Joe Rogan Talks to Edward Snowden

[Eddie Dane]

That episode killed Milo's career.

He is now reduced to e-begging.

EDIT: as opposed to tea-bagging.

I'll get my coat.

 

[carlitos]

You literally could not pay me enough to listen to a stoned guy do anything for 3 or 4 hours. The woo and nutrition nonsense is just insurance that I will never tune in.

 

[The_Animus]

That said, he seems to be getting better even here and recently had a debate between Garry Taubes and Stephen Guyenet, the latter of whom wiped the floor with Taubes.

I hadn't seen that one and out of curiosity looked it up. Ended up watching the whole thing. Very interesting thanks!

 

[Eddie Dane]

You literally could not pay me enough to listen to a stoned guy do anything for 3 or 4 hours. The woo and nutrition nonsense is just insurance that I will never tune in.

He started out as asking the dumb questions that laymen ask professionals. So that was informative.

But after a while, I notice those long rambling sections of the interview where Joe just won't let his guest talk and for the umpteenth time rehashes his stoner opinions.

He's not a bad guy and he sometimes has interesting guests. But I've tuned out.

It made me reconsider the effects of Cannabis too.

 

[trustbutverify]

What? Who do you hang out with who see him as an intellectual godsend and NOT as a rambling stoner. A rambling stoner is pretty much how everyone I know sees him.

Personally, I think of him as someone who has actually improved over time from being a completely credulous conspiracy theorist and stoner., to someone who has actually learnt things from his many guests and has become a bit smarter as a result.

You mean to tell me Rogan was once even stupider than he is now? Is that even possible?

 

[Roboramma]

You mean to tell me Rogan was once even stupider than he is now? Is that even possible?

While he's no genius I find Rogan to be much more intellectually curious, honest, and interested in what's actually true than most people on this forum.

 

[trustbutverify]

While he's no genius I find Rogan to be much more intellectually curious, honest, and interested in what's actually true than most people on this forum.

Well, I suppose the ability to produce un-listenable mulch from conversations with interesting people might be considered a form of genius.

 

[Roboramma]

Well, I suppose the ability to produce un-listenable mulch from conversations with interesting people might be considered a form of genius.

I have no problem at all with people not liking things. You don't enjoy Joe Rogan's podcast, that's cool, there's plenty of things I don't like. But the fact that millions of people do enjoy his podcast shows that it's only "unlistenable mulch" for some, and that fact that it's one of the most popular podcasts in the world shows that if we were to have some sort objective standard of "listenable" based on what most people enjoy listening to, his podcast would be high on the listenability list.

For instance, if I were trying to start a podcast I'd try to learn from people who have popular podcasts how to become listenable. If we're talking about something other than our subjective opinions, that seems like about as good of an objective standard as we're going to get.

If you're just saying that you don't like him, no problem. I do object to your previous comment: "You mean to tell me Rogan was once even stupider than he is now? Is that even possible?". He's not stupid. There are times when he fails to grasp certain things, but that's true of you and me as well.

 

[Roboramma]

Anyway, for those who don't enjoy Joe Rogan's conversation style, if you're interested in hearing what Snowden has to say, it's worth checking out this podcast because Rogan actually barely speaks throughout this particular interview. It may be because he was worrying about speaking over Snowden (due to the remote connection), but for whatever reason he pretty much just lets Snowden tell his story uninterrupted.

 

[trustbutverify]

I have no problem at all with people not liking things.

Outstanding.

But the fact that millions of people do enjoy his podcast shows that it's only "unlistenable mulch" for some, and that fact that it's one of the most popular podcasts in the world shows that if we were to have some sort objective standard of "listenable" based on what most people enjoy listening to, his podcast would be high on the listenability list.

Yes, i'm familiar with the Quality as a Function of Popularity concept.

For instance, if I were trying to start a podcast I'd try to learn from people who have popular podcasts how to become listenable.

Interesting idea. For example, if I were trying to make a funny movie, I could model the runaway hit film "Look Who's Talking". Or, if I were trying to produce a hilarious sitcom, I could study the blisteringly popular TV show "Home Improvement".

I do object to your previous comment: "You mean to tell me Rogan was once even stupider than he is now? Is that even possible?". He's not stupid.

Objection overruled.

 

[Butter!]

I listened to the Snowden episode over last weekend, and I thought it was great. (Granted, Joe himself barely spoke at all.) Encouraged, I then listened to two other recent episodes, and I enjoyed them too.

"What is going on?" I wondered to myself. "Why isn't Joe annoying me? Have I turned a corner, grown in patience?" Then, I realized - it was "Sober October." Joe was staying on topic and making more sense than usual because he wasn't blitzed out of his mind on the devil's lettuce. He also wasn't going on and on about psychedelics. And I thought it was a good time.

 

[carlitos]

Snowden in his own words, at Reason Magazine.

 

[Roboramma]

Objection overruled.

I get that you think he's stupid. You've done nothing more than make that assertion. If you want to make an argument feel free.

 

[Roboramma]

Yes, i'm familiar with the Quality as a Function of Popularity concept.

If you have a better metric for "listenability" than "what people enjoy listening to", feel free to present it. If you think that it's a completely subjective concept, then that's fine too. But you seem to want to have it both ways: treat it as an objective thing and have no metric by which to determine that.

Interesting idea. For example, if I were trying to make a funny movie, I could model the runaway hit film "Look Who's Talking". Or, if I were trying to produce a hilarious sitcom, I could study the blisteringly popular TV show "Home Improvement".

Yes. You could probably find better things to study, but given that people found those funny, there are things to learn about how to make people laugh by studying them.

 

[luchog]

Yes. You could probably find better things to study, but given that people found those funny, there are things to learn about how to make people laugh by studying them.

No one ever went broke pandering to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Roboramma]

No one ever went broke pandering to the lowest common denominator.

I think there's a valid point to be made that there are different degrees of enjoyment that can be found in things. Something that makes most people laugh once or twice might be much more popular than something that makes some people laugh uproariously, yet the total enjoyment found in the latter may be more than the former, even though the former will be more popular.

If we're talking about something beyond enjoyment (like learning something from an educational program, being inspired by a work of art, etc.) again, popularity isn't necessarily a good metric.

But trustbutverify was specifically talking about "listenability". If she's referring only to her own subjective viewpoint that she doesn't enjoy listening to him talk, fine, I can't see anything to object to. As I said we all have different tastes. If she's making an objective claim for that trait, I can't see how popularity isn't a good metric.

 

[trustbutverify]

I get that you think he's stupid.

I should think so.

You've done nothing more than make that assertion.

I believe Rogan is stupid because he says alot of stupid things like, for example, this: .

“I know Alex so well. I’ve known Alex for like more than 20 years,” Mr. Rogan said Tuesday. “We’ve been hammered together so many times. That guy is the most misunderstood guy on the planet. … He needs somebody to go, ‘Alex, slow down. You had a real good point there.’

If you have a better metric for "listenability" than "what people enjoy listening to", feel free to present it. If you think that it's a completely subjective concept, then that's fine too.

There is no objective standard for listenability... at least the way I'm using the term. It's purely subjective.

But you seem to want to have it both ways: treat it as an objective thing and have no metric by which to determine that.

Nonsense. I never claimed, in any way, that the pleasure (or lack of) derived from listening to Rogan attempt to interview someone was not subjective.

Yes. You could probably find better things to study, but given that people found those funny, there are things to learn about how to make people laugh by studying them.

Maybe what can be learned from them is that people frequently laugh at amazingly unfunny things.

 

[trustbutverify]

But trustbutverify was specifically talking about "listenability". If she's referring only to her own subjective viewpoint that she doesn't enjoy listening to him talk, fine, I can't see anything to object to. As I said we all have different tastes. If she's making an objective claim for that trait, I can't see how popularity isn't a good metric.

Just out of curiosity, what made you think I was female?

 

[p0lka]

Anyway, for those who don't enjoy Joe Rogan's conversation style, if you're interested in hearing what Snowden has to say, it's worth checking out this podcast because Rogan actually barely speaks throughout this particular interview. It may be because he was worrying about speaking over Snowden (due to the remote connection), but for whatever reason he pretty much just lets Snowden tell his story uninterrupted.

I think rogan was on a sobriety october thingy at that time.

That might have had a negative impact on his ability to chain random thoughts together, into a coherent stream, enough to interrupt the very people he has on his podcast, I dont know?
I do like it when he talks less though.

 

[p0lka]

I believe Rogan is stupid because he says alot of stupid things like, for example, this: .

Have you actually read the link you posted above?
Your cherrypicking out of context quotes to prove your point, don't.