Inviting a variety of guests, with a variety of viewpoints is what makes podcasts like his interesting and informative.

And like I said before, this isn't a binary. Extremist content is often interesting.

So why keep saying that, when you aren't claiming it's extremist? If I said "a person who plays with their socks every evening, pretending it's the royal family, might also make such an argument", that would also be technically correct, but I doubt I could get away with "just making an observation, not saying that's describing anyone here, just that it might".

There are two simultaneous conversations.

One is about extremist content. Extremist content can be interesting. Calling content interesting does not excuse its extremist nature.

There is a parallel conversation specifically about whether JRE is "extremist". The show is certainly interesting. It may also be extremist, but it being interesting doesn't make it not extremist. Because, as I previously stated, calling content interesting does not excuse its extremist nature.

I am not making any conclusions about JRE. I'm only saying that his show being interesting doesn't make it "not extremist". If you're trying to prove that he's not, you've got to do something else.

I also provided some things he has had on his show that probably are extremist content.