Twitter’s Jack Dorsey is on JRE right now

Mr Nash

square pies = communism
Jun 8, 2004
4,217
256
1,505
#7
Looks like they're having trouble getting the video up, but somehow it's got a bunch of thumbs down and the comments are all people butt hurt that Joe didn't rake Dorsey through the coals over every transgression Twitter has ever done. Not sure what these people were expecting. Rogan doesn't do hard-hitting questions, and, as far as I know, has no interest in using a confrontational approach to interviews.

Anyway, I didn't have time to watch the whole thing while it was live, but it was an alright talk. Wasn't expecting the to start chatting about IRC for a bit. That made me nostalgic for Classic Internet.
 
Nov 5, 2016
5,201
4,120
285
I don't care where (just far)
#8
Looks like they're having trouble getting the video up, but somehow it's got a bunch of thumbs down and the comments are all people butt hurt that Joe didn't rake Dorsey through the coals over every transgression Twitter has ever done. Not sure what these people were expecting. Rogan doesn't do hard-hitting questions, and, as far as I know, has no interest in using a confrontational approach to interviews.

Anyway, I didn't have time to watch the whole thing while it was live, but it was an alright talk. Wasn't expecting the to start chatting about IRC for a bit. That made me nostalgic for Classic Internet.
Yeah, Joe’s never really been a “gotcha” guy.

Sure he’s gotten into some heated discussions but those are things he’s passionate about (talking weed with Crowder, for example) and even then it’s good hearted.

He’s not a “grill master.” You look at episodes like Lance Armstrong, for example. Even Mel Gibson, Mel wanted to mostly talk about the stem cell thing and Joe let him
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#9
Yeah, Joe’s never really been a “gotcha” guy.

Sure he’s gotten into some heated discussions but those are things he’s passionate about (talking weed with Crowder, for example) and even then it’s good hearted.

He’s not a “grill master.” You look at episodes like Lance Armstrong, for example. Even Mel Gibson, Mel wanted to mostly talk about the stem cell thing and Joe let him
That’s why he’s so effective as an interviewer. His calm and friendly demeanour provides a sense of security and encourages people to open up to an extent that they normally wouldn’t in a formal setting.
 
Nov 13, 2013
1,422
304
465
#16
JRE is one of the best pod's going. I listen all the time. Couldn't make it through this one though because it was clear that Jack was just going to dodge questions or be as vague as possible, so even if Joe asked the tough questions, I doubt he'd answer. And for all the morons thumbs downing it(who are likely mainly young kids) Joe discusses stuff with his guests beforehand and before they agree to come on his show. For all we know Jack said I'm not going to answer X, Y, and Z so please don't ask these questions, and those were his conditions for going on the show.
 
Likes: Cunth
Jan 31, 2018
125
116
190
#17
Watched half of this last night. When back to finish and the video was gone. Looks like it was re uploaded and has a majority dislikes. Seems like the Alex Jones question has a lot of people angry.
 
Likes: pramod

njr

Member
Jan 26, 2009
869
81
760
#24
JRE usually gets a lot of crap for “being alt right” because he brings on everyone, so I guess we can add Jack Dorsey and Mike Tyson to the alt right. This episode went exactly as I expected, there were several things Joe brought up only for it to be sidestepped or brushed aside, but I expect that from a social media CEO.
 
Jan 6, 2009
783
300
830
England
#25
Caught most of it. Will watch the rest.

My view of Jack has changed.

He's a business man, and a dreamer. Not a thought policer.

Doesn't seem too involved in the actual running of Twitter. Just it's evolution.

There's a group of "NPC"s sitting behind the policing. Enforcing their own hive-mind ideology.

Jack's head is in the clouds.

Made me get properly sort my Twitter out.

This is a numbers game. The more truth spread, the less the general populous are infected.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
7,575
7,819
825
Australia
#26
Caught most of it. Will watch the rest.

My view of Jack has changed.

He's a business man, and a dreamer. Not a thought policer.

Doesn't seem too involved in the actual running of Twitter. Just it's evolution.

There's a group of "NPC"s sitting behind the policing. Enforcing their own hive-mind ideology.

Jack's head is in the clouds.

Made me get properly sort my Twitter out.

This is a numbers game. The more truth spread, the less the general populous are infected.
Ok but he's still accountable for putting those NPCs in the positions that they're in.
 
Likes: RedVIper

Skyr

Member
Sep 4, 2013
1,065
586
385
#27
The downvotes are crazy on this one.
People are calling Joe out for not putting him in a corner and asking the most uncomfortable questions.

But they don't seem to understand that the only reason he is getting these high profile guests on the show in the first place, is due to his diplomatic apporoach.

Everyone wants the big shots to come on his show, but there is absolutely no way they will even consider doing in if he would put them on the spot. Especially not the CEO of a billion dollar company.

That podcast was still far more interesting than something you would get by mainstream media.
 
Mar 6, 2018
1,699
2,172
290
#34
Something tells me contrapoints would be pretty annoyed with anyone describing her as liberal.
I've watched a bit of her, and I like her argument style, but she really doesn't do interviews that I'm aware of. Not sure why she's being compared to Rubin.

How does she identify politically, though? You seem to have more knowledge of her than I do.
 
Dec 22, 2010
2,352
848
605
#36
I've watched a bit of her, and I like her argument style, but she really doesn't do interviews that I'm aware of. Not sure why she's being compared to Rubin.

How does she identify politically, though? You seem to have more knowledge of her than I do.
Pretty standard socialist. She has a lot of criticism for both the far left and alt right and makes it a point to concede that classical liberalism and some aspects of conservatism have reasonable aspects to them. She also often points out that left-wingers constantly calling right-wingers racist or fascist is extremely unproductive while also upholding that reasonable discussion between individuals is vital. She's also pretty critical of some threads in modern feminism and thinks that people are too eager to let big corporations co-opt social justice.

On her contrasting with Rubin she is pretty critical of his interviewing methods, i.e, "a man who may disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to appear on his program and spout racist bullshit without interruption or objection." Funnily enough I get a similar sentiment from the current topic on Joe Rogan. Regardless of where they land on the political spectrum people seem to hate softball interviewers for dodging the tough conversations.
 

njr

Member
Jan 26, 2009
869
81
760
#38
Why would an interviewer need to debate people? Were there calls for Larry King to debate others? That meme is so stupid.
Its usually the progressive types that complain and rant day and night about Rubin's style causing harm. Are there positions he's wrong about? Most certainly. However, his opinions aren't even the focal point of his show, it's the guests he brings on that you may agree/disagree with. I find that he and Joe get you a full picture of a person when you watch both one of their interviews and then one on a mainstream platform.
 
Jan 6, 2009
783
300
830
England
#40
She also often points out that left-wingers constantly calling right-wingers racist or fascist is extremely unproductive while also upholding that reasonable discussion between individuals is vital. She's also pretty critical of some threads in modern feminism and thinks that people are too eager to let big corporations co-opt social justice.

So she's a rational human being.


On her contrasting with Rubin she is pretty critical of his interviewing methods, i.e, "a man who may disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to appear on his program and spout racist bullshit without interruption or objection." Funnily enough I get a similar sentiment from the current topic on Joe Rogan. Regardless of where they land on the political spectrum people seem to hate softball interviewers for dodging the tough conversations.
Watched the link.

Oh dear.

Rogan is not about tough conversation.

He's just about conversation.

Human discussion.

And not taking that whole concept away from someone, just because you may disagree with something/anything they say or think.

Like a fascist.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#41
On her contrasting with Rubin she is pretty critical of his interviewing methods, i.e, "a man who may disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to appear on his program and spout racist bullshit without interruption or objection."
Not sure if sh*tting on the enlightenment ideal of open civil discourse is a good way to establish your intellectual superiority. Now if you would be so kind as to provide evidence that Rubin is supporting racism, instead of presenting us with a silly skit of a youtuber strawmanning themselves, I'd be much more inclined to share your criticism.

One can't possibly expect people like Rubin or Rogan to aggressively pounce on everything an interviewee might say that could be construed as offensive by one of their many listeners. It would make long format discussions pretty much impossible. Hard hitting questions are best served in the format of short interviews on a highly antagonistic topic, but not for open ended talk that serves to broadly present a person's ideas and views.

That is why Rubin and Rogan are successful, because their approach allows them to interview a broad range of guests allowing their audience to make up their own mind. Aggressive interviews have their use, but do not allow for the sort of open-minded discussion that these people are providing.
 
Last edited:
May 17, 2012
5,233
1,052
455
Canada
#42
Rubin and Joe (in the past) are good at just letting the guest lay out whatever their ideas are good or bad. It is rarely their style to sit and debate their guests like self important douche bags. I am tuning in for the guest, not the politics of the host. Joe is more of a free flowing conversation. Rubin's style seems to be more geared toward coaxing his guests to lay out their argument. It is pretty easy to criticize someone's interview style yet provide no actual content in the vein that you are criticizing. I am sure you aren't going to get many guests being combative and shutting them down unless you have a very large platform. If you want your show to last 3 episodes because you cant book a guest because you were shutting them down with all your virtue, good luck.

I have a feeling in order for Joe to book this guest they neutered him about what he could talk about because this seemed like softball city.
 
Nov 13, 2013
1,422
304
465
#43
JRE usually gets a lot of crap for “being alt right” because he brings on everyone, so I guess we can add Jack Dorsey and Mike Tyson to the alt right. This episode went exactly as I expected, there were several things Joe brought up only for it to be sidestepped or brushed aside, but I expect that from a social media CEO.
Anyone who calls Rogan alt right is an absolute moron. He's the farthest thing from it, it's not even worth debating. Only mentally ill people call him that. Those of sane and steady mind don't think anything of the sort.
 
Dec 22, 2010
2,352
848
605
#44
Not sure if sh*tting on the enlightenment ideal of open civil discourse is a good way to establish your intellectual superiority. Now if you would be so kind as to provide evidence that Rubin is supporting racism, instead of presenting us with a silly skit of a youtuber strawmanning themselves, I'd be much more inclined to share your criticism.

One can't possibly expect people like Rubin or Rogan to aggressively pounce on everything an interviewee might say that could be construed as offensive by one of their many listeners. It would make long format discussions pretty much impossible. Hard hitting questions are best served in the format of short interviews on a highly antagonistic topic, but not for open ended talk that serves to broadly present a person's ideas and views.

That is why Rubin and Rogan are successful, because their approach allows them to interview a broad ranger of guests allowing their audience to make up their own mind. Aggressive interviews have their use, but do not allow for the sort of open-minded discussion that these people are providing.
I never said Rubin is supporting racism or anything like that. Where are you getting that from my post???? That quote is from Contrapoints in another video. Perhaps I'm not being abundantly clear but I'm seeing a parallel between this thread, the comments and downvotes on Joe Rogan's video and sentiments expressed by Contrapoints and other like her and their general distaste for the lack of fact checking or sourcing that goes on in Rubin's and Rogan's interview style shows. I like their shows occasionally but I get the gripes people have with their shows. I don't agree with it entirely but I don't think it's an unreasonable criticism but the owners of those shows are free to run them how they see fit...
 

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,327
5,159
475
#45
I never said Rubin is supporting racism or anything like that. Where are you getting that from my post???? That quote is from Contrapoints in another video.
I was referring to the statement made in that quote accusing Rubin of facilitating racism.

...expressed by Contrapoints and other like her and their general distaste for the lack of fact checking or sourcing that goes on in Rubin's and Rogan's interview style shows.
Which is funny, because I could not see one single piece of evidence or proper sourcing in the video you provided. It merely demonstrates a very limited understanding of the very nature of these kinds of discussions where the guest is the source. It's a feeble criticism masquerading the simple fact that these critics merely dislike the hosts for inviting people on their show that they don't like or agree with.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2010
2,352
848
605
#46
I was referring to the statement made in that quote accusing Rubin of facilitating racism.



Which is funny, because I could not see one single piece of evidence or proper sourcing in the video you provided. It merely demonstrates a very limited understanding of the very nature of these kinds of discussions where the guest is the source. It's a feeble criticism masquerading the simple fact that these critics merely dislike the hosts for inviting people on their show that they don't like or agree with.
The video is a criticism of how unproductive leftists are in debating the alt-right. I can see now how unclear that is if you aren't a usual viewer of Contrapoints. She has several reoccurring characters and typically uses skits to expose some of the common pitfalls leftists have fallen into. In fact I'd say her left-wing character is a pretty good take on some commonly reiterated talking points on this board, no?
 
Likes: JareBear