71–80 of 600 posts
I can't help but feel Snowden comes off as a frustrated naive insider spilling details out of disappointment. Lacking perspective here. Most of his points are basically peter's principle, hierarchy failure, internal competition, all traits that made the response to national threats inappropriate before and after 9/11. I really don't think that his actions were clearly thought out and he won't get a pass any time soon…
1. First time I've seen Joe with Airpods 2. First time Joe has done a podcast with someone OTA (as far as I know)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it depends on your field of expertise. When he interviews people from tech, it’s usually cringeworthy for me. And very entertaining in fields I know little of.
This kind of issue makes me think I should believe all most nothing. When I know the topic and then know how wrong they got it then I assume that the same is true for all the experts in other topics. I suppose I only have a sample of 1, the topic I know, but I have zero samples of the opposite where some expert tells me "they totally got it correct"
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Crichton#GellMannAmnes...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He certainly spouts some "bollox" but I don't think I agree about "authoritative". He tends to show a lot of humility and asks a lot of questions rather than making statements
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why anyone would listen to anything with a bigot like Crowder is beyond me. If you can’t defend your conservatism without devolving into racist and homophobic slurs, you really shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Where does Crowder come in at all in this conversation?
I can't help but feel Snowden comes off as a frustrated naive insider spilling details out of disappointment. Lacking perspective here. Most of his points are basically peter's principle, hierarchy failure, internal competition, all traits that made the response to national threats inappropriate before and after 9/11. I really don't think that his actions were clearly thought out and he won't get a pass any time soon…
you focus on the individual - and what of outcome, effect, and ends?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity, what about the things he did do you "hate"?
Love - revealed to us that our constitutional rights were being absolutely trampled to death. Hate - revealed to the world endless amounts of national security data that was not directly relevant to these constitutional encroachments.
He worked with journalists in order to avoid this. He gave the government a head's up before the press released anything everytime they released something new.
What more do you think he should have done?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why anyone would listen to anything with a bigot like Crowder is beyond me. If you can’t defend your conservatism without devolving into racist and homophobic slurs, you really shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I find it's useful to listen to those you have strong ethical disagreements with, in order to challenge your own ego and ideas.
This is possible only if those people you disagree with don't have power over you, and acceptable only if the disagreement isn't rooted in a denial of your essential humanity. Both of these conditions are privileges that not everyone enjoys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy is a system of government where the three powers: law giving, executive, and judicial are separated and at least the law giving is in the hands of (representatives of) the people. In the case of the massive spying by government we are dealing with secret laws and/or the executive branch writing its own law. This is not very compatible with democracy.
While I understand your definition, this is not what Wikipedia nor what Merriam-Webster use for it. The separation of powers in three branches is not strictly necessary for a democracy, just a mechanism through witch it is attained. Surely, there could be examples where the powers are slpit another way that could still qualify as democracies. If, somehow, the will of the people were to accept spying as a cornerstone…
It's an interesting question. For reasons like that I prefer to talk about liberties, which include privacy and the need for authority to be checked. These are of greater necessity than universal suffrage, though having representatives of the people elected for set terms certainly can help to put a check on authority, it's not always a guarantee of that! How often have tyrants been voted into power.
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…
Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019)