencies do, and they have an "ends justifies the means" mentality. They don't see transgressions against civil liberties or Constitutional violations as troubling or an impediment as long as they perceive themselves as working towards a "greater good". This is not how a lawful, Constitutional society is supposed to (or can) work. Democracy dies behind closed doors and every day more and more doors are being slammed shut in our face by unaccountable government agents who are increasingly seizing the levers of power in government, media, business and every other facet of our lives.

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

#386

Post by Lendal » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

xrd wrote: post #195

Snowden's book really speaks to me on so many levels. As a hacker, as a boy growing up in the new age of the Internet. As a person who experienced 9/11 and never aligned with the direction it took the USA. As a person who questions my identity and the messages I get about identity on a daily basis. He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book wou…

I used to agree with this but now that I've seen where this path leads, I think he should be given a fair trial and judged. Our government and the security of 350M US citizens cannot be held at the whim of a single hacker, no matter how right he believed himself to be. Our Congress has 535 members for precisely this reason, the president answers to Congress and is not a king, and even the Chief Justice does not rule absolutely. Snowden was brave, but he was also wrong. He should be judged fairly by a jury of his peers and that trial should be held in a transparent, fair and open trial for all to see. How many years now has he had to prepare his defense? It's plenty. Let's get the trial going.

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

#387

Post by meowface » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:15 PM UTC

Miner49er wrote: post #137

dx87 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he really wanted to be treated as a whistleblower, he should have only leaked the specific things that he took issue with, not grab anything he could get his hands on and give it out. For example, there's no good reason for him to give documents to China that tell them which Chinese computers NSA has access to [0]. This myth that he responsibly leaked information needs to die. [0] https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-ko…

You're completely misrepresenting this. He didn't give them any documents, he didn't tell them all the computers, he only _showed_ them a sample of them. They were also only civilian computers. I think civilians all over the world had a right to know that they were being spied on by the U.S. government. What difference does it make if a person is a U.S. citizen or a Hong Kong citizen? Human rights are human rights.

Every other government, including the Chinese, are spying on US civilians as well. And in this case, it seems like the Chinese civilians were the kinds of civilians any other country would be spying on as well. I haven't seen a convincing argument for Snowden or others as to why he took documents unrelated to domestic spying. If he had only whistleblew the domestic stuff, I bet a lot more politicians would be open to pardoning him.

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

#388

Post by drak0n1c » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

ssully wrote: post #381

drak0n1c wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crowder was harangued by Maza for years, Crowder responding by doing a mocking impression of the self-referential non sequiturs that Maza would proclaim amidst his criticisms seems like fair game and not homophobic. I don't see how it is any worse than when Crowder mocks Trump's braggadocios by imitating his common catchphrases. Such material is low comedy, for sure, but not cancel-worthy.

He was homophobic because he used homophobic slurs, not because he did a mocking impression (which is just childish, and is also a good reason to not take the guy seriously). The guy is a fucking joke.

The slurs in question were repeatedly and brazenly used by Maza in his past attacks on Crowder, and thus were part of the impression in Crowder's response. Context matters. Otherwise, if simply uttering or referencing homophobic slurs makes one a homophobe, regardless of context, then wouldn't Carlos Maza be a homophobe too?

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

#389

Post by slededit » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:18 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…

He is in the style of Larry King, who famously doesn't do research so he can put himself in the shoes of the audience and ask questions that would be on their mind. It's a valid technique and works well with a laymen audience. What you are describing is a totally different type of show that goes more in depth on fewer subjects.

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

#390

Post by streb-lo » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:19 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #350

streb-lo wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to re-read what I wrote. My claim is that media coverage cannot say anything meaningful about the authenticity of a whistleblower. To say otherwise is a terrible argument -- Snowden himself had widespread media coverage, both positive and negative.

Snowden's revelations are massive . They should be cited anytime every time an intelligence reptile anonymously leaks something to the press, which is every day. Instead, the only time Snowden makes the news is when they want to announce some new persecution like this recent lawsuit over his memoir. Here is on Joe f@#$ing Rogan for goodness sakes! That is not widespread coverage.

Again, that is not what we're talking about.

Media coverage tells you nothing about the authenticity of a whistleblower. You have not demonstrated any useful criterion for identifying 'fake' whistleblowers other than "I do not agree with his/her goals."