I didn't mean to imply Rogan is some underdog, but that Rogan and the NYT represent different approaches to the ambiguity of modernity. The NYT aims for worldview solidarity while Rogan accepts and embraces the ambiguity.

I also suspect his topics just appeal to young men (fitness, comedians, Elon Musk) and that accounts for a portion of his base.

This feels like the same argument as giving airtime to climate change conspiracy theorists. "We have to give both sides equal airtime".

Embracing ambiguity is fine when there is genuine ambiguity. Portraying minority or fringe ideas as 'ambiguity' is dangerous.

The lab leak hypothesis was seen as fringe just 4 months ago.

The problem with what you're saying is that you're setting yourself up as an arbiter of reason, or sanity, or safety in the realm of ideas. This is a fine aspiration, but you can clearly see that not all, or even many, will accept your analysis.

So you go into problem solving mode - and end up with government, or trust and safety boards, or religion, or any of the myriad of communities humans develop to corral the marketplace of ideas.

All of those systems suffer from humanity's profound fallibility and until that stops being the case, actually talking out all issues will be the only reasonable method of handling freedom of speech.

Some limits are obvious, but because human fallibility is so profound, we should be equally as profound in allowing ambiguous ideas the space to be understood and charity in interpretation. To do otherwise is embracing ignorance and folly.

Then don't listen to it if you think it's dangerous. But don't try to control what others are doing. I'm perfectly fine listening to people saying stupid things about climate change or other topics. That should be the case for virtually any adults.

This feels like a demand for 1930s and 40s style book burning of 'dangerous' ideas.