I mean, if you want to debate, I'm happy to do so, but I'd prefer the debate be rooted in reality and not hyperbole.
On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society?
Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down.
You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought.
And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.
Your entire first post.
1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs".
2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better.
3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun...
So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate.
Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.