this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2023
235 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10193 readers
48 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think the main issue with Rogen is that while he provides a platform for voices across the political/social spectrum (which is great), he does very little to challenge his guests and generally goes with the flow. This means that people making false claims or dog whistle statements are being taken at face value alongside people making good faith arguments, which grants those bad actors some amount of undeserved authenticity.
So no, he is not nearly as bad as Andrew Tate etc; but he has a lot of exposure and clout that he does not always bring to bear in the name of true and honest discussion. Also the whole RFK debate thing is really poignant here as it's a typical example of taking two "balanced" perspectives on vaccines and assuming that they both deserve to be at the same table, when in reality the anti vax movement largely gets by without any scientific evidence and isn't a reasonable position to hold.