Wanting things to be vetted is not the same thing as saying "everyone has to agree with me."
There's a difference between taking a differing opinion and just spouting outright bullshit and lies.
Maybe there was some implied sarcasm I missed.
And who decides what’s appropriately “vetted”? I assume the Covid “lab leak” theory would have been verboten last year but apparently ok now?
I haven’t listened to Rogan in a long time but he basically invites people on and asks questions. He doesn’t give the “Rogan Stamp of Approval” to everything said.
The criticisms seem to be a basic form of “stop talking about things I don’t like”.
I know I didn't make the original claim, I just took issue with the initial reply as I felt like it was removing nuance from the discussion. My reply didn't really add much and I probably shouldn't have made it, so I'll try to add something to the discussion below:
For me, I think, it comes down to whether or not something is presented as an opinion or as fact/truth. There's far too many opinion pieces presented as news these days and a lot of people have trouble processing that.
A headline or claim like "China manufactured this virus as a bio weapon to attack the united states!" at the beginning of a pandemic when no one has any information yet is bad.
Discussing whether or not it could have been a lab leak and whether or not it was manufactured is a different thing, and whether it was or was not an attack are acceptable topics, though, I think.
How you actually enforce this I have no idea and I know it's easy to go down the rabbit hole of "who watches the watchers."