No, it is not inherently hypocritical to criticize Bill Nye while supporting Mike Rowe

Here is an argument/meme/viral rant I saw on social media. (What do you really call an image of paragraph of text?) I typed up a counter-argument because I believed it was an original argument from a Facebook friend. It wasn't until I finished I realized it was just a shared image. (Rule of thumb, never engage in rational debate with something so effortless as a shared meme. Even if you win, you still lose.)

Anyway, I'm sharing it here, so that maybe my effort wasn't entirely in vain. :)

You're making a claim of hypocrisy where it doesn't really exist. We can agree that both Nye and Rowe are entertainers turned activists. Their credentials are similar in that regard. No one really makes the claim (no one thoughtful & honest anyway) that either are disqualified to hold their public opinions or to engage in their particular forms of activism. The issue that so many have with the Nye (myself included) is the perception of exceptional credentials. He is treated by many as an authority where it is not warranted. It's not his credentials we disdain, but the undeserved esteem they are given by so many people.

The same does not apply to Rowe. No one subscribes to his form of activism because of some impeccable blue collar street cred. Everyone knows he got big because of his show. He makes routine references to his background as a theater performer from San Francisco. It's clear that his success as an advocate for the trades is in spite of his background, not because of it. No one believes he is some sort of credentialed authority of his domain. There isn't the false impression that he's some sort of roughneck who worked his way up through the trade unions, as you suggest.

The major difference between the two is that Rowe gained traction because he is a unique voice. Are there any other celebrities who adopted the cause of the tradesman? Can you think of any off-hand? I can't. Compare that to Nye. Supposedly he's a smart scientific intellectual. Any maybe that's true! But then, where is his body of intellectual thought? What original message does he deliver? What profound arguments is he making? Surely you should be able to describe his unique social and scientific theories in a couple sentences. From my observations, he just makes the normal claims about climate change and other liberal stances. There are hundreds of other famous liberals on Twitter saying the same thing, and there's not much that can't be found in the most recent official platform of the Democrat party. The only thing that sets him apart is he wears a lab coat, and many people seem to believe that gives him scientific authority.

It's entirely possible that my exposure to Nye's work is inadequate and unfair, because I mostly just see what people share on Facebook and the like. If I'm missing some compelling arguments he is making, please share. On the other hand, those Facebook-shared opinions are the ones getting all the attention from his fans. That is his public message. And it's vanilla liberal activism wrapped in a lab coat.

To that end, every blog linked in the sidebar here is a unique voice. They all provide their own theories or explanations that are supported with arguments and evidence. I could describe any of them in a couple sentences. That is why I was drawn to the dissident right in the first place. The writers are profound and thought-provoking. That is not the case from the left, where they mostly engage in enforcing ideological uniformity. If their arguments were compelling, well I'd probably be leftist too.