4 ms·

His statement on Ukraine was quite something to behold. He condemned Putin's invasion in exactly 7 words - "I condemn Vladimir's Putin invasion of Ukraine". An

by 323 4y ago

His statement on Ukraine was quite something to behold. He condemned Putin's invasion in exactly 7 words - "I condemn Vladimir's Putin invasion of Ukraine". And then immediately proceeded to condemn US interventions "in 40 nations" and "many studies finding that US is culpable for an unfathomable number of civilians deaths". Of course, his life dream is to interview Putin (as stated a few times on Rogan). https://youtu.be/jRQAG77ifzE?t=120 https://youtu.be/jRQAG77ifzE?t=120

laidoffamazon 4y ago
He's a weird guy, twisting himself into pseudo-impartiality doesn't make someone interesting. I'll concede his guests are pretty good and varied but even Rogan has great guests and he doesn't do weird stuff like this.
- Mizza 4y ago
  He's just a grifter, I don't know why HN falls for his schtick. I have liked some of his guests, but come on.
  - vehemenz 4y ago
    I wouldn't say he's a grifter, but his career was basically made by the "enlightened meathead" circuit (Joe Rogan), in which his milquetoast views appear interesting. I agree that he gets good guests—not sure why—but if I wanted to listen to a philosophy grad student fumble through ideas I have other avenues IRL for that.
  - msikora 4y ago
    Agreed, although as far as grifters go he's far from the worst one. But getting worse lately and fairly rapidly. The biggest mystery in the universe: how does he pull all these guests?
- UncleOxidant 4y ago
  > twisting himself into pseudo-impartiality doesn't make someone interesting. TBH my impression is that his interviews come off as a couple of college guys smoking joints and talking about the meaning of life. I never got the appeal. Yes, he does get some really great guests, but I wonder why some of these people would agree to these interviews?
  - spiderice 4y ago
    > I wonder why some of these people would agree to these interviews He's currently the 12th most popular podcast. Great exposure for anyone to go on his podcast.
  - bryan0 4y ago
    I don’t think you’ve heard too many of his interviews then. He will sometimes go into pot-mode meaning-of-life stuff but that will be for a few minutes in a several hour long interview. If someone is an expert in a niche technical field and would like to talk about it for several hours to a large-ish general audience, what other show would they go on?
- Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
  I started listening to some of his podcasts because of the guests. I don't find Lex that interesting at all, I also think he's not the best person at leading a discussion with how many tangents he goes on, although he is good at coming back off them. And he is quite good at letting the guest just talk. I never enjoyed Rogan's podcasts because it was as much about him as it was the guest. I just stick to the less political podcasts and they're fine. I quite liked his one with John Carmack and his one with Todd Howard.
- nuccy 4y ago
  Ex-russians, who (or whose parents) left Russia, seem to have some kind of romantic connection to the country, they have never been to (or been there when they were young, thus "sun was shinning brighter, grass was greener, trees were taller, and the ice-cream was tastier"). They read old russian classic literature, watch soviet movies, and imagine the better Russia it really is not. Lex in his interviews many times speaks about Putin as of a leader who loves his country and thinks about his people, which has barely any connection to reality, unless Russian TV and other country's media, cleaned up of any dissidents, are been consumed.
  - fathyb 4y ago
    > Ex-russians, who (or whose parents) left Russia, seem to have some kind of romantic connection to the country, they have never been to (or been there when they were young, thus "sun was shinning brighter, grass was greener, trees were taller, and the ice-cream was tastier"). They read old russian classic literature, watch soviet movies, and imagine the better Russia it really is not. Is is bad though? Not forgetting your roots is a good thing. Nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage.
    - nuccy 4y ago
      > Is is bad though? Not forgetting your roots is a good thing. It is absolutely good thing. Culture, language, roots are definitely worth cherishing. Though you should not build an illusive and false picture of the country it is today. > People are allowed to be proud of their heritage. Sure, but better not to follow propaganda, which uses that heritage to build a basis for war while manipulating history.
      - fathyb 4y ago
        > Though you should not build an illusive and false picture of the country it is today. I'd argue everybody does that, it's exceptionalism. It's a natural response to being in a group. A tribalistic behaviour you can observe with countries, but also political parties and even k-pop groups. FWIW exceptionalism is mostly associated with one country in particular, but it's not Russia. > Sure, but better not to follow propaganda, which uses that heritage to build a basis for war while manipulating history. I wholeheartedly agree, but you should not underestimate how difficult access to non-propaganda is for everyone in the world. When you believe in propaganda, everything else looks like propaganda.
mardifoufs 4y ago
Yes, he should only condemn wars and murders that aren't from our side. Those shouldn't distract us from the actually important wars that really matter. Sure, millions died, and literally no one has been held responsible for those deaths and wars, but "whataboutism" is even worse
93po 4y ago
I find it absolutely unbelievable that you find any amount of fault with both condemning the invasion of Ukraine and also finding extreme fault with the million+ deaths that the US is directly responsible for in the past decades. Who wouldn't want to interview Putin? Suggesting that it wouldn't be interesting to talk to one of the most powerful and influential people on planet is just ridiculous posturing. Talking to someone isn't an endorsement of their actions. Some of the most meaningful conversations that have happened in history happened involving someone who is objectively terrible.

by 323 4y ago

laidoffamazon 4y ago

He's a weird guy, twisting himself into pseudo-impartiality doesn't make someone interesting. I'll concede his guests are pretty good and varied but even Rogan has great guests and he doesn't do weird stuff like this.

Mizza 4y ago
He's just a grifter, I don't know why HN falls for his schtick. I have liked some of his guests, but come on.
- vehemenz 4y ago
  I wouldn't say he's a grifter, but his career was basically made by the "enlightened meathead" circuit (Joe Rogan), in which his milquetoast views appear interesting. I agree that he gets good guests—not sure why—but if I wanted to listen to a philosophy grad student fumble through ideas I have other avenues IRL for that.
- msikora 4y ago
  Agreed, although as far as grifters go he's far from the worst one. But getting worse lately and fairly rapidly. The biggest mystery in the universe: how does he pull all these guests?
UncleOxidant 4y ago
> twisting himself into pseudo-impartiality doesn't make someone interesting. TBH my impression is that his interviews come off as a couple of college guys smoking joints and talking about the meaning of life. I never got the appeal. Yes, he does get some really great guests, but I wonder why some of these people would agree to these interviews?
- spiderice 4y ago
  > I wonder why some of these people would agree to these interviews He's currently the 12th most popular podcast. Great exposure for anyone to go on his podcast.
- bryan0 4y ago
  I don’t think you’ve heard too many of his interviews then. He will sometimes go into pot-mode meaning-of-life stuff but that will be for a few minutes in a several hour long interview. If someone is an expert in a niche technical field and would like to talk about it for several hours to a large-ish general audience, what other show would they go on?
Philip-J-Fry 4y ago
I started listening to some of his podcasts because of the guests. I don't find Lex that interesting at all, I also think he's not the best person at leading a discussion with how many tangents he goes on, although he is good at coming back off them. And he is quite good at letting the guest just talk. I never enjoyed Rogan's podcasts because it was as much about him as it was the guest. I just stick to the less political podcasts and they're fine. I quite liked his one with John Carmack and his one with Todd Howard.
nuccy 4y ago
Ex-russians, who (or whose parents) left Russia, seem to have some kind of romantic connection to the country, they have never been to (or been there when they were young, thus "sun was shinning brighter, grass was greener, trees were taller, and the ice-cream was tastier"). They read old russian classic literature, watch soviet movies, and imagine the better Russia it really is not. Lex in his interviews many times speaks about Putin as of a leader who loves his country and thinks about his people, which has barely any connection to reality, unless Russian TV and other country's media, cleaned up of any dissidents, are been consumed.
- fathyb 4y ago
  > Ex-russians, who (or whose parents) left Russia, seem to have some kind of romantic connection to the country, they have never been to (or been there when they were young, thus "sun was shinning brighter, grass was greener, trees were taller, and the ice-cream was tastier"). They read old russian classic literature, watch soviet movies, and imagine the better Russia it really is not. Is is bad though? Not forgetting your roots is a good thing. Nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage.
  - nuccy 4y ago
    > Is is bad though? Not forgetting your roots is a good thing. It is absolutely good thing. Culture, language, roots are definitely worth cherishing. Though you should not build an illusive and false picture of the country it is today. > People are allowed to be proud of their heritage. Sure, but better not to follow propaganda, which uses that heritage to build a basis for war while manipulating history.
    - fathyb 4y ago
      > Though you should not build an illusive and false picture of the country it is today. I'd argue everybody does that, it's exceptionalism. It's a natural response to being in a group. A tribalistic behaviour you can observe with countries, but also political parties and even k-pop groups. FWIW exceptionalism is mostly associated with one country in particular, but it's not Russia. > Sure, but better not to follow propaganda, which uses that heritage to build a basis for war while manipulating history. I wholeheartedly agree, but you should not underestimate how difficult access to non-propaganda is for everyone in the world. When you believe in propaganda, everything else looks like propaganda.

mardifoufs 4y ago

Yes, he should only condemn wars and murders that aren't from our side. Those shouldn't distract us from the actually important wars that really matter. Sure, millions died, and literally no one has been held responsible for those deaths and wars, but "whataboutism" is even worse

93po 4y ago

I find it absolutely unbelievable that you find any amount of fault with both condemning the invasion of Ukraine and also finding extreme fault with the million+ deaths that the US is directly responsible for in the past decades. Who wouldn't want to interview Putin? Suggesting that it wouldn't be interesting to talk to one of the most powerful and influential people on planet is just ridiculous posturing. Talking to someone isn't an endorsement of their actions. Some of the most meaningful conversations that have happened in history happened involving someone who is objectively terrible.