Um, sorry, don't mean to butt in here, but this sounds damn wrong to me. There's 'drawing lines in the sand based on an ideological purity test', and then there's having any kind of standard at all. Have some backbone - at least enough to differentiate between total trash and actual good ideas. How can you 'explore the world of ideas' if you allow any old stupid ass thing into your head? There's more stupidity out there than brilliance, much more heat than light. That ratio makes your whole 'anything goes' outlook a bit naive, not to mention altogether untenable for anybody interested in facts, truth, or decency.
What I'm saying is...garbage in, garbage out.
I would hope that BocoDragon does have
some backbone and is willing to put their beliefs on the line and call out "total garbage" as you put it.
I'll give them the benefit of the doubt what they are in some way saying is what I also adhere to. A
small part of my listening will go to hearing why people believe stupid shit. Mainly for two reasons. Genuine curiosity as to why others hold views I personally find reprehensible. Secondly because the field of study which I belong to is psychology, and a large part of the scientific method isn't to throw your hands up in the air in a tizzy and storm off, but precisely to find out why some peoples brains and thoughts tick how they do, and then draw conclusions from the evidence where possible. Obviously as well for the sake and well being of society where possible to try and offer alternative ways of thinking that will arguably be more productive, caring and inclusive.
It's part of the reason many in my field can work with and talk to serial killers and others locked up in prison for heinous crimes. Someone listening to guests on a Joe Rogan podcast aren't even anywhere in the same realm as psychologists sitting down in a prison and discussing why/how someone raped and murdered 15 people. The extreme point to make out of that is some people do need to get a little bit of a grip always getting up in arms simply when they hear someone state they will give a small portion of their time to listening to ideas they don't necessarily like/agree with. Hence why we continuously get people on the left screaming that people on the right live in echo chambers, and people on the right screaming that people on the left live in echo chambers. The reality is a lot of people are somewhere in between and don't just bombard their
precious minds with the exact same belief systems they adhere to. It's actually quite a large part of human nature to be curious, even if said curiosity leads you to places you vehemently dislike. Exploration and curiosity isn't the same as acceptance and following. So it is intellectually dishonest to even try and say someone is x because someone simply listened to an idea which supports x. For someone to be classed as x there requires to be tangible and suitable evidence to back up such a claim. X of course being whatever horrible world-view or practice someone has listened to/investigated.
One can both disagree with much of what Rogan says/thinks, but respect the fact he manages to get a whole range of guests on his podcast and talks for hours without anyone storming off. I value someone like Louis Thereoux tenfold over Rogan, but he is in a sense a tiny part of what makes Thereoux great. The ability to go and spend time with Nazis/Religious fundamentalists and paedophiles and ask questions and challenge without screaming at them and calling them names and saying "fuck you for existing, I won't ask you a single question". Not everyone
needs to be like that, but for the love of "God" I wish knee-jerk reactions weren't such a flavour of the month on the internet. More so when it gets to the point of busy bodies trying to
police what one does with their free time when we're talking about
podcasts. I stated above pretty much the memorable Rogan podcast that comes to me is that with the Baltimore ex-cop. That had pretty much fuck all to do with Rogan. A nod to the fact he attracts good quests.
Biggest example of this willingness to attack a mere listener in recent times seems to be Rogan brought Milo onto his podcast, so guilt by association means anyone who dares to listen to any Rogan podcast after this fact is somehow a supporter of/sympathiser of Milo. Now that is a steaming pile of shit, and a very hard left wing approach to trying to tar ones character and eject them from any debate via shaming. I think Milo is an absolute fucking asshat and outside of amassing an audience from a twisted popularity contest, offers little to no journalistic integrity and gets absolutely smashed by actual intellects in the fields of freedom of speech and educational freedom on Uni campuses. Guess what though, one cannot help that a man who has had over 800 podcasts manages to get some seriously good guests due to his reach. Heck the afforementioned Louis Thereoux has been on Rogans show a few times, but was on it again very recently, and after Milo had been on (I think Milos been on more than once as well) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXyS-74sRTE If you like Louis Thereoux like I do, but have some dogmatic block to even consider listening to that podcast then that is simply your
loss. It's your given right to refuse to listen for whatever reason you want, but I just sure as heck hope some people who think this rigidly never pursue careers in any field where the scientific approach is valued more highly than personal feelings. Thankfully most won't, precisely because I'd be pleasantly surprised if they could last longer than a day when it came down to having to study contested scientific methods that may not be what they personally believe/adhere to.