The issue is that if people consider "centrists" to be part of the alt right or not. By centrists I mean people who look at "both sides" (though largely that means shitting on the left) platform folks who have utterly abhorrent views with no regard to the consequences of doing such. For example we already have somebody in this thread saying Peterson's a stand-up guy solely because he was featured on the show. Did Joe manage to say anything about Petersons view on incels that nobody else had before, does Peterson or his fanbase care about the critiques? I fucking doubt it, because Peterson's fanbase respond to critiques by saying that people just aren't smart enough to understand Peterson. At the same time it's likely new people have been introduced to Peterson through Joe and Joe's legitimising Peterson. So the issue is if somebody's going out of their way to legitimise the alt-right does that make them complaint to the movement? I honestly think it's one of the most damaging things someone could do, whether you consider them to be apart of the movement or not is just semantics.
Also let's not be unreasonable, him socialising with this group is pretty fucking damning:
Like, if you don't want to be labelled a racist then maybe don't hang out with somebody who defends race science? Especially if you've said racist as fuck things in the past.
Rogan is a bit of an anomaly in that the cogs of the Universe turned in such a way for him he ended up with what is seemingly the most popular podcast in existence. He has over 1000 podcasts of roughly over 2 hours each with varying guests. Literally no one else has that. If you ignore everyone he's ever spoken to you don't mind and just zone in on select people you hate you can confirm your own biases in suggesting he
must be one of the most damaging people on the planet. In reality, it's a little more complex than that, in so far as quite a few decent people have gone on his platform due to how large it is. Audiences/guests will come to him. Others will run a mile because they're scared of 2~3 hours of exposed conversation where they can't hide or fully control the dialogue. As I said myself Rogan is many things, some unflattering, but the topic began on the basis of not here's some things wrong with Rogan, like a racist joke, but just right to he's alt-right (and others said Nazi).
Now, an issue here is many subscribe to you must
never give anyone a platform who is deemed as controversial or an asshole. Eh, you'll find most libertarians rightly or wrongly will value conversation with their enemies/the public enemies. It is what it is, Rogan's hardly the only person on the planet who will talk to some of the dregs of society.
The thing with Peterson and some of the voices he has on like Harris and even Weinstein is like it or not, you won't be able to make yourself pure enough to have zero overlaps with them on
some things. Even Peterson who is undoubtedly a Conservative, more than the others who seem to be further left on the political compass. That doesn't mean you need to like them, or you are guilty by association, it means you as an individual will have to accept in the real world, you can overlap with people you don't like on some important political or social issues. If you are mentally fragile (not aimed at you as a derogatory statement) that might mean you fold in on yourself and give yourself 1000 lashes for daring to think like someone you hate. If you have confidence in your own beliefs you'll be able to accept what I've argued in here, like it or not you will overlap at times with your perceived enemy. It just happens and more people need to learn to deal with it. Ultimately, I'm happy if Conservatives and Religious people can become more tolerant around certain things, even if I'm an atheist and vote for left parties all my life. Just because a genuine Republican might exist who is for gay marriage doesn't then mean me as leftie for gay marriage is 100% behind said Republican. That's toxic reductive thinking.
When people fail to understand that will happen (overlaps) it results in a never-ending feedback loop where you
have to find a way to call someone the worst thing imaginable to distance yourself as much as possible. You can't be seen as even having 1 thing in common with the person, or you're complicit by association. THAT can occasionally cause the beloved "purity test", when it gets soo bad even generic people on the left who genuinely stand alongside you have to be cast out in your never-ending persecution complex where anyone who doesn't think 100% the same as yourself might lead others to think lesser of you. Nah, real life doesn't strictly work like that, you only have control over your own mind and actions, and if someone else you hate thinks like you on some subjects, tough, you're going to have to find a way to accept that. Sometimes it is objectively good if even your "political enemies" end up in agreement with some things you think.
We can't line up and shoot everyone we hate, or in a less satirical remark (advocating violence is rhetorical here), lock them all up.
Unfortunately part of living in a democracy is trying to debate in ways which change the minds of our opponents, even if it's incremental steps forward. It can be done and will be done as science and reason often do win out with a large enough collective, even if some people take longer to be dragged forward. What's a better alternative right now? A genuine dictatorship where there is no vote, no debate, no challenge, no conversations and so on, as long as it's your side in charge of the dictatorship? Yeah, that's never happening, for either side. Although some of our Governments are trying to slowly erode the power/laws/equality the people have. Or they're trying to block progress going forward.