I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I think it’s fine that he once believed something stupid, and then grew up and changed his mind or whatever. And I do think he's a pretty great entertainer.
My problem is that he’s reducing intellectualism to a game where you take skepticism to its logical extremes and we wind up with anti-vaxxers and a resurgence of polio.
The problem with that is most people don't have the time or inclination to open up and review and learn about every aspect of all the issues facing the world today. Because of that people with large audiences should be careful of trying to be a neutral platform for ideas in general because just by bringing a person on you're saying something about the worth of listening to that person.
For example news shows have for decades presented both sides of issues like climate change by having a representative from both the denial and the pro side on their shows on equal footing, out of a fear of seeming biased. That from the jump without framing puts the two sides on equal footing making it look like it's two equally supported side of the argument where it's not.
Ideally the fix would be for everyone to have and take the time to examine everything they're being shown on the news (though this gets hard because Google is much better for finding things that support your existing views than what goes against it and there's plenty of places out there with interests in misinforming, whether it's for their own business interests directly or it's just profitable to be the contrarian view point) but changing everyone's habits is hard so it's more effective to hold the people giving platforms to these fringe viewpoints and try to get them to realize that just putting a person on your show is taking a stance on saying these ideas are worth listening to (at the very least).
edit: In addition just bringing people on to a show has the effect of exposing them to new people who hadn't seen them before and may not know the context of who they are which can drastically change the interpretation of what they're saying.
> The problem with that is most people don't have the time or inclination to open up and review and learn about every aspect of all the issues facing the world today. Because of that people with large audiences should be careful of trying to be a neutral platform for ideas in general because just by bringing a person on you're saying something about the worth of listening to that person.
Nah - I don't want, need, nor trust someone else to tell me how to think - unless I ask for it (example: I won't read ALL of the the data/studies on vaccines, so I'll choose to trust the 99% of authoritative perspective on the topic that they're good for society.) Recall the metaphor that is often used against censorship:"Just because a baby can't chew his/her food doesn't mean I shouldn't be served a steak."
> just putting a person on your show is taking a stance on saying these ideas are worth listening to (at the very least).
This is pretty specious reasoning. Saying "this position exists or can exist" and that there are real human beings that hold that idea is not the same as _endorsing_ that position or idea, or even saying that every idea deserves equal weight.
People have time to discuss and learn. We are just not that stupid. And given we can make wages sane, there is ample time. Our First Amendment is predicated on that reality.
If they actually do not, and in my experience they do, but for sake of argument, say they do not, ok?
Then we need an actual public service with a charter to inform, not profit. That is something I totally support, and the very first thing it does is remedial education.
I am fine either way, but much prefer we educate people to think for themselves as I was educated in freaking grade school.
Yes, 6th grade. The topics were:
Advertising forms and compare contrast to propaganda forms. (This was awesome. Everyone loved it, and we all made our own ADS and propaganda to boot.)
Bias in news and opinion. Identify it, labor, big business, right, left, etc... determine whether the entity represents its bias honestly, or not. Why?
Seek diversity of info. Bias is always there. Not a problem once identified. Liars about bias often miss facts and publish low clarity info, making it hard to differentiate fact from opinion too. Never a bad thing to think about. Drives seeking diversity.
All the domestic major media today misrepresent their bias, and it is most often an economic misrepresentation. Almost nothing is published from the labor POV, for example.
The little backassward town I came from got this right. Was not hard, was interesting, useful and became a part of who we were and how we operate.
We could put an end to this garbage in a generation with similar education, coupled with a follow up on critical thinking basics. (Which I also got along with solid civics a couple years later.)
Our ongoing efforts to water down basic, primary education has costs and risks attached.
We are discussing those today. Time for a fix.
Given this perspective, the Rogan show is good value, frankly and honestly presented. Many do much worse, and they claim a lot more legitimacy too.
My problem is that he’s reducing intellectualism to a game where you take skepticism to its logical extremes and we wind up with anti-vaxxers and a resurgence of polio.