"I love to have people like Charlie Kirk sit there, as he did. Because I'm not going to agree with most of what he says. First of all, he was very Christy and all that. I'm an atheist. But it's okay. He's a human being and not a dummy. And unless people get it through their thick f*cking skulls, you're going to have to talk to people."
"Let me tell you something, though, we've had over 200 guests here sitting in that chair. I would guess at least a quarter of them say something that is full on bonkers, in my view. You know, like we didn't land on the moon. Shit like that. If you start just dismissing people for anything other than just the most kind of egregious, you know, 'I'm a Nazi and I'm proud of it'"
Hosting conservative guests and meeting a polarizing president were defended as necessary methods to confront extreme views and maintain dialogue. Critics from the political left who demanded cancelation were described as overreacting and urged to accept engagement with ideological opponents. A substantial share of guests expressed views labeled as 'bonkers,' yet platforming remained justified except for proudly extremist or violently criminal actors. Examples included conspiracy theorists and controversial public figures whose remarks provoked outrage, with leniency extended unless someone openly embraced Nazism or comparable atrocities. The position prioritized conversation over isolation to challenge or potentially rehabilitate contentious voices.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]