He will be remembered for a long time because of the actions he took, but if he had not done anything else, his book would be remembered on its own as a discourse on what being human means in these times. But, it will never be viewed on its own, and that is a tragedy.
Mostly the legal system is not encouraged to be politically correct.
Mr. Snowden broke his oath and leaked confidential data. His defense is the greater good. That should prevent prosecution.
Mr. Clapper lied to Congress when he said "Not Wittingly."
Mrs. Clinton failed to safeguard confidential data.
Others have broken the law, and they are not prosecuted.
We should prosecute those who break the law. They should defend themselves accordingly.
The real solution to this mess is for Congress to pass a law that exposing illegal activities is allowed. Wait - they did! The whistleblower protections don't work. More corruption.
Do you mean prevent conviction or are you taking the stance claiming "the greater good" means you shouldn't be tried?
Separately, because what he did is prima facie for the greater good, he should not be tried.
What can you do, when the institution you should report illegal acts to, is the one perpetrating them?
The government won't let that happen. They'll say that, for national security reasons, the public can't be allowed to know the actual impact of the secrets he disclosed. And if we can't see the impact, it's impossible to weigh judgment.
Democracy can't work in the face of such secrecy.
That’s his whole point. But if you truly care about the law, shouldn’t government officials also be put on trial for breaking the law on a much more massive scale?
> 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.
The reason he went public is precisely because the system of checks and balances didn’t work in the first place. In case you’ve forgotten, government officials actively kept members of congress in the dark and even lied under oath.
He touches on this in the podcast. He claims the vast majority of Congress had no clue and only the Gang of Eight had that access. If true, the implication is that the full representation of the People was not present to provide those checks and balances
Does it change anything for you if it wasn't just his opinion, but some sort of majority consensus instead—even if that only arrives in the history books? (Only asking in principle, as a hypothetical—not making the claim that Snowden in fact was right.)
There seems to be a fundamental problem with what you're proposing here—of course the vigilante approach is riddled with obvious issues too, but I just want to point out that what you're describing isn't clearly an effective way of dealing with things either.
You're basically saying the system works and we should trust it to evaluate and handle Snowden correctly: we have Congress, and they'll make the right choices if not the president.
But, the giant government programs exposed by Snowden are already a striking example of how we can't rely on Congress, at least to handle this matter correctly. Why would we assume the same entity which created the problems that were exposed is going to then handle the exposer fairly?
(I don't know the precise link between the exposed programs and Congress—so maybe they are separate/unrelated enough that my suggestion is inaccurate.)
“If I’d made preexisting arrangements to fly to a specific country and seek asylum, for example, I would’ve been called a foreign agent of that country. Meanwhile, if I returned to my own country, the best I could hope for was to be arrested upon landing and charged under the Espionage Act. That would’ve entitled me to a show trial deprived of any meaningful defense, a sham in which all discussion of the most important facts would be forbidden.
“The major impediment to justice was a major flaw in the law, a purposeful flaw created by the government. Someone in my position would not even be allowed to argue in court that the disclosures I made to journalists were civically beneficial. Even now, years after the fact, I would not be allowed to argue that the reporting based on my disclosures had caused Congress to change certain laws regarding surveillance, or convinced the courts to strike down a certain mass surveillance program as illegal, or influenced the attorney general and the president of the United States to admit that the debate over mass surveillance was a crucial one for the public to have, one that would ultimately strengthen the country. All these claims would be deemed not just irrelevant but inadmissible in the kind of proceedings that I would face were I to head home. The only thing my government would have to prove in court is that I disclosed classified information to journalists, a fact that is not in dispute. “This is why anyone who says I have to come back to the States for trial is essentially saying I have to come back to the States for sentencing, and the sentence would, now as then, surely be a cruel one. The penalty for disclosing top secret documents, whether to foreign spies or domestic journalists, is up to ten years per document.”
Excerpt From: Edward Snowden. “Permanent Record.” Apple Books.
We see this with Mr. Clapper "not wittingly" testimony to congress.
We see this with the Lavabit case.
When the game is rigged, your only option is not to play. I am occasionally encouraged by our country's judicial system doing something right. The fact that this is astonishingly rare is the canonical problem, circular to the issue Mr. Snowden raises.
The federal courts embraced this quasi-faux legal perspective that they could capture data and store it and then post-hoc get a warrant for the previously captured data. This is is corrupt and immoral. In general this is the reason I believe Mr. Snowden should not present himself for trial, because we do not have ethical folks in the courts or congress who will give him a fair trial.
> he was also wrong
what do you mean?
At least that's how I parse the language itself, and I've also heard this position from numerous acquaintances.
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 effectively the government has kept this subject from creeping into the public debate. The scary part is the secret laws and precedents that elected officials aren't allowed to even tell their constituents about. Government officials are not reliable; this is far to much unaccountable power even if people involved were allowed to discuss what is happening.
Why aren't the not-technically-interesting parts of this wiretapping program legal for government agencies to talk about? If they need to be hidden, why not go straight to the logical conclusion and classify a bunch of other laws?
Democracies can't handle this level of secrecy. The whole thing is going to fall apart one way or another - the path America is going down isn't stable at all; something is going to have to change radically. Either the intelligence agencies will gain supremacy over the government, the government itself will go rogue or the secrecy will have to end.
EDIT I'm going to bed before I see the whole video, but around 1:46:00 - the bit with J. Clapper. Case in point that the whole system of checks and balances can't work.
EDIT2 And around 2:10:00. Barbaric stuff; it is like centuries of accumulated Common Law and parliamentary legal tradition never happened. People need to be able to occasionally talk about this stuff in formal setting.
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 diagnosis of cancer. You can freak out about it or you can find a Cancer specialist to see what options are available. Asking the technician who gave you the report what the odds are, doesn't make any sense. He knows only how to create the report.
In this case just look to history, to understand how these things play out. History is the Oncologist.
Intelligence agencies have hard problems to deal with. On top of it, they are giant bureaucracies which means cockups, incompetence, turf wars, hiding issues are the norm. All that amplifies the problems, causes defensiveness, over-reactions and reactions to reactions.
If you read the history (and these days there are tons of resources) this sequence of events (of overreach) has unfolded a thousand times. There are a whole bunch programmes that have been shutdown because one group or the other got carried away or did damage. That history (in out current environment of over information/disinformation/misinformation) is what will always be a source of hope and faith.
Again, I'm not arguing for increased security, just for understanding the way others use language.
The oncologist deals with the consequences of the observation: communicate with the patient, gives advices on treatments, makes a therapy plan, deals with families, answer to their questions, takes the hit when the relatives think that the solution is not good enough or an Indian shaman could cure everything with snake's poison.
Snowden have done good, but escaped from the consequences of his actions.
A position that made everything he's done questionable
Had he faced a trial, even the most unfair of trials, would have put him in the position of being at least true to the values he was trying to protect.
Question the authority, suffer the consequences.
Question the authority, go to Russia is not what generally the public opinion accepts as "honest".
There is much to say also about who leaked the data but didn't protect the source.
The identity of deep throat has been made public after Nixon was already dead for years and Mark Felt was already an old man suffering from dementia.
I find it interesting that you posit Deep Throat's approach as somehow more noble. If Snowden had anonymously leaked and kept on working would that have been less questionable or more honest?
I’m pretty sure questioning the authority without fear of retaliation is what the first amendment is supposed to be about. But that aside, your phrasing is a bit misleading. Snowden didn’t question the government. He exposed illegal activities by the government.
This is a good point. In an ideal world their job would be less...complicated. So our job as intelligent, capable citizens is to make the system more ideal for them to do their duties.
Making a "captive workforce" out of AI tools and robots is, to me, the ideal solution. Either way it's inevitable. Since no one else will, I'm trying to get out ahead with thoughtful early planning. Communicating a common goal for the nation without fear is the way to get the technology into the hands of the right people. It's up to us, the intelligent and "good people" communicators, to push for it.
Very true. For example I think Marx did a great analysis but his solutions lacked. Same happens often in medicine. People who observe something are asked to also explain it. But if they can’t explain the observation it doesn’t mean the observation is wrong.
The problem is how to be sure the line get not crossed ?
I guess one could also argue for calm on the basis that the Stasi once existed and these days East Germany is an okay place.
And the solutions to these issues are perfectly well known: the intelligence agencies need to be curtailed and reined in, and their ability to indefinitely store massive reams of data about every private citizen brought to an end.
They always has been overreach. This is not new.
I think a lot of our problems stem from the undermining of our system of checks and balances, and whatever is up with
the fourth estate. I'm digressing, but I recall a time when journalists would be roasting public officials over these issues.
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.
I based this on my theory that there are things that the general public does not know, and will never know, that influence the decisions POTUS makes. Until you are privy to that information, it’s easy to take a contrarian viewpoint. Once you have the information, and the responsibility for making decisions that might save American lives, it’s a lot harder.
I’m not saying that any of these policies are right or wrong, or that the general public should be kept in the dark about whatever it is we’re being kept in the dark about. It’s just a theory I have about how the world works. I have no way of proving or disproving it, but I think the evidence supports it.
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.
The era of rampant, selective intelligence leaks to the media started when these very same people were in administration.
The only real secret intelligence is tactical (military or otherwise), because we aren't quite that craven, exceptions notwithstanding. Everything else is intrinsically political and has a very short half-life as a secret. Work for a few years inside the Beltway, especially with or near people who are connected (e.g. lobbyists, think tank scholars, appointees, Pentagon staffers, international orgs, etc), and this becomes obvious immediately. Secrets are social currency more important than money and maybe even title. Everybody shares secrets, albeit usually in an obnoxious, obfuscated, pretentious way; even the interns.
I think you are conflating a few issues.
On the one hand there is the bipartisan surveillance issue that Snowden shined a light on.
More recently we have a bunch of Trump and anti-Trump narratives and sometimes conspiracy theories.
I suspect some people on the thread have squished those into one. But the intelligence community is likely complicated, motivations multi-faceted, people holding diverse opinions. I don't think these things are the same, or you can dismiss or endorse one cause for the other.
2) CNN and MSNBC absolutely are partisan entities, though CNN does try hard to appear less so. As long as MSNBC keeps employing Maddow and she keeps pushing debunked conspiracy theories, they will absolutely be seen as partisan. Her coverage as of late has been absolutely disgraceful and a huge stain on that network, IMO.
3) None of what you said addresses the very alarming fact that the heads of our intelligence agencies are taking senior posts in these media organizations.
If you look into the folks who were in the spotlight pushing "we need this to prevent another 9/11" they were mostly former military and some with intelligence connections... but the real connection was their political connections.
Many outright stated the information they were provided to go on TV with came from politically associated groups not some secretive internal policy. In fact intelligence groups internally pushed back on some of the claims and political appointees ignored them.
Relative to what Hillary Clinton's or Marco Rubio's foreign policy would have been, sure, Obama was a model of probity, but this is damning with faint praise.
The government isn't given the trust needed to regulate or otherwise do its job efficiently. See various civil engineering projects, explosive cost growth whenever contractors compete for bids. People justify that as evidence that governments as inherently inefficient.
Government is abusing civil liberties through spying on everyday Americans. Relatively nobody cares.
The government is being corrupt, privileging senators' pet projects or program over the good of the nation. See the Senate Launch System. Nobody cares except space nerds. At the same time, NASA also supported the various effort to commercialize space, which is a major win.
What do you propose as the magical "proper" incentivisation?
If nobody cared, the only illegal domestic data collection program in the Snowden docs wouldn't have been shut down. It has been.
If nobody cared, Google wouldn't have encrypted its cross-datacenter traffic. It has.
Secondarily, you're not understanding the leaked documents. The leaked documents showed that the NSA believed that the phone metadata program was legal. Once there is a court ruling that it is illegal, its lawyers cannot justify the program.
Thirdly, your phrase "another whistleblower" shows that you do not know what a whistleblower is. Leaking thousands of programs where just one of them happens to be illegal but not obviously so (to the point where Snowden was far more interested in PRISM, an obviously legal program) is not whistleblowing.
As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court (in which DoJ faces no opposing counsel) in order to jury-rig a fig leaf for the ongoing destruction of personal liberties. I'm made my peace with the fact that the authoritarians to whose whims we are subject will occasionally overstep their bounds in public. When they do so, the public may protest and eventually conditions might improve somewhat. When the unsupervised services harm us, their putative employers, we have no recourse.
Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower". You guys make a great team!
Snowden's documents themselves showed the legal justification for the phone metadata program. It nakes sense that Snowden would claim otherwise in the podcast because he is barely literate and hasn't actually read most of the documents he leaked.
> As detailed there, it took 18 months of lobbying and browbeating the secret court
You don't "lobby" a court. You have lawyers justify a position.
> Also I have to say I'm just loving the concerted effort ITT to redefine the term "whistleblower".
You're the one making a bizarre definition of "whistleblower." Is it whistleblowing to leak all of your company's documents if you don't know they are doing anything illegal so long as somebody can later find one thing that is illegal? Obviously not.
The public outrage was due to various top officials denying that anything like PRISM was going on, when in fact it was.
So either the program was illegal, the false statements made by officials about them, or the classification of the process that prevented democratic oversight. One of the three had to be illegal, it's not really relevant to split hairs over which was one actually was.
The media won't carry a story that their numbers tell them doesn't have legs with the audience.
Why is that?
"Let me tell you: You take on the intellegence community and they have six ways from Sunday of getting back at you."
Hypothetically, of course.
The two communities above are receptive to messages about government overreach and corruption, the general public seems not to care much.
I suspect this is largely because libertarians and conspiracy theorists (which do overlap to some extent) are already skeptical of government "goodness" and anything that feeds that skepticism is easily accepted. The general public places government on a higher moral plane of existence and any challenge to that is met with skepticism and excuses.
The end result is that those that speak out/expose the government are sidelined and punished through smears or government action. See: Attacks on Gabbard, Ron Paul, Snowden, Bill Binney, Assange, etc.
It always fascinated me that the discussion of the leaked Clinton emails conveniently focused on the speculative source and motivation, never on the content of the emails with valid DKIM signatures. There is literally no question that those emails are real and unaltered.
Because there was nothing in them that painted Clinton in a bad light. They were normal boring emails that were sensationalized in conspiracy blogs but recognized as normal boring emails by professional journalists.
If the act of leaking emails about media collusion is a "bad" thing that influenced the election in one way, so can the media collusion itself be a "bad" thing that influenced the election the other way.
Despite what the conspiracy bloggers would have you believe, this is standard fact checking. If the conspiracy bloggers did that, they wouldn't have anything to report.
> Also in an email Donna Brazile of CNN agreed to forward the debate questions to the campaign before the debate.
This was heavily covered mainstream news and resulted in CNN firing Brazile. Brazile also assisted the Sanders campaign as the Sanders campaign has admitted, but we don't have the Sanders campaign emails to see how much.
Clinton's team was not offered the opportunity to edit or review the articles either. They were sent articles about the costs of policy proposals to respond with their own numbers. If you think this is out of the ordinary or that conservatives don't get the same consideration, what do you think "
did not immediately respond to requests for comment" means at the end of news articles?
Clearly they're part of a conspiracy to make us believe, against all possible odds, that anyone still believes in Pizzagate.
(And let's note: it's not like 4chan broke open Epstein's crimes. Old fashioned FBI legwork did. And the guy had a history of sex trafficking already, which nobody in Pizzagate did. As fun as it is to pretend to be an armchair sleuth, it sure isn't a pass-time that's got a good batting average over professional investigation).
You're wrong about... everything.
FBI washed their hands of this when the rest of DoJ did, in 2008. Two things caused national attention to return to Epstein: Alexander Acosta's nomination to Labor, and Julie K. Brown at the Miami Herald refusing to forget about Epstein's victims even after the rest of the media had. FBI had fuck-all to do with any of this; they don't like to investigate people who can afford to hire lawyers.
Not jakeogh though. like I said, he's part of a conspiracy to make us believe people still believe Pizzagate. The purpose of which is to undermine confidence in average human reasoning skills, which undermines faith in democracy. This is important for the next step of the Triluminati's plan.
Does it even count as "JAQing off [https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions]" if one party in the conversation doesn't even bother asking questions?
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.
Do NOT believe that!
The reality is probably quite different. Many organizations (both private and civil) make such promises but, in truth, the complaint phone line/box/e-mail is a direct line to either higher-ups in the company or to someone in another agency who will, very quickly, pass identifying information to higher-ups. The whistleblower will be tracked down mercilessly and driven out always. Those for whom the whistle blows will, not infrequently, be rewarded.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I've been in many public and private endeavors and, in every case, so-called whistleblower phone lines, complaint boards or monitoring companies have proven to be ineffectual and/or downright deadly to the career of anyone who contacts them. They are usually honeytraps for those poor individuals who believe their complaints will be fairly judged.
With reasonable care the press can be relied upon to vent complaints to the public w/o identifying the complainant.
A whistleblower that is heavily covered in the media because he or she aligns with the orginization's goals (sell headlines) is not 'fake'.
A whistleblower blowing the whistle on a hierarchy unable to directly fire him will also, not surprisingly, not lose his job.
"Heavily covered in the media", that's an interesting criterion for "whistleblower", and I'm sure it would serve someone's interests if it got any traction. Also "critical thinking" is now defined as "believing what the war media tell us"? This would be Orwellian, if it weren't so silly.
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.
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."
The others sited didn't follow the legal procedure which would have allowed them to also enjoy whistleblower protection.
Unsurprisingly, no one stepped forward for Crane.
No True Whistleblower gets "glowing plaudits" and "ongoing adulation".
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.
Take the lessons of Manufacturing Consent and apply them to the contemporary political context instead of Vietnam and East Timor, even if the elite media seems to be aligned with your own political beliefs.
But I don't see any reason to belive that it constitutes 'controlling the media'.
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.
Well you are on a technical discussion board. There are many people here who are in the position Snowden described there.
You can bring your brick to this discussion without having to become a hero as he said. This would push a public debate if you'd kept it up.
Why isn't it happening?
Maybe the government doesn't have to do anything at all and it's still not happening.
"You can't awaken somebody who pretends to be asleep" goes for all sides.
Can't any member of congress simply use the speech and debate clause to make what they know a matter of congressional record?
> When I hear you just speak, I go "actually this is a thoughtful guy."
When he validates Joe, he validates Joe's audience, and it becomes Snowden's audience. He did this with Trevor Noah too; I think he's intentional about it while very cleverly appearing not to be. It's a good thing Snowden is the one who blew that whistle, and not somebody less calculating.
It's very likely that a lot of less calculating would-be Snowdens are lying in unmarked graves out there somewhere.
It was an interesting discussion however.
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 right now, which I think is quite positive.
High-speed internet has blown open the information bandwidth cap so that now content can be created for every attention niche. This is just anecdotal, but it seems to me part of the decline of traditional journalism has to do with article length. People either want short, snappy headlines that tell them the essential information, or long, elaborately-written pieces thousands of words long. The only reason mid-length articles existed before was a compromise between the two groups.
Online audiovisual content is refreshing in that it lasts exactly as long as the creator(s) intended to treat the topic. Likewise for article length in blogs.
With newer media, it doesn't matter if you have a 22 minute episode 1 and a 47 minute episode 2 - you create the scene, shot and/or episode length that works for you artistically.
The show is successful because it knows that Google exists - it knows there's a universe of information outside the bounds of the show. It provides the gestalt and it's up to the listener to explore the details.
Joe's issues are that can be long winded at times, and he fails to press people on some issues which occasionally sucks (the first episode with Jack Dorsey, the last episode with Alex Jones, or the recent episode with Bob Lazaar). Most of the time, however, that's exactly what I want. I don't want two blowhards shouting at each other, I want two people trying to understand each other's ideas and to learn something new from it.
I don't have time for most of this drawn out content.
(I did listen to the entire Joe Rogan - Snowden podcast but that was a first)
Then you cannot listen to many. Joe speaks so much bollox with an authoritative air that if you didn't know the subject you would think that Joe did, when many many times he clearly does not.
I agree they are interesting when he lets the guest speak (even if completely disagree with them) or it is on something Joe does know about / has researched. But that is far from all the time.
Joe also has a habit of ignoring the guest at times and carrying on down his own little conversation alley, usually when he got too stoned - which ruins the conversation IMO
I agree that he tends to bring up his favorite topics all the time, which gets a bit repetitive but it's ok. You can't expect him to run hundred of conversations without being repetitive.
The Ezra Klein Show - Ezra Klein
Making sense podcast - Sam Harris
80000 hours podcast - Rob Wiblin
Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman is also a very good interviewer, but her guests are often too niche for me to recommend to a general audience.
To me this is as good as it gets for a talk show that has a wide ranging set of topics like the JRE. Joe Rogan isn’t an expert and doesn’t pretend to be unbiased on all issues. His community, I think, understands his limitations. He just runs a good conversation, and that’s all I want to hear.
Other listeners I've spoken to feel the same way. And I reckon Rogan knows that too
But he knows a lot about nutrition as well.
Most of our current long-term (>1 year long) studies about diets deal with the problem of "subjects not sticking to the diet" by just saying that X% of participants stopped the diet and then proceeding to analyze the health benefits for the Y% that stuck to it.
That's a fair thing to do, but what's not supported from those results is the conclusion that such a diet would have worked very well for the X% had they stuck to it.
I could be wrong, but I am almost positive that this is what was being argued.
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.
You can't be that surprised that in a situation like this, most people would tend to be very conservative (not republican conservative, but careful, do no harm, don't rock the boat kind of conservative).
Most people are "conservative" on this issue because they have no idea what they're talking about, just like every almost every other issue related to trans people.
My mom said something similar about "curiosity" to try and convince me that I couldn't be trans. As it turns out, what she meant was "when I was your age, I wanted to cut my hair short." Likewise, pretty much every story I've heard like this turns out to be either obvious lies meant to discredit trans people, or something that would have been easily sorted out by a psychologist. Eg. I've heard of gay people wishing they were another gender so that they wouldn't get bullied for their orientation. No decent professional would mistake that for genuine dysphoria.
But even supposing that your psychologist was incompetent, you still would have socially transitioned in some capacity before you ever started hormones. This almost certainly would have let you know if transitioning was really right for you. And even if it didn't, and you went all the way to starting estrogen, you could always stop if you didn't like what it was doing. Estrogen works very slowly. I've been on it for three years, and I know cis men whose boobs are bigger than mine. If I changed my mind, I could easily start living as a man again.
It's absolutely unfair to impose life-ruining misery on trans teens because of the off-chance that it might do a fraction of the same harm to a cis person.
Rogan himself was holding back from joining in, and I think some of the commenters here mistook my comment as critiquing Rogan for being transphobic, which I did not observe. It was the skinny guy (whose name I don't know).
Case in point: Rogan talks a lot about fighting. But in that particular case, we already discriminate by weight. So it might be possible to make things more fair by giving a weight penalty to male-to-female fighters that want to compete in the women's league.
Trans women are rare, and transition dramatically reduces muscle mass and other attributes related to performance. In fact, trans women typically have a lower testosterone level than cis women due to hormone treatments. There's absolutely no reason to believe that allowing trans women to participate in sports would prevent cis women from being able to compete. Trans women have been allowed to participate in women's Olympics events since the early 2000s, and not a single one has won a gold medal. You use the term "biological males" to refer to two completely different sets of people, which is dishonest and despicable.
My point is, there are options to explore besides an outright ban. For example, a trans woman that goes through HRT will lose some of the advantages of her birth sex. However, she might still enjoy the advantage of the male frame, hence my suggestion of an additional penalty.
A unisex league as you suggested could also be a posibility, and one could think about introducing not only weight classes, but testosterone classes as well.
The reality is that female leagues was a cultural hack that worked well enough in the 20th century. But in a world where we recognise that neither sex not gender fit neatly into binary categories, it is impractical to assume that we can fit people into two sporting categories.
Before the higher level of testing, there were plenty of rumors that fighters would overtrain (or cycle on steroids) to the point of plummeting their testosterone levels to be given a TRT exemption. By the time their baseline levels recovered by fight day, they could still be on TRT
Connover, to his credit, went so far as to provide additional context for his defense of trans people’s agency post-interview:
The stance that it is wrong that there should only be male and female sports leagues AND that trans people should automatically be included in whichever their identification maps to, is a completely defensible and not misinformed stance. It may be wrong, but so might the opposite stance held by trans activists (which is also likely completely defensible and not misinformed).
Hearing someone vent/whine about the orientation and life choices of others is just not my cup of tea.
It was the kind of commentary one might overhear from a table of not-so-bright senior citizens at a Denny’s.
I've been listening to him forever and watch MMA every single weekend. I have hard time imagining him saying this. Infact, one of his MMA pet peeves is over training.
i've never heard him say anything like this. i've also watched the entire Firaz episode.
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.
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.
Chris Kresser is not an "acupuncturist". And this is a classic ad-hominen ;-)
Joe kept interrupting Khan because Khan was avoiding answering the asked questions.
And Chris kept mentioning the elephant in the room, which is that the randomized-controlled trials (the gold standard in nutrition) don't show a statistically significant link between heart disease and meat or saturated fat consumption and that's a fact, being also the subject of recent meta analysis, that used GRADE to reach the conclusion that there is no good evidence for the claim that meat causes cancer and that adults should probably continue their current meat consumption:
This isn't to say that meat or saturated fat is good or bad, but if listening to such a podcast causes anger at the people daring to question a "cardiologist with 20 years of experience", then maybe you should consider that you yourself have stepped in the land of ideology / religion and that's just not compatible with science or health for that matter.
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 basically no idea of what he is talking about, but in the eyes of the public, and because they are put side by side, they are seen as equivalent when they are not.
Why not put him against a non-vegan cardiologist then? Someone at least with equivalent training.
From a scientific point of view, the only diet that as ever shown to stop the progression of heart disease is a whole-food plant-based diet.
Khan replied to the questions, not sure why you are saying he avoided anything. It's obvious that Joe took Kresser side during the debate.
What kind of tough questions did he ask Kresser compared to Khan?
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 progression of heart disease is a whole-food plant-based diet.
This is not true either, and I find it ironic it’s stated authoritatively with no sources.
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"
The video is a summary of the studies listed via the "Sources cited" button, that you find scrolling down after the video.
I have no bone in this particular fight. I'm inclined to agree with you, most of the time, but it's clearly possible to be an expert in nearly anything without formal training:
Lots of absolutes in this discussion, but reality is usually far more nuanced.
For asking someone to do some web design or a logo, I don't think it's necessary either, but there is a limit somewhere.
Think about this way, if you yourself or someone in your family would have heart disease, would you take advice from an acupuncturist?
I bet you wouldn't. What are the odds that Kris Kresser without any formal training or experience managed to better understand the science behind such a complex topic like heart disease than full-time scientists and cardiologists?
Self-learning is great for a lot of things, but heart disease is likely not one of them.
They said that although a link exists, its not worth it for people to change their diet, which has triggered outrage on the scientific community.
One of the authors of the studies meta-analysed complained that he never saw such as misrepresentation of the data.
The author of the meta-analysis is someone with strong financial links to the meat industry, so thay study is suspect, to say the least.
When you open someone up after a heart attack, what do you find clogging their veins? It's cholesterol. What happens when you eat cholesterol? Your cholesterol serum goes up.
If Joe could have found a serious cardiologist that would claim that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease, he would have long invited him to the show.
But the best he could come up with is Kris Kresser, which kind of says it all.
That’s an incorrect oversimplification of the situation. Like most of what is being bandied about here.
Most people eat more than just an egg a day in terms of cholesterol. They eat dairy, meat, eggs, and fish multiple times a day typically one or more of those at every single meal.
So dietary cholesterol does add up over the day, combined with a bad mix of processed carbs and fats it's a recipe for disaster.
Yes, you can eat one egg day and get away with it, but most people eat way more cholesterol than that every single day.
> 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 many Joe Rogan podcasts at all. But isn't that kinda the opposite of an echo chamber? He had two guests on with opposing viewpoints, and gave both of them a fair shake, even when one of the guests had an minority (absurd) opinion?
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.
> 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
In reality, the show is an excellent avenue to mainstream conspiracy theorists and people who want to sell their latest books or products or whatever, and the people who will listen to it will get a hugely distorted view of what the actual consensus on certain topics is.
This is the same sort of dynamic that recently cropped up around a certain youtube 'educator' who claimed to teach people ML and to have disrupted the cartel of higher education, only to turn out that he had plagiarized a lot of his content and that the education was actually of extremely low quality. The same mentality, gatekeepers are evil, listen to the pot-smoking show-host who brings you the real information that they don't want you to know, yada yada.
Or maybe he just finds it interesting? I find myself on paranormal sites from time to time even though I know it's 100% (or at least 99.9%) bullshit. It's still fun to read.
There is already so much scientific ignorance in the general public, there is so much misrepresentation of science already.
A ton of people actually believe thinks like the Earth is flat, Joe many times gives a voice to that type of quacks for clicks.
His podcast many times acts as a vehicle for spreading ignorance, other than that yes its entertaining and people should know better. But often they don't and that's the problem.
He used to believe that, and now he doesn't.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What? If people stop liking what he has to say, they'll stop listening to him. I don't know what your point is. Set up federal regulations on the Joe Rogan Podcast because you disagree with some things he says?
What? If people stop liking what he has to say, they'll stop listening to him. What's your solution? Set up federal regulations on the Joe Rogan Podcast because you disagree with some things he says?
Be brave about hearing stupid arguments. They are a whetting stone for your own thoughts.
It is not smart, courageous, healthy or prudent to prevent yourself from being exposed to bad ideas.
But as a whole, I do find that he has a very wide variety of guests which show all sorts of view point. Just don't take what you hear in any single podcast as absolute truth.
Chris Kresser, M.S., L.Ac. - "M.S. L.Ac." means Master of Science, Licensed Acupuncturist. This is his formal training, all I'm saying is that he shouldn't be presented as an expert to Joe Rogan's audience in the topic he was interviewed on.
He's the best out there now as he's got the pick of his guests (the result of a forward feedback loop of being a good interviewer).
But view/listen to enough of them and you'll learn to pick the gems from the drivel, like almost everything.
There are of course the interviews which are actually him being interviewed (he does most of the talking)... But I think that's part of why it makes for good listening. He keeps the conversation going. Even with a reticent guest, most interviews go for 2 hours or more. So in the end you extract something useful out of it.
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 deep anyway, but he's not. He's an everyman and asks very surface-level questions. As you say guests are (usually) given wide latitude to own the mic, which works great when it's a guest with a compelling narrative. It works terribly when the guest is very ideological or has some sort of agenda they are adept at selling.
The times he does challenge a guest (sometimes way too aggressively as others in the thread have shown), oftentimes he has missed the point entirely, and the guest has to back up and try to patch the conversation. Once that happens a couple times the flow of the interview is really disturbed and it takes a long time to recover.
I like Joe as a person, and admire his discipline, but to call him a master interviewer would be as accurate as calling him a master comedian because he has been grinding so long.
And A$AP Rocky
He also seems to be able to 'find' people just before they really make it big/mainstream, like Kendrick Lamer, Billie Eilish, and Tyler the Creator. I heard about them from Narduar before anywhere else.
At the very least in terms of doing proper research on a subject, I think there's no one better.
Peter Thiel on “The Straussian Moment” (Sept 2019)
His guests routinely compliment him on his prep and the questions he ask. The show would be just as good without the hot sauce gimmick.
The Hot Ones episodes I found the most entertaining were the ones where the guest was the dominant one, steering the conversation, and the questions were incidental / not necessary.
He honestly doesn't add that much by being in the room vs if someone else had the same questionnaire sheet. And in some ways his wooden demeanor can even be detracting instead of some of the best interviewers who can melt away and give the interviewee the space and direction to shine.
For a supremely frustrating example of Rogan not 'getting it' listen to the last hour-ish of JRE#1350 with Nick Bostrom, where Joe simply can't wrap his head around The Simulation Argument.
But yeah, Rogan’s a mediocre interviewer at best, though he can be entertaining himself. And the long format of the podcast means that interviewees can sort of talk themselves out, which can give real insight into what they think.
He mentioned this actually few times and its interesting that he learnt to be patient and non-combative no non-issues.
Half of the time i pay attention to how he runs the podcast instead of actual conversations.
That one was not well-reasoned or patient, but other than that, I've found almost all of Joe's podcasts to be very good. He's definitely one of the greatest interviewers on the planet right now.
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.
There are plenty of intelligent conservatives/whatever that don't do the stuff he does that's just intended to be offensive/get attention.
This certainly must be false, or parenting wouldn't work.
I've taken many, maybe even most lessons and ego checks from people more powerful than me.
Consider: his viewpoint is a firing offense at FAANG while your viewpoint is constantly validated and endorsed.
Who's got the power there? Of course Crowder is a terrible example to speak up for, but he definitely is not empowered.
That's also because most news networks don't have the luxury (or the willingness) to do 2 hours interviews with a single person in the first place. They need to make things short so they can drown you with ads at every break.
On the other hand, it feels like most of the podcasts have a shallow content level if you are already familiar with the subject, and sometimes the conversation/questions tend to go into the stoner mysticism realm.
But mostly Joe gets it spot on and does a great interview. What this does to popular discourse? When a small % of the population watch these types of long form interview and get deep, thoughtful and insightful answers to complex ideas .... and some % of the population watch Fox and read tabloids to get their news.
How does society fix this huge knowledge divide?
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 doesn't have the necessary intuitions to understand why they are more likely to be a simulated agent.
How would one "con" so many intelligent people for so many years with purely logical arguments, exactly? An argument is either coherent and valid and sound or it isn't. There's no room for conning or personal charm or anything related to the person themselves.
Average number of words per article was 764.
While you can get long form fewer and fewer people read it, myself included.
If a major player like the BBC resort to news in an average of 764 words the majority of people are not getting deep/insightful/challenging news or information.
In my 20s I used to read long form broadsheet articles on a Sunday, I don't seem to have the attention for it any more.
Even articles from hacker news that are too long I just go straight to the comments to get a digest.
I suspect my mobile phone addiction is to blame, even last week I signed up for blinkist after I tried to read Ray Dalios Principles for the third time and didn't have the attention for it when I saw an ad for the summary on blinkist and just signed up.
Not sure what point I'm trying to make but I just believe super shortform, dopamine induced hit of information may be detrimental to me/society in the long run.
*edited as table of data not displaying correctly
I also imagine on some other forum out there someone is lamenting the popularity of the Joe Rogan Experience while the media of their liking gets even less exposure, and wondering how they fix that knowledge divide in society.
- Why should it?
- Isnt the divide inevitable anyway (X knows about Shakespeare, Y knows about quantum theory, Z knows how to grow corn...)
When he interviews people from tech, it’s usually cringeworthy for me. And very entertaining in fields I know little of.
You should check out #947 - Ron Miscavige . It is the one episode that comes to mind where JR's behavior and impatience really bothers me. The guy's story is quite sad and Joe seemed distant and distracted the entire time.
1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVVdCikBDQk
Where do you think he was trying to shirk responsibility? I've listened to a lot of his podcasts and that was also the only one where I couldn't understand why Joe was acting so harshly towards him. Once his son was absorbed into the cult, I don't think there's anything he could've done. Not to mention how hard it is even to get yourself out of it, as he explained in great detail.