What you call a "lack of outrage on controversial topics" would be more accurately called "unwillingness to seriously challenge the terrible ideas he gives a platform to"

His job is not to challenge his guest's ideas, it is precisely to give them a platform. Weak people are afraid of ideas and thus dislike this very notion.

Agreed. I don't want to see hosts challenging their guests' ideas. I appreciate Sean Carrol's physics podcasts for exactly the same reason: he doesn't always agree with his guest's interpretation of quantum mechanics or understanding of consciousness, but he does not argue with them - he helps them present their best case.

If you want to see guests arguing with their hosts, well that's a form of entertainment you can get on cable.

Excellently put. He's the perfect host for me. Just presenting and exploring thoughts and ideas.

Why shouldn't we hear what nationalists have to say? Who gets to decide what is a conspiracy theory? They're not all as simply false as flat earth. Keto in the low-fat 90s would have been a conspiracy theory and a culture of censorship would have killed it.

We need many groups of people believing different things and civilly arguing for what's correct. We don't need de-platforming or cancelling - that can only lead to groupthink and groupthink is incredibly dangerous: see the housing crisis or the Nazis.