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

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

#391

Post by tssva » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

jessaustin wrote: post #146

patentatt wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

What you refer to as "fake whistleblower" still has their job because they followed the legal procedure for reporting abuse and therefore enjoy whistleblower protection.

The others sited didn't follow the legal procedure which would have allowed them to also enjoy whistleblower protection.

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

#392

Post by danbolt » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #152

ralusek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was in regards to using puberty blockers on children, I believe. The study stated that many children that believe themselves to be trans ended up simply being gay, and that this lack of certainty (as well as the fact that we don't think of children as rational consenting entities for most things) makes the issue of using puberty blockers controversial. I could be wrong, but I am almost positive that this is what…

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.

A big issue is that the longer you wait, there longer your body has permanent effects from puberty. Someone who is ultimately right in their convictions about themselves then has to wait longer through something irreversible.

I think the purported advantage of puberty blockers is that they help “waiting a few years so you’re sure” while taking the path that’s the lesser of evils.

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

#393

Post by vfc1 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:21 PM UTC

EpicEng wrote: post #272

vfc1 wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He does have some shared responsibility for the accuracy of what gets said on his show and the guests that he invites. When he invites a guest he gives them a platform, many people hear what some of those quacks have to say and take it at face value. He should take more care in not spreading so much misinformation and ignorance to a gigantic audience, there is too much of that in the world already.

Why does he? He's not a journalist, he's a talking head. He'll challenge statements he can't get behind, but this is an opinion/entertainment show, and he's not throwing up slogans that read "fair and balanced" at every opportunity.

Journalist or not, he still has a responsibility to his audience.

It's a shared responsibility, between him and the guests and the people that listen and take it at face value that should know better.

He can very well balance better the entertainment aspect with the accuracy of the information, especially on topics that have an actual impact on people's lives like health-related topics.

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

#394

Post by ChicagoBoy11 » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:23 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…

Until you listen to his actual content and it is, the vast majority of the time, pretty "easy" listening in the sense that it is pretty vacuous and doesn't really require any sort of concentration to follow along. Don't get me wrong -- I listen to it often on my way to work, but one of the reasons I do is because it is not something that really requires much of my concentration to follow along.

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

#395

Post by duxup » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:27 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #368

duxup wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this passes even the sniff test. The shifting policies of the US seem to be driven by politicians, not some "intelligence agencies" boogeymen.

"No permanent allies; only permanent interests." A pithy summation of realpolitik .

I don't know what that means as far as what I was saying goes.

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

#396

Post by noobiemcfoob » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

sschueller wrote: post #122

Let's not forget Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange who are currently unable to give interviews because of what the United States is doing to them.

Conflating of Chelsea Manning and Assange with Snowden's efforts is the crux of a very successful campaign to bury him behind claims of treason.

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

#397

Post by duxup » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:28 PM UTC

defen wrote: post #324

duxup wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any leaker is going to have their POV and motivations. But I don't see any reason to belive that it constitutes 'controlling the media'.

How could you be a member of any standing in the elite media if you don't have access to "leaks"? If something leaks that wasn't actually approved by the agencies, what do you think is going to happen to the leaker?

I don't know what you mean by the first question.

As for the second I'm not sure what you feel the answer is there either, more what it means.

There is a whole history of folks leaking things for you to look at.

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

#398

Post by gnrlbzik » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:30 PM UTC

Lendal wrote: post #386

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…

And i think he would take this path, but i do not think he can get a fair trial right now.

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

#399

Post by pgcj_poster » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

rpmisms wrote: post #152

ralusek wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was in regards to using puberty blockers on children, I believe. The study stated that many children that believe themselves to be trans ended up simply being gay, and that this lack of certainty (as well as the fact that we don't think of children as rational consenting entities for most things) makes the issue of using puberty blockers controversial. I could be wrong, but I am almost positive that this is what…

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.

If you're trans and going through puberty, "a few years" can literally ruin your life.

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

#400

Post by artiste » Wed, Oct 23, 2019, 6:32 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.

Except he's actually had trans people like Eddie Izzard on and they got on just fine, so this is obviously wrong. He takes issue with trans females competing in female sports.