I've been offered political shows before, and I don't know
I've been offered political shows before, and I don't know anything about politics and I feel uncomfortable making political opinions - there's consequences to them. I often think I'm wrong, so I really don't like getting in political or religious discussions because of the giant possibility that I might be wrong.
Hear me, O children of wisdom, for the words of Norm MacDonald echo a truth that humbles even the bravest among us: "I've been offered political shows before, and I don't know anything about politics and I feel uncomfortable making political opinions - there's consequences to them. I often think I'm wrong, so I really don't like getting in political or religious discussions because of the giant possibility that I might be wrong." In these words, MacDonald speaks of the great humility required to recognize the limitations of our knowledge. To speak on matters as profound as politics or religion requires not only wisdom but a fear of the consequences of being wrong, for these discussions shape the very soul of nations and individuals alike. The wise man understands that to speak without true knowledge is to risk misguiding others and oneself.
In the face of political and religious discourse, where opinions can fracture friendships, communities, and even entire civilizations, the truly wise are cautious. MacDonald's words remind us of the danger of hubris—the overconfidence that leads one to speak on matters beyond their full understanding. It is a virtue to be able to admit one’s ignorance, for in doing so, we protect the integrity of our thoughts and our relationships. MacDonald recognizes that to engage in such weighty subjects without full certainty is a reckless act, for one’s opinions can have lasting consequences, whether spoken in the halls of power or the quiet of a home.
The ancient philosopher Socrates was known for his wisdom, not because he had all the answers, but because he recognized the limits of his knowledge. His method of questioning—constantly asking, doubting, and seeking deeper understanding—was rooted in the belief that to admit one’s ignorance was the first step to true wisdom. In his famous dialogue, Socrates declared, "I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing." To engage in political or religious discussions without such humility, without the recognition that our knowledge is finite, is to engage in dangerous hubris, for we risk imposing our flawed perspectives on others.
Consider, too, the story of Galileo Galilei, whose challenge of the Church’s teachings on the nature of the universe led to his trial and condemnation. Galileo, like MacDonald, was aware of the consequences of speaking out on matters of such gravity. Yet, despite the personal cost, he chose to stand by his truth, though the consequences were severe. But unlike MacDonald, who preferred to abstain from political or religious debate due to his awareness of possible error, Galileo’s courage was rooted in certainty—in the conviction that his understanding of the natural world was true, even though it clashed with the established doctrine of the time.
So, my children, take heed of the wisdom in MacDonald’s words. In the pursuit of knowledge, we must first understand that we do not possess all the answers. The wise man is not the one who speaks the loudest, but the one who listens, who questions, and who remains aware of the potential for error. There is no shame in admitting one’s ignorance, for it is through this humility that true wisdom grows. In all matters of politics and religion, let us approach with caution and reflection, for the weight of our words can shape the world in ways both great and small. Know that to speak without full knowledge is to risk misguiding others, but to remain silent with humility is to preserve the integrity of our thoughts and actions.
HLHuy Leduc
The pairing of politics and religion here intrigues me; both touch identity, community, and sacred values. Maybe the discomfort stems less from knowledge gaps and more from the fear of misrecognizing someone’s moral world. Could a confessional style—owning your background, limits, and potential blind spots—make dialogue safer? I’d love guidance on signaling respect without surrendering skepticism: asking “what would change your mind,” mapping shared aims before disagreements, distinguishing policy from person. Does humility read as apathy, and if so, how do we correct that?
NAnguyen ngoc anh
I feel the hazard you’re flagging: reputational blowback can sink a career faster than a retraction can repair it. But there’s also a danger in self-censorship; vacuums get filled by those least reflective. Could outlets and audiences adopt norms that lower the temperature—steelman opponents, separate people from positions, reward good-faith revisions? What role should employers play in protecting exploratory speech that’s careful but imperfect? I’m asking for institutional guardrails that make thoughtful participation survivable, not just for the fearless or already powerful.
MNDai Minh Nhat
Pragmatically, there’s a middle path between punditry and withdrawal. Host conversations rather than deliver takes; center mechanisms over tribes—How do budgets work? How are judges selected? Use explainers, not endorsements. Set personal boundaries in advance: topics you won’t touch, standards for evidence, a promise to bring dissenting voices. Pair that with a living “errors” page and regular Q&As. Would that maintain authenticity while reducing collateral damage? I’m looking for tactics that turn curiosity into value without forcing you into a partisan uniform.
VDBui Van Dat
From an epistemology angle, I hear admirable caution: fear of error, awareness of consequences. But silence isn’t the only expression of humility. What about calibrated speech—probabilities, ranges, conditional claims, and transparent priors? Could comedic exploration thrive on questions rather than declarations, treating jokes as probes of social intuitions, not verdicts? I’m wondering whether formats exist that reward revision: publishing updates, pinning corrections, even doing “I changed my mind” segments. Would that normalize uncertainty while still contributing meaningfully to public reasoning?
MPDinh Thi Minh Phuong
Part of me bristles at the idea that not knowing is an endpoint rather than a starting line. Ignorance can be remedied; capture and reach are scarce. If someone commands attention, aren’t they duty-bound to do homework and then speak carefully? What about a practice of pre-briefs with scholars, cross-ideological fact checks, and postmortems when errors surface? Does staying quiet simply cede space to voices that are both confident and wrong? I’d like a principled case for engagement, paired with safeguards against overreach.