Wow where in the world did this come from

I migrated entirely to Lemmy and I don’t regret it. I do miss the amount of content on Reddit, but at least I know I’m not supporting them anymore.

Exactly.

Probably he should be.

The US wields a huge amount of influence generally in the world, and specifically in the Hague. Behavior that would get other leaders called to task is generally ignored if it’s done by the US.

It’s not fair, but it is the way that the world works.

Yeah he does confront his guests (though not any of the alt-right or qanon ones). It’s pretty clear he has an agenda, despite everyone claiming he’s just some kind of enlightened centrist.

In what sense would their numbers make Rogan’s any better?

You didn’t really think about this whataboutism moment too hard, did you.

That’s not true. You want to imagine he’s centrist because it gratifies your ego, but he is simply right-wing.

As are the people who he appeals to.

I don’t know what the connotations of him are in East Asia. I think the question might be geographically biased against a good answer from most English speakers.

We can tell you what he means over here (and many people are in these replies), but that might be very different from his meaning over there, so keep that in mind.

I don’t think he’s separable from qanon or the alt-right. Enabling them to the extent he does means he’s one of them tacitly, if not officially.

“Censorship?” Does everyone deserve to get on his talk show? Are those that aren’t “censored?”

No. He has to draw the line somewhere, and he has. Where he’s drawn it – who he invites to speak to his enormous audience – is very instructive indeed.

By looking at all the alt-right, conservative, and qanon guests he invites on his show, we can tell who Joe Rogan is: a useful idiot for the alt-right, if not an enthusiastic enabler of them. And he is as bad at interviewing guests as he is at selecting them. He lobs dangerous, loaded questions at the worst people in the world, fails to challenge even the most basic errors they make with their answers, and idiots lap it up because they want to imagine they’re smart.

If he was alive a hundred years ago, he’d have been enthusiastically debating the Jewish question and “free speech” people around the globe would be nodding sagely and being happy someone is finally willing to stand up against “censorship” and “international Jewry.” Because he’s alive now, he’s just doing that about vaccines, racism, trans people, police violence… basically anything where it’s possible to have a bad take, he’s interviewing someone about it.

Yeah his female characters were never great. It’s disappointing to hear it just got worse.

The beginning is a good place to start! The main books are all ordered chronologically. So pick up Storm Front and get started.

I dunno, I’m pretty technically versed on blockchains and I simply don’t see the use. As I said they’re vulnerable to basically everything a centralized database is, with the addition of 51% attacks, and suffer from poor usability and being monstrously inefficient on top of it. Maybe there is a mythical use for the tech out there, but if there is I haven’t heard an argument for anything that wouldn’t be better served by an actual database.

I don’t think running an election on a centralized database is a great idea. I do think it’s a way better idea than doing it on a blockchain, which has all the problems a centralized database and several more besides.

Why would you want a zero-knowledge database? You want the exact opposite: you want to be able to tie the vote to a person, which is why ballots are associated strongly to your identity and why counting physical ballots remains so important.

In what sense? There have been numerous hacks of existing blockchains even within the past few months. Also of smart contracts on those blockchains. Certainly way more than, say, bank databases.

That’s entirely what you would want a centralized database for; so you can put an authority you trust in charge of it, to ensure it’s fair and auditable.

Using a blockchain would give a bunch of people very strong incentives to perform a 51% attack, find a flaw in the protocol and exploit it, or just bribe, threaten, or cajole the programmers who created the chain to patch it to do what they want.

People keep saying there’s a valid use case for this but what is it? Basically any distributed ledger would actually perform better, be more secure, and be easier to use as a centralized database.

It’s fun! From lib.lgbt.

As a self-identifying conservative Christian you must be aware that almost all antagonism towards LGBTQ+ people comes from your churches, your leaders, and your peers.

And not just gay people. Trans people are even more in the “culture war” crosshairs, and are just as important a part of the queer community.

Do you disagree with your church and your leaders about this? If so, how can you continue to self-identify as a conservative Christian, knowing what your identification supports?