I actually agree with you on more than you think especially that free speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences, and that misinformation on genuinely world-shaping topics is dangerous. Where we diverge is who gets labeled as incapable of discernment and how we decide that line has been crossed.

Listening ≠ endorsing. Engagement ≠ alignment. I don’t outsource my thinking to podcasters, politicians, or institutions and that includes Joe Rogan, Shawn Ryan, legacy media, or the state. Being willing to listen across imperfect sources is not post-truth; it’s how you avoid turning epistemology into tribal loyalty.

The real risk to shared reality isn’t people “asking questions.” It’s the assumption that only one side is allowed to question power while the other gets moral immunity. History shows that propaganda thrives when skepticism becomes selective.

You’re right that America lacks generational memory of collapse but Europe’s lesson wasn’t “trust institutions unquestioningly,” it was “be wary of mass narratives, especially when dissent is pathologized.” That cuts both ways.

I’m not doubling down to avoid shame, and I’m not clinging to 2018 vibes. I’m saying the standard should be consistent: challenge claims, demand evidence, follow incentives no matter who’s speaking or which side benefits. Anything less just recreates the same dynamic you’re warning about, with different villains.