Solving Free Speech: The Paradox of Tolerance | SFM E85

Send us a text

Have you ever stopped to consider what a world without coffee or sushi might look like? It's not just a caffeine-deprived dystopia we're talking about, but a real consequence of the shifting climate that's threatening the staples we hold dear. As we unravel the threads of climate change's impact, we also tip our hats to cities like Albuquerque for championing free public transit—a move that could ripple through our communities and the environment in surprising ways. Plus, we don't hold back on sharing those personal, rainy-day bike rides that bring a smile, even amid the challenges of our changing world.

Navigating the stormy seas of free speech, we question the line between expression and incitement. The paradox of tolerance takes center stage, scratching at the surface of what we can say, should say, and must curtail in the interest of a harmonious society. Platforms like Twitter find themselves in the hot seat, as we dissect their role in content policing and the intersection with defamation laws. Join us for a deep, spirited discussion that might just redefine your understanding of the words we wield in public discourse.

Wrapping up, we plunge into the debate about same-sex marriage and the expression of views that crash against the societal imperative of inclusion. Our conversation is a call to arms—inviting you, our listeners, to weigh in with well-informed perspectives, especially if you think we're missing a piece of the puzzle. As we sign off with gratitude and a touch of whimsy, we leave you with a challenge: stay informed, stay critical, and above all, stay engaged with the complex tapestry of tolerance, intolerance, and the freedom that binds them.

Help these new solutions spread by ...

1. Subscribing wherever you listen to podcasts
2. Leaving a 5-star review
3. Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference)

Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.

Email: [e-mail]
Adam: @ajbraus - [e-mail]
Scot: @scotmaupin

adambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)
The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)
The Numey (inflation-free currency)

Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
I've got it.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
I've got some updates , oh, so you have to like from
you have to stop for a minuteand then, like I'll, wait until
your firmware becomes the newestversion I'm just got, so I see
the spinning circle in front ofyour forehead, the.

Speaker 1 (00:18):
I mean, please leave me plugged in while I thought
you were a little glitchy upuntil now and that.
I was probably.

Speaker 2 (00:23):
I'm glad that there are some updates, so there is an
update I need to make Bravo foryou.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
No, what are the updates?
What do you got?

Speaker 1 (00:30):
OK, I OK.
So a few.
A few episodes ago, we talkedabout a crime concretizing
climate change.
Yes, by saying exactly whatpeople are going to lose from
climate change.

Speaker 2 (00:41):
Keep it concrete.
Is that what we were?
Yeah, that's what we said.

Speaker 1 (00:44):
Right, Keep it concrete and keep it concrete.
So I asked Reddit.
I went on Reddit and I asked in, like the climate change group,
you know, community right, whatare we?
What are the concrete thingswe're going to lose?
And I'll say two things.
One is what they said.
The other is they stillcouldn't get it.
Like in that group, which is alot of environmentalists.

(01:06):
They couldn't, they couldn'tget it, they, they kept on
saying these abstract things.
Oh, you're going to lose.
Oh, you know the world, a worldthat you can live in.
You know it's like dude, youdon't like they, even though I
wrote it very clearly, likeplease share exactly concrete
things, like like plastic.

Speaker 2 (01:23):
They can't do men, they just couldn't do it enough.

Speaker 1 (01:25):
A few people were, though, and they gave a few
things, so people said coffee isone of the most high risk
things that we could lose forclimate change.

Speaker 2 (01:34):
We didn't find my me.
I don't drink coffee.
Let's get.

Speaker 1 (01:37):
A lot of people drink a lot of coffee.
People love their coffee.
It would blow people away ifcoffee cost, you know, $40 a
glass.
You know because it was soexpensive, because it was all
destroyed by, by, by droughtsand flooding, and stuff If you,
if you go to Starbucks, italready cost $40.

Speaker 2 (01:53):
It's.

Speaker 1 (02:00):
How I knew.

Speaker 3 (02:01):
OK, the other one.

Speaker 1 (02:02):
they said the other one they said was bananas, I
guess, are also a high riskbecause they can, I guess, get
plagues, can it can destroywhole crops really easily and if
and there's more plagues withmore climate change, yeah, the
other, they said, is sushi.
They said kiss sushi, goodbye.
Do you know how?

Speaker 2 (02:17):
many.
Do you have any bananas it'sgoing to destroy.
I don't know a bunch.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
Do you have any sushi ?
It's going to destroy how manyof a carplode.

Speaker 2 (02:35):
What.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
No, that OK.
Another, another update.
Yeah, Albuquerque made allpublic transportation free, hey

(02:59):
yeah, very cool.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
So now it's.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
Kansas City and Albuquerque are the two cities
in the United States that theyhave free public transportation.
They're going in exactly theright direction.
That's the direction all citiesshould go in, especially the
Bay Area.

Speaker 2 (03:13):
Can I tell you?

Speaker 1 (03:13):
some purportedly like climate, like environmentally
friendly and, you know, careabout poor people or something.
Progressives, yeah, make publictransportation free.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
Nope, can't do it.
Can't do it.
It's got to be Albuquerque.
No, that's cool, dude.
And I, like I was going to saycan I tell you something?
I like New Mexico.
Every time I go through MexicoI'm like it's great.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
Santa Fe.
I would love to retire.

Speaker 2 (03:34):
Very, very cool.
Yeah, I would I retire there.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
It's a nice place, yeah, climate rules.
Yeah, see, it'll be it'll betough in the climate change but
because they'll be short of thewater.
But, yeah, you could maybe livethere in a few years still May
is sort of an arid, like atemperate desert, so to speak.
Yeah, because the high desertis a high desert, so it stays.

Speaker 2 (03:57):
Yeah, it's not so hot and nasty.

Speaker 1 (03:59):
So look at that, people are listening, they're
listening Cool yeah, yeah.
I mean I can't get over thefree transit thing, man, Like we
got a climate crisis on, we'relooking for low cost things that
would improve the climate thecheapest.
I mean I can't think ofanything cheaper than making
mass.

Speaker 2 (04:17):
Incentivize people for using lower emissions.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, like you could drive your car.
That's fine.
No one's telling you you can'tRight, but the bus is free.
It's like well shoot, maybe youjust take the bus.

Speaker 2 (04:32):
Well, and then you get, and then double the cost of
parking too.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
It's like well, why should parking be free?
That's housing car I don't wantto do that.
Well, you have a place.
You can park it, though I know,but when?
I go into the city, it's likebut maybe you should take the
bus, god, maybe you should takethe bus.
That's what I do.
I take the train up to you andthen I take the bike from the
train station to your house.
No problem, it's delightful.
I know I get a whole workout.
I feel I'm biking through thecity.

(04:57):
I love it.
I feel like I'm part of myplace, I'm part of my time.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Even when it's been, it's been like raining the past
like two and a half months.
Is that even does that?
I like the rain, I think ofrain.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
For me, rain is liquid sunshine.
That I, that's my, that's myopinion.

Speaker 2 (05:15):
It's because I lived in San Francisco, hey.

Speaker 3 (05:18):
Adam, how's the weather today?

Speaker 2 (05:19):
So I get sunny and then she goes outside and gets
rain.
What the hell.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
You're like what I mean?
It's like liquid, it's liquidsunny.
Yeah, liquid sunny.

Speaker 2 (05:26):
You know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (05:27):
I learned that.
I learned that from a, from apickle suit man, a national park
.

Speaker 2 (05:31):
Excuse me, I'm sorry A pickle suit man.
What.

Speaker 1 (05:33):
The National Park, national Park Rangers.
They were pickle suits.
I've never heard of this.
That are you.
It might be my family calls.

Speaker 2 (05:42):
Is this a literal, like a literal phone pickle suit
, or no, no, no like theNational Park Rangers.

Speaker 1 (05:48):
they were full green suits they look like and they're
called pickle suits.
We call them pickle.

Speaker 2 (05:52):
They're called pickle my family.
Well, we call them.
I don't know what you're goingto call.
Hey, I believe you.
I'm not a big national parksguy, so I didn't go to a bunch.

Speaker 1 (06:00):
Oh yeah, they're great.
So he was walking around in hisrain jacket and he was like
liquid sunshine and I was likethat's the best way to think
about it, that's great.
And then I lived in Santa Fefor a long time Santa Fe, new
Mexico and it's so dry therewhen it would rain, you would
just love it.
You would just drink it upbecause it was so dry.
And now, from then on, I waslike I just love rain.
I don't care.
I don't want to live in a rainyplace because it's gray and I

(06:21):
get depressed with the nosunlight.
But if it's sunny a sunny placeand then it rains occasionally,
I love it.
I just walk around in the rainwith a raincoat on.

Speaker 3 (06:30):
OK, I'm happy.
Great.

Speaker 1 (06:32):
Should we do a solution?

Speaker 2 (06:34):
We should definitely do a solution.
Ok, what do you?

Speaker 1 (06:37):
got OK Last episode.

Speaker 2 (06:38):
You were just saying I have so many, I have so many.
You were pissing.

Speaker 1 (06:41):
Yeah, I have so many.
It's crazy, but last episodeyou were pissing me off about
free speech.
And so I'm bringing somethingthat people might have heard of
this because it's not totallynew.

Speaker 2 (06:52):
You tried to use free speech to silence someone from
talking.

Speaker 1 (06:56):
I'm going to do that in this episode too.
I'm going to explain how youcan silence people while still
being what I consider to be afree speech, a free speech, a
total free speech.
Advocate there.
Even if you believe in freespeech, there are limits to.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
Welcome to cancel class with Adam Brouse, for
example.
Cancel anyone you want, yeahexactly Exactly.

Speaker 1 (07:18):
Let's do it.
No, so I'm getting my PhD inphilosophy right now.
I can do philosophical things.
This is a philosophicalsolution, but there's so many
people out there now these dayswith Twitter, elon Musk, a free
speech, but there are there arethings that people don't talk
about that I want to talk onething especially that I want to

(07:40):
talk about.
I'm doing the Donald Trumphands, sorry.
I want to talk about one thingthat people don't talk about
free speech.
That is a plausible, but I'llbe it.
People don't like it.
I think the reason they don'tlike it, though, is because they
don't like the consequences ofit for themselves, and so they
make emotional arguments againstit.

Speaker 2 (08:00):
What is it?

Speaker 1 (08:01):
But in the cool, in the cool like with a cool head,
I think I believe in it.
I think this is the.
This is like a justifiable sortof rule about free speech.
Ok, so what is free speechsaying?
Whatever you want, right.

Speaker 2 (08:14):
No, Clearly free speech.
Is the government not puttingyou in prison for what you say?

Speaker 1 (08:21):
Well, that's the First Amendment.

Speaker 2 (08:22):
Yeah, first Amendment .
Is that now what we're talkingabout?

Speaker 1 (08:24):
OK, Well, well, let's talk about it.
Yeah, let's figure it out.
So free speech on the naive, onthe most naive sense is you can
say whatever you want Right, ok, ok.
But that's, that's clearly notgoing to work, because there you
can yell fire in a crowded room, for example Right, sure, oh,
right, ok.

Speaker 3 (08:42):
All, then there's slander someone or liable.

Speaker 1 (08:44):
You could slander someone, right, you could say
lie, you could spread liesaround someone, destroy their
life, and it's all lies, right,clearly not acceptable.

Speaker 2 (08:53):
You could I mean it is free speech, but I mean it's
not.
Yeah, but it's not.
It's the same as if you saywell, I'm free.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
I'm free to drive my car anywhere I want.
Yeah, but you have to follow,you have to stop.

Speaker 2 (09:04):
It's not so yeah, I mean you have to drive in such a
way that other people can try.
Like the speech is allowed andyou just have consequences for
it.
Right, like they're notshutting down the speech,
they're just no no, no, no, no,no, no, no no no.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
If there's consequences, then it's not free
speech.

Speaker 2 (09:20):
I mean, if there's yeah, even if there's
consequences to any speech, if Igo up to someone and say I
think you're a dumb, dumb, thenthe consequence might be that
they mad at me and they yell atme or whatever you know.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Yeah, but if it's procedural, if there's like a
law against speaking a certainway that's not free speech right
.
That's like limit on speechright, Because there are these
consequences.
Ok so then there is OK.
So that's OK.
Then there's the free.
So then there's first amendment, speech, which is like the
government can't regulate yourspeech about right, whatever.

(09:52):
But we see that there is actuallimitations on speech.
You just listed them liable,slander right, and and and, and
I did, you know, yelling fire ina crowded room.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
So there are one of the limits that's not on free
speech.
My friend, my very good friend,who happens to just I mean just
happens to be a largecorporation, he is able to
freely donate to a politicalthere.

Speaker 1 (10:20):
You know that's right , you know him, him, the person,
that's the large corporation,who is also a person.

Speaker 2 (10:26):
he can donate, he has the freedom to you guys have
Speech, we donate speech wedonate money.
Speech to a political candidate.

Speaker 1 (10:35):
So that's a close thing.
I use most of my money speechjust to survive, just to like
pay my rent and leave.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
Oh, you're a free.
They use their money speech tostore for food and for milk and
eggs.

Speaker 1 (10:45):
Spending my free speech all the time and just
usually I open my wallet, take alittle bit of speech, give it
to the babysitter.

Speaker 2 (10:52):
You know, like I got something to say to you, you
just open it.
You mean the free speech here?

Speaker 1 (10:56):
Don't you mean the free speech here?
Isn't that who you give yourfree speech to when you buy
things with your free speech atthe grocery store?

Speaker 2 (11:02):
Free speech box.

Speaker 1 (11:04):
Exactly.
That's so funny.
Oh my God, citizens United isso stupid.
But well, let me just get tothe solution and then, and then
we'll kind of work back to arower.
So have you ever heard of theparadox of tolerance?
Yes, I have heard of this OKthis is a good OK, so it's not

(11:25):
new.

Speaker 2 (11:25):
Maybe I'm not allowed to do this, but I think it's
important to talk about becauseI think it's some people know,
people know about this, somepeople, yeah, some people know
about it, so tell us OK it'sthat the paradox of tolerance is
that if you are completelytolerant of everything,
including intolerance,intolerance then takes over and

(11:46):
pushes out tolerance, and theact of being tolerant has
fostered an intolerance society.
So you need to be tolerant ofeverything except intolerance.
As strangely paradoxical asthat seems, that's the paradox,
right.

Speaker 1 (12:01):
Right, there you go.

Speaker 2 (12:02):
Oh.

Speaker 1 (12:03):
I would propose this as a solution to all this quote
unquote controversy around freespeech.
I don't think it really doesn'thave to be a controversy
because the paradox of toleranceis true and therefore you can
regulate speech that isintolerant and there's nothing

(12:24):
wrong with that and people,people shouldn't like.
I feel like a lot of people whowant to regulate speech.
They do it like behind thescenes or they do it kind of
like and they're intolerantspeech.
Regulate intolerant speech.
They kind of are like, they'renot like, they don't like wear
it on their sleeve as like abadge of pride.
I think we absolutely should beproud and promote that.

(12:48):
Yeah, I believe in the paradoxof tolerance.
We absolutely need to regulateintolerant speech and wipe it
out of our society because it'sbad and because philosophically
and I think we can get into ithere we can see why it's
actually not overstepping andreally has no risk to society

(13:08):
and actually bolsters andprotects the freedom of society
to follow the paradox oftolerance.
So we were kind of doing theshrinking circle or the kind of
shrinking circle of free speech.
Right, naive free speech.
You could say anything, clearlynot true, slander, slander and
defamation, and liable Yellingfire?

Speaker 2 (13:32):
yeah, liable.

Speaker 1 (13:33):
and yelling fire in a crowded building.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
So they're okay, hate speech.

Speaker 1 (13:36):
So there's some edge, right Even in hate speech.
Well, hate speech is an exampleof the paradox of tolerance.
Yeah, so hate speech, though, isnot illegal.
You can go around and say I'm aNazi, you could kill all the
Jews, or something.
You can say that that's legal,and actually people will quote
unquote defend your right to saythat.
I've heard many people, evenvery progressive liberal minded

(13:57):
people, say I will defend aNazis right to walk in the
square and say that they hateJews.
And these people are mental.
That's not the Nazis are forsure, but also the people who
are saying that they'll defendthe right for Nazis to say they
kill all the Jews.
That's crazy.

(14:18):
The paradox of tolerance tellsyou do not tolerate them doing
that.
Stop them literally pass lawsand say you can't do this, and
you know where.
They have laws, like thisGermany.
They have laws where you can'tsay or say not that you're wrong
.
Famously right, but anyways, soanyways, yeah.

Speaker 2 (14:37):
But I think the tricky part is who decides what
is intolerant.
You know what I mean.
Like you can have that be asubjective thing, and that's
where it gets.
The playing field of everythingis allowed is not dangerous in
the politicized version of it.

(15:00):
You know what I mean.
If you're like, yeah, the Nazican say the nasty things, that's
allowed because we don't wantanyone to decide who the Nazi is
when they're in power as theother person, you know, like
they might.
If you say intolerant viewsmust be silence, then when the
other party gets in, the let'ssay a pro corporation party gets

(15:22):
into power, they go.
Well, you know who's reallyintolerant.
All these, these wackoenvironmentalists are intolerant
of our corporate rights and ourmoney making.
You know divine powers and sothis is the danger.

Speaker 1 (15:38):
So it's right.
That's the tricky part.
It becomes like a slipperyslope, you don't want to.

Speaker 2 (15:43):
you don't want to give anybody a sword because the
trick is that someone latermight use that sword in a nasty
way.
Yeah, so here's what Iunderstand what you say is like
is where's the where's the lineon these things?
Because there is obviously.
We don't allow certain stuff.
Like we don't allow, like thereis a we don't allow certain
aspects to get into certainplaces and take hold where

(16:06):
there's like nope, you don't getto do that anymore.
And they're like why?
And like because it's notallowed.
You just can't do that.

Speaker 1 (16:12):
Yeah, so this is so.
This is exactly right.
This is exactly the point thatpeople make.
Well, it's a slippery slope Ifyou start to to limit a speech
that's not just clear.
You know, in accord a law,defamation libel.
I mean, first of all, listen tothese words.
These are made up words thatpeople made up because they
found out a type of speech thatwas dangerous.

(16:32):
All we need to do is just makeup another word for this.
You know we can call it.
You know we can call it.
You know, whatever you call it,hate speech.
I think that was partly whatlegal people were trying to sort
of develop was this hate crime,hate speech, and then create
laws against hate speech anddefine it really carefully and
stuff.
I don't know if hate is such anemotional thing.
I don't think you hate.

(16:53):
I mean you could hate something.
I hate a lot of things, youknow.
I hate Adobe software, you know.
But I not you know.
But there's nothing wrong withme saying Adobe software is
total crap.

Speaker 3 (17:02):
Right.

Speaker 1 (17:02):
Right.
So you know, I don't know, butI don't, I don't like that
framing of hate I think it'smore about.
I think a stronger defensewould be violence, right Like
violence, violence.
So, for example, you could sayyou could say, kill all the Jews
to use an absolutely horribleNazi idea.

(17:25):
That would be not allowed tosay Right.
And if you said it I would sayI would say everything you're
saying should be removed fromplatforms and from and from
should be illegal and platformsshould be completely defensible.
To say we removed youcompletely from our platform
because you said kill all the.

Speaker 3 (17:44):
X.

Speaker 2 (17:44):
Well, can't you know?
And all the X, it didn't begood.
Platforms are already likeprivate.
They could just remove people.

Speaker 1 (17:51):
They can they can they can One.
They get criticized, which Ithink the people I think people
should stand up.
The strongest arguments I'veheard in the Twitter debate
about doing limiting freedom ofspeech, including this kind of
stuff like kicking Nazis off andstuff is so that the
advertisers don't go away.
Right, I'm like what about that?

(18:12):
It's wrong to say those thingsLike what the fuck?
What planet are we on?

Speaker 2 (18:17):
Like we have to say they have to like one remove.
They have to one one stepremove any moral judgment so
that they don't like incur thewrath of whatever.

Speaker 3 (18:27):
Why?
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 1 (18:28):
The regular people should the regular people, the
liberal minded people, shouldwear this as a badge of pride
and say we will shut downintolerant speech.
And but I mean to your argument, though, that it's a slippery
slope.
I just disagree with thatargument.
I don't think that's true.
People often claim things areslippery slopes when they are
not.
Slippery slopes, like LGBTQstuff, right.

(18:49):
When people are like, oh, youcan't just let people be gay,
because then everybody will begay, it's like that's the great,
that's the stupidest argumentI've ever heard.

Speaker 2 (18:56):
Well, no, but if you, if you create a mechanism for
silencing speech, how do youensure that that doesn't get
misused?
We have a mechanism forsilencing speech.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
We already have.
What is it illegal to defamepeople.
It's illegal to do libel.
It's illegal to yell fire in acrowded right.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
And if you go on.

Speaker 1 (19:16):
Twitter and you yell fire.
There are a lot Like you willbe punished.
The laws will come into play.
Twitter will take down thetweets and fix everything.

Speaker 2 (19:24):
I don't think you get there.
I don't think I think I couldpost whatever I want on Twitter.
No laws are going to come intoplay, are they?

Speaker 1 (19:30):
Absolutely, it'll come into play.
If you defame someone onTwitter, if I like, those tweets
will go on the board in thecourt case and be like there's
the evidence, you know, yeah,yeah.
Oh and maybe the maybe thejudge will say and Twitter will
take down those tweets andTwitter will comply because it's
an order from a judge to do athing.
I think Elon would do me likethat.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
He'd stab me in the back like that, my boy.

Speaker 1 (19:54):
My boy must.

Speaker 2 (19:56):
He's no way, Pretty sure, Nah, Nah.
He'd be like he tell that courthe's not even from this country
.
He'd tell that court to go away.
He'd be like like free speechin.

Speaker 1 (20:06):
South Africa.
Yeah, he's from South Africa.
He doesn't have a very thickSouth African exit, does he?
But that's more.

Speaker 2 (20:12):
I don't think he was.

Speaker 1 (20:14):
You know, I don't think he was rolling in the
streets of South Africa Just ohyeah, he was in a solo no
floating around in, so it he wastalking to his private tutors
in his emerald mansion, that'strue.

Speaker 2 (20:26):
If he doesn't have a doubt and dirty South African
exit, it does not surprise me.

Speaker 1 (20:32):
Hey, brew, could you get a South African accent?
Yeah, anyways, paradox oftolerance.
I want to, I want to, I'mcoming out.
I'm coming out as a paradox oftolerance supporter.
Ok, when people's and I willnot defend and I will attack and
say that we should make lawsagainst people saying kill all
the X.

Speaker 2 (20:52):
So the idea is kill all the.

Speaker 1 (20:53):
Jews, or even kill all the, kill all the corporate
overlords, I don't know.
Kill all the you know, althoughit should be around defended
category.

Speaker 2 (21:01):
I know actually somebody says it should be
around.

Speaker 1 (21:03):
It should be around defended categories only.

Speaker 2 (21:06):
Right.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
So if you say kill all the, I mean you say kill all
the poor people.
That's not a defended category.

Speaker 2 (21:12):
Oh, so that's.
That'd be pretty cool.

Speaker 1 (21:13):
Well, it's not a defended category.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Maybe we should make poor defended category.

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Now you're picking a future solution that's on my
list, oh great.
What if we made?
Well then, I mean logicallythen.

Speaker 2 (21:23):
Yeah, then logically, rich and so eat the rich would
be a thing that we could throwpeople in jail for.

Speaker 1 (21:28):
Say, if you did, if you said so, see, if you made
socioeconomic class a protectedcategory, which it is not, which
then you couldn't, then youcouldn't say the rich, but you
also couldn't say shoot the poorto the moon, to the moon.

Speaker 2 (21:39):
Oh, perfect.
This is a wonderful free speechwhere we're listing all the
things we can't say anymore.

Speaker 3 (21:44):
Well, we already started with that.

Speaker 1 (21:45):
You can't liable, you can't defend.
Let's not lose.
I think the current is that alot of people are being
manipulated.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
I could say eat the rich and I don't go to jail.
And you're telling me that thebetter world is where I go to
jail for saying eat the rich andI don't know if I agree.

Speaker 1 (21:59):
Well, not to go to jail, but maybe you can't say it
and maybe if you do say it,like you know you're in trouble.

Speaker 2 (22:04):
Okay.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
You're maybe guillotine.
That's usually what the richgot before before you ate them.

Speaker 2 (22:10):
And that's also usually how they welled the
uprisings of people who wantedto eat the rich after they.
Well, this is the thing Socialsocial, social, social.

Speaker 1 (22:17):
We're not.
If we say social economic classisn't a protected category,
then maybe it's fine to say,yeah, eat the rich, kill the
poor.
I mean it's horrible, but it's,but it's, but it's like you
know we can also eat the rich.

Speaker 2 (22:30):
What does?

Speaker 1 (22:30):
eat the rich really mean?
Does eat the rich really meankill them and eat them?
No it means you know, it meanslike it might take take their
take their money.
They need distribute money moreequitable.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
I bet they eat such delicious stuff.
They probably taste so good.

Speaker 1 (22:43):
Oh, they're like wagyu beef.
Yeah, they're just like marbled, just so marbled.
They're not going around eatingjack in the box and like
filling their body with nitrates.

Speaker 2 (22:52):
No way, no hot dogs.

Speaker 1 (22:54):
I think eat the rich means like consume the wealth of
the rich, like it means likedistribute, that's what I think.
I think it means redistribute,but I guess, yeah, I don't know.
But you could certainly saything like here this was the big
controversy with the unit, withthe universities right, the
universities, and this is howthe, the, the presidents, got
got their heads rolled.
You know, they got kicked off.

(23:15):
What are you?
What?

Speaker 2 (23:15):
are you talking?

Speaker 1 (23:16):
I don't know the news was like it's like two months
ago, harvard, the Harvardpresident, got.
Well, she got.
She stepped down.
She didn't.
By the way, she still works atHarvard as a tenured professor.
She's just not the presidentanymore, which I thought is
totally insane.
But she stepped down because ofbecause of plagiarism.
But the other woman I think itwas the Cornell or one of those
things, she, she stepped downbecause she said that, yeah, it

(23:39):
would be allowed in theuniversity for people to say, to
say, to say kill all the Jews,to say Holocaust, like stuff.
She was like, yeah, thatwouldn't be against unless they
threatened specifically as anindividual student, then it
wouldn't, or a threat ofviolence to actual individuals
Falls under protected speech.
Then it's just protected speech,because they're filing the

(24:00):
First Amendment.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
Right, but not, not, not.
So that's where this.
I was kind of wondering wherethat came from, but I was like
that's a pretty harsh example toto throw out.

Speaker 1 (24:07):
Yeah, that was the example, that was the current
event.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
I'm just unaware.
Okay.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
Yeah, so the, which, which in Germany totally illegal
?
Yeah, you can.
You can go to jail or going ona college campus and say, right,
that's totally legal, and Ithink it absolutely in Germany
if you start to be illegaleverywhere.

Speaker 2 (24:23):
If you start drawing a line in Germany, you start
drawing a line, you do a rightangle.

Speaker 3 (24:27):
They're like okay big question marks I think you do
another right angle.

Speaker 2 (24:30):
They're like.
Hey, buddy, watch yourself.

Speaker 1 (24:32):
Time to pump the brakes.

Speaker 2 (24:33):
Put another right angle in there.
They're like get it, get thatpencil out of your hand, buddy,
get the heck out of here.

Speaker 1 (24:39):
Yeah, three, five rights don't make five marks,
five rights make a wrong.

Speaker 2 (24:44):
Once you get like 70% of a swastika, they just like
I'll sprinkle you and they kickyou in, the kick you in the head
, and they're like get out ofhere.

Speaker 1 (24:52):
I thought of this when I learned about the paradox
of taunts.
I was like this is it, this isthe solution.
And then I started sharing withpeople and I got so much
pushback.
Well, just like you said, aslippery slope If you put that
in a place, then the bad guysare going to use it again.
I don't think any of that'strue.
If you say you can't say killall the X and the X is a
protected category, kill thetrans people, kill the Jews,
kill the whatever you know, thenthen that's good, that's

(25:16):
progress, that's social progress.
That's not bad, that's notgoing to be misused in some way.
That's crazy.

Speaker 2 (25:22):
What you're really saying is that the paradox of
the paradox of tolerance is thatpeople are intolerant to the
paradox of tolerance when youtry to bring it to them and you
can't be tolerant of thatintolerance.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
I have to continue to be, a tolerant, oh no.

Speaker 2 (25:38):
I've lost a shoot.

Speaker 1 (25:40):
Yeah.
So somebody tried to refute itto me when they said oh, that
doesn't work, because what youthink is tolerant is different
than what I think is tolerant.
I don't, I don't think that'sactually true.
That's right and tolerance islike pretty clearly easy to
define like kill all the X.
That's a great example.

Speaker 2 (25:58):
But kill all the.

Speaker 1 (25:59):
X, that's a protected category.

Speaker 2 (26:00):
That's a great example, could fall under it too
, like if you're saying you'reintolerant of our free business
by your economic like or by yourenvironmental regulations, and
so you're saying because you say, like I want to, I'm a
communist.

Speaker 3 (26:16):
I want to.

Speaker 1 (26:17):
I want to make all corporations public.

Speaker 2 (26:20):
And so then the people who hold those
corporations would see like oh,that's, that's intolerant of
private property and we are therepresentatives of private
property and therefore, yeah, Iknow I'm protesting outside of
this oil magnate, and I'mtalking about how evil and
terrible he is and it's likewell, this is certainly
intolerance of my fossil fuel,fossil fuel given rights, and

(26:40):
then I'll have those people allhave these protests shut down,
Like once you start shifting forexample, I can say I can say
Elon Musk is an idiot.

Speaker 1 (26:50):
That's not defamation .

Speaker 2 (26:52):
Do you think it's intolerant?
Right, it's the same thing.

Speaker 1 (26:54):
There's, there's definitions for these things.
So so no, I I don't think.
It's just going to be somerunaway train oh my God, runaway
train.
And, by the way, the powerfulare already totally in charge.
The world is just exactly theway the powerful wanted to be.
They're getting $9 of every,you know, 99.999 dollars of
every dollar made there.

(27:14):
So I mean, like, what's theworry?
The worry is that it's going tobe even more tilted in their
favor, like it's alreadycompletely tilted.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
The worry is that you're giving an extra, another
tool of shutting things down.
Eventually, I don't think so,but you're using it, you're like
, oh, we'll use this tool toshut down the powerful people or
the people who are doing thebad things.

Speaker 1 (27:38):
No, I just want to shut down Nazis.

Speaker 2 (27:40):
Okay, that's all.

Speaker 3 (27:41):
And not even Nazis.

Speaker 1 (27:42):
If Nazis are just national socialists and they're
like, hey, let's socializethings and make a strong
industrial core, I'm like fine.
But if?
And they could say we're Nazis,because that's a big part of
what the Nazis did, they justthey were nationalistic and they
did socialized economic plans.
There's nothing wrong with that.
What's the problem with theNazis?
When we say Nazis are bad, iswe're talking about the hate.

(28:02):
You know, the intolerance, thehating, various.
You know peoples and religionsand stuff.

Speaker 2 (28:08):
I'm just saying what you create the mechanism to shut
down whatever it is by definingit as intolerant speech.
I think you'll find a lot ofpeople have a lot of interest
and a lot of clever ways torepackage something that they
don't like as intolerant speechin some way in order to get it

(28:30):
through that mechanism and haveit shut down Even.
How is that?

Speaker 1 (28:33):
argument.
But how is that argument notthe same as like?
Like, for example, we havelibel laws and defamation laws
those aren't used that way.

Speaker 2 (28:41):
I know that's what I mean.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
So that's exactly the argument that you're making.
If we had laws that protectedthat defense, that we could
persecute speech, then it wouldbe this you know, mad Max,
immediate, you know devolutioninto like the powerful
controlling all speech.
I'm saying we have laws againstdefamation libel.
They are enforced at a levelthat doesn't turn it into that.

(29:04):
I'm saying we could extend, wecould say defamation libel and
make up a new Latin word thatlawyers would make up that would
be like intolerant speech andthat would become a new court.
There would be court casesabout it and that those laws
would be you know, it'd beillegal to say kill all the X
protected category.
I think that's a good idea.
Why is that?

(29:25):
I mean, am I crazy to say youshouldn't go around saying kill
all the?

Speaker 2 (29:30):
you know, I mean that's a very specific, like
that's a specific speech pattern, but it's not.
I feel like that's the extremelevel.
That's easy to classify, butthere's going to be good, good,
good, great area.

Speaker 1 (29:43):
You know, I mean yeah , but that's what they figure
that out in the court cases andlawyers will fight it on both
sides and they'll be.
But we'll move the line towhere people can't say kill all
the X.
I wanted to defend the right ofNazis to walk in my streets and
say hateful things.
Those people are crazy.
They need to stop saying that.
I mean I will never defend theright for.

(30:03):
Nazis to go around sayinghorrible things.
Never.
I will persecute them to thegreatest extent I can,
personally and and legally, Idon't know.

Speaker 2 (30:13):
To me, like people just saying stuff to me is never
going to affect me, like I justdon't.
Paradox.

Speaker 1 (30:21):
This is where you.
This is because you're notright.
You're not taking historicalconsciousness.
Yeah A popper led the Nazis.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
The American part of these as a Jewish man.

Speaker 1 (30:31):
He fled the Nazis.
That's why he, Carl Popper,created the this thing right the
paradox of tolerance, becausehe saw what happened in Weimar
and after World War One and withthe rise of the Nazis he saw
exactly what happened and thesame thing in in the, in the
communists.
You know, in the road.
He hated communism too.

Speaker 2 (30:49):
I just I'm trying to think of the logistics of it is
like if I say, let's say I'm I,I'm from California, and I say
kill all the Texans.
Is this now?
Is this now fall into that?
No good, I would not say that.
Well, texan, texan, texan is.

Speaker 1 (31:06):
Texan a protected category?
I don't know, but the protectedcategory is a very clear
defined thing right Is that?

Speaker 2 (31:13):
is it only protected categories that you would have
be into this If I say I think tobegin with that'd be the
clearest thing.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
Raise color, ancestry , national origin, religion,
creed, age 40 and over.

Speaker 2 (31:27):
So national origin.
So if I say kill all theCanadians, if I say kill all the
Canadians unless you said it asa joke.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
I mean, if you were farcical then it would be
farcical, because farce protectsa lot of speech.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
Okay, so kill all the Canadians.
I'm in trouble, I'm, I'm, ifyou literally were like we
Canadians should be holocaustedthen I'm not you, that's flowery
.

Speaker 3 (31:48):
I wouldn't say like that yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:49):
Like eliminate genocide the Canadians, then
that's not then there would be.
There would be some.
Well, I wouldn't meet you there, not a genocide.
But their national nation aside, then then there would be
consequences for you.
Okay, and I think theconsequences would depend on the
size of the speech too, like ifyou said that on national
television.
You would be like thrown injail Now if you said that on

(32:11):
your podcast, then your podcastshould just be shut down and
podcast providers the podcastpolice.

Speaker 2 (32:17):
Hey, hey, they banged down the door.

Speaker 1 (32:20):
Get out of the ground A lot of regulators, a lot of.
I know the response that thisepisode is going to have, which
is totally negative.
There's all these free speechpeople out there and it's it's
everybody, it's it's my friends,it's people I know.
It's everybody.
I know they all have this freespeech and it's just like you
said, it's going to be aslippery slope, like we
shouldn't let the government getin there.

Speaker 2 (32:40):
They're going to screw it up.

Speaker 1 (32:40):
So the powerful going to use it again.
And I say defamation and libel.
We already do it really well,like the government does
defamation and libel really well.
Why can't they also govern,kill all the X, protect
categories.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Why can't that also?

Speaker 1 (32:54):
be illegal.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
Okay.
So I say kill all the Canadians, I'm in trouble.
If I say punch all theCanadians, where am I at?

Speaker 1 (33:02):
Yeah, I think I mean.
This is where I think there's aproblem still.

Speaker 2 (33:05):
Yeah, I think it's still a problem, because it's
certainly intolerant If I sayscrew you Canadians, screw all
the Canadians, let's let's like,let's like open this up a
little bit more and say I'm justtrying to figure out the level.
What kind?

Speaker 1 (33:18):
of speech.
What kind of speech would youlike people to be engaging in?
How about?

Speaker 2 (33:26):
how about, like we have a conflict with the
Canadians?

Speaker 1 (33:29):
and how can we solve that conflict with the Canadians
?
That sounds to me a lot better.
That doesn't.
That's not.
Nobody's going to jail for that.

Speaker 2 (33:36):
Well, you know, here's, here's the.

Speaker 1 (33:38):
This is called solutions from the multiverse
all day long.
All we do is provide solutionsto things.

Speaker 2 (33:42):
Well we did not, we really, we really went after the
Canadians.
It's the winter Olympics.

Speaker 3 (33:46):
We're in a hockey match against them, and I have
had some sort of inebriatingsubstance which makes me say I
feel all the Canadian punch.

Speaker 2 (33:57):
All Canadians know what I mean Punch.
The Canadians have to be realcareful now because that's
called it.

Speaker 1 (34:01):
That's called inciting a riot and it's illegal
already.
You don't need a riot.
If a riot starts and you said,and other people say, he said
punch all the Canadians and wehave a video of him inciting the
riot.
That's what the word insightmeans.
But you will be fined or go tojail or be in trouble.

Speaker 2 (34:19):
That's already you just walked right into it.
You just already a crime, wedon't need an extra one on there
.

Speaker 1 (34:26):
That's what I'm saying, that's what I'm saying
in that, in that case, in thatcase, yeah, somebody's inside to
riot.
But so I'm saying we governspeech already and it's not a
runaway train, it's not somesort of slow, I think, these
arguments, these arguments.
Yeah, go ahead Sorry.

Speaker 2 (34:41):
I was saying.
I think I feel like we governthe actions that stem from
speech, like we, we it's introuble if there's a riot that
springs from incitement.
But if you incite, if you're acrazy person out there yelling
and nobody listens to you andstarts a riot, I mean that's
just kind of like what is it?
What do they say in thecapitalism?
They're like the market, thefree market dictating it.

(35:03):
You know, like you don't haveany audience, you have no, you
have no persuasion.

Speaker 1 (35:08):
But I don't know, I just put in the extra.

Speaker 2 (35:12):
It is kind of like to me.
It's kind of like the hatecrimes, where it's like, oh,
killing someone's already acrime, but now you're going to
make it extra crime.

Speaker 1 (35:21):
Yeah, I don't like the whole.
I don't like the whole hatething because it's like that.
That's really problematiclegally, like, for example, law.
The law is never supposed totake into account the internal
experience of a person, becauseit doesn't know what your
internal experience.

Speaker 2 (35:37):
That's where I feel like in tall, so I don't think
it lies within.

Speaker 1 (35:41):
No, no, I don't think so Within your head, right?
I don't think so.
I don't think so because yousay kill all the X.
That that's what we mean byintolerance, you know.
Ok, if you just say, boy, Ijust can't stand Canadians, I
mean you're technically beingintolerant, but that's not what
anyone would consider likeintolerant speech, right.

Speaker 2 (35:59):
In the Midwest.
I just don't like that.
That's the equivalent.
That's the equivalent.
Or you could say I can't standthem.

Speaker 3 (36:04):
I'm literally saying I can't tolerate their presence.

Speaker 1 (36:07):
It still wouldn't be intolerant.
Oh those.

Speaker 2 (36:09):
Canadians bless their heart.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
Yeah, we're using the Canadians as a punching bag
because they're like punchingbag, because they're so nice
generally.

Speaker 2 (36:15):
Well, no, just because it was a, I mean I was
picking a group that felt likeit was a weird, like a weird
thing to do.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
Punching bag yeah, easier punching bag, you know,
like an actual group that's beenarmed.

Speaker 2 (36:27):
Yeah that's more likely to be the subject of
things.

Speaker 1 (36:30):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (36:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (36:32):
I mean, I do want, I do want people.
I do kind of want to be, I wantto be like loud and proud with
this.
Ok, I'm not like hiding, I'mnot going to hide anymore.
Right, I want to makeintolerance speech illegal
because of the not, not justanything I don't like, that's
again.
I'm not.
I'm not saying, oh, if I don'tlike it, then it's intolerant,
that's crazy, it's just.
I can you know that's not true,that's not the way it works.

(36:54):
But things that are actuallyintolerant kill all the X.
You know, trans people shouldbe sterilized.
All this horrible shit thatpeople say, that is clearly
intolerant in the sense of thatword, that everyone understands.
Yeah, it's bad.
And if I say, oh, like I say onthis, this podcast, all the

(37:15):
time, and in public, inrecording, giving and giving it
to people to listen to, you know, climate change is a big
problem.
The people who, who, who causethe climate change should be
persecuted by the law, you know,and maybe even sabotaged in
some way so that they arestopped.
That that I don't think couldbe guarded as intolerant speech,
because, first of all, they'redoing it because of their job.

(37:37):
It's not a protected category.
They're deliberately doing it.
They, they, they, could theychoose to do it, so you can say
well then they should.
They should be punished forthat.

Speaker 3 (37:46):
And.

Speaker 1 (37:46):
I'm advocating for like a legal, historical process
to take place, you know.
So I mean, I think you can saythings that are political, you
can say things that areinflammatory, but that's
different than just straight up.
You know these bank executives.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
Honestly, they take too much money out of the
community and they keep it allin this big, big room that they
guard with this like the turninglock thing.
So if we put some masks onright, do you follow me?
We could go in there and thenwe can, and we can tolerate it
back to us.

Speaker 3 (38:22):
OK, back to back to our.
The yeah, it should rightfully.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
This is the toleration scheme.

Speaker 3 (38:30):
It should be OK Mass toleration.

Speaker 1 (38:32):
Yeah, that's the thing I think you're making the
point.
For me, there is no slipperyslope here.
The idea that the limitation offreedom of speech is a slippery
slope, I believe, is like, islike an argument from the right
wing, from the extreme rightwing, that they make because
they know that that's theirAchilles heel.

(38:52):
If everyone actually realizedwhat, what, what Carl Popper, a
Jew who fled the Nazis, wastrying to teach us about how
totalitarian and horrible thingscan come about again, he
deliberately tried to teach theworld that this is a.
The real slippery slope is toallow intolerant speech to

(39:14):
happen in your society.
That's the real slippery slopeand that's what pop or Carl
Popper is telling us, not notsome like I don't know, not not
some like right wing person whowants to do the or or or.
There are left wing.
There's left wing intoleranceas well, but, but it's mostly
right wing.
I mean, that's a historicallyright wing.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
It just I mean, like I do believe in the societal
consequences to speech where ifyou say something that's super
cringy or bad, everyone's likeboo and everyone like massively
like, as in mass turns away fromyou and you're kind of like,
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
It just feels like anotherlevel when you involve like

(39:54):
state violence, in gettingsomewhat like in in responding
to someone's talk.

Speaker 1 (40:00):
You know well, it's defamation and libel.
It doesn't doesn't put peoplein jail.
If you do libel or defamation,you pay fines, you know, and you
get de-platformed.
But what I'm saying, though, issomething to crime.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
On some level, you're using the violent You're.
You're saying OK, we are nowgoing to force you to comply
with this thing and if you go no, I don't, I don't agree with
that It'll eventually get to thepoint where people are using
violence to like to remove yourfreedom from you and it's kind
of like that's a huge bar andsuch a bar that I think before
we got there, people would justshut up with their intolerant

(40:34):
speech.

Speaker 1 (40:35):
Like I just said, Nazis can go around and say we
should have.

Speaker 3 (40:40):
You could even say the positive side of Nazism,
like we should have a white, youshould have a white, ok, ok, ok
.

Speaker 1 (40:48):
Well, what, what's an example I can use?
Then I mean, I want, I want to,because he's the key example.

Speaker 2 (40:52):
Any example except no , no.
I want to know.

Speaker 1 (40:55):
Well, I mean, I just want to say this is the thing.
What if this happened?
What if you said it'sintolerant to say hate speech or
intolerant speech, so you sayso.
You said illegal.
So you can't say kill all the X, so, which is what the Nazis
love to say.
Then they can say other things.
Fine, it's great.
Let people.
Because I think I'm I'm afreese, I believe that I'm a

(41:16):
free speech absolutist.
That's what I believe, that I'ma huge supporter of free speech
.
I just believe that, just likedefamation and libel and yelling
fire in a crowded room arelegitimate limitations, that are
police able, police able andlegitimate limitations of free
speech.

Speaker 3 (41:33):
So is intolerant speech.

Speaker 1 (41:35):
It's just and I just I'm not willing to, I'm not
going to hide in the shadowsanymore and and and.
Let people get away with sayingI'll fight to defend Nazis from
from saying horrible stuff inmy streets.
I've just no stop defendingthem.
They should not be allowed todo that.

Speaker 2 (41:52):
I'm just saying, logistically it feels hard to to
like a word or a a series ofwords in a certain or.
I mean let's say that's that'swhere we get the phrase let's go
, brandon, from right.
It's because we can't, you know.
The other phrase is of fuck JoeBiden.
So like oh, I'll say this one,and now everyone knows what I
mean, even though I'm not sayingthe thing yeah, yeah, yeah,

(42:14):
don't whistle.

Speaker 1 (42:15):
Yeah, it's the same thing.

Speaker 2 (42:16):
Like I think it just shifts and they, you move one,
you move one.
I mean if you you can say fuckBrandon or whatever.

Speaker 3 (42:24):
I mean, that's a little bit you can.

Speaker 1 (42:26):
Yeah, joe Brandon's got to go.
Who is that guy?
I think that's him.
I think that actuallyrepresents improvement to
society because, for example, ifyou're a child, I'm an educator
and you're an educator too.
If you're a child and you seeon the news or you hear people
shouting, let's go, brandon, andyou're like seven years old,

(42:48):
you don't know what the hellthey're talking about, you know?

Speaker 2 (42:51):
and if you're seven years old, your name is Brandon,
you're you're like, let's go.
Oh, ok, man, I will go right onRight.

Speaker 1 (42:59):
But if you, but if you say, but if you hear them
say fuck Joe Biden, you knowexactly what that means.
You know that everyone aroundyou hates Joe Biden and you
should all and then you willnaturally If you're seven years
old and your name is Joe Biden,you're like you're like.
But, if you're 70 years old.
Yeah, so you're like hey, jack,I don't like what you say in

(43:20):
that about me.

Speaker 3 (43:21):
Why don't you?

Speaker 2 (43:21):
clean up your mouth.

Speaker 1 (43:23):
Yeah, malarkey, but my point, my point is, if things
do go kind of underground, Iactually think that's an
improvement, because you can'tunderstand that undergroundness
until you're like at least ateenager, which means the young
are not indoctrinated intointolerance because they don't
know what you're talking aboutbecause you're not allowed to

(43:45):
say it, but I'll just.

Speaker 3 (43:47):
I'll just be honest.

Speaker 1 (43:48):
I'll just be honest and be vulnerable here because I
want everyone you know to knowmy background.
To my grandpa, who was a GermanAmerican.
I kind of thought Hitler likedid what he had to do.
Like he kind of thought Hitlerwas kind of cleaning up the
place.
Like not a good look right.
But you know what he did.
He just never said that toanybody after the war.

(44:12):
He just stopped talking aboutthat Good Good.
He has a lot of other goodqualities.
He's an amazing, you know.
He's a family man andhardworking, great, loves his
family, supports the community.
Great guy.
He has bad political opinions.
From being raised as a nativeGerman American, you know a
German American in, you know ina.
German community at the time ofWorld War II, right, so?

(44:34):
But what I'm saying is that'sprogress, because all of his
kids didn't, didn't like, theydidn't get, they didn't
indoctrinate because he didn'tsay it, because it wasn't
allowed to be said.
And the same thing with hisgrandkids.
His grandkids never even knewanything about that.
I had to learn that second,third hand through learning
about my ancestors.

Speaker 2 (44:51):
How did you find?
How did you find that?

Speaker 1 (44:52):
out.
So my one of my aunts knew oneof my aunts kind of she was in
the 60s, she had like rebellionagainst her dad, she kind of
more intense relationship withher dad.
She knew these bad things abouthim, that he had these bad
opinions and she was kind ofresentful.
But and then she told me,because she was telling me about
the family history, she saidyeah, like of course you know

(45:13):
he's, you know great man in allthese ways, great, great
grandfather, wonderful, takescare of everybody, whatever
works really hard.
But he had these political.

Speaker 2 (45:20):
He walks around like his team lost the Super Bowl.
All the time.

Speaker 1 (45:23):
Well, no, I mean he just you know it's like.
It's like what, in 30 yearswhen people were like Trump,
supporters will be?
It'll be shameful that you weresupported such a psycho,
terrible person.

Speaker 2 (45:32):
Well, slightly different, it's slightly worse.
Yeah, but you know it'll belike bad, you know, and a Hitler
guy was good or not Inretrospect, right, I'm just, I'm
just saying I'm just sayingwhen people talk about this they
might not have anything intheir family.

Speaker 1 (45:47):
Where they have some, I'm I'm like, literally Really
speaking from from my backgroundlike I don't think people
should be allowed to say that ifit does go and become, people
start saying things sort of codewords or dog whistles.
I think that's moral progress,because now the children can't
understand it, which means theyhave to make their own decisions
.
When they turn maybe 12 or 13or 14, they can start to

(46:08):
understand what's going on.
Then they can kind of maketheir own decisions.
But if you indoctrinate a sevenyear old to say the N word or
to say you know, kill all the X.
Or you know, if you hear, theyhear people who are?

Speaker 2 (46:19):
Are those in the same ?
Are those in the same categoryto you now?

Speaker 1 (46:23):
Sure.

Speaker 2 (46:25):
Anyone saying the N word.

Speaker 1 (46:26):
Well, derogatorily, I mean sure, if you're using it
non-derogatorily, but if you useit as a derogatory phrase, of
course it's intolerant,intolerant speech, you know.

Speaker 3 (46:36):
So yeah, you know it's a protected category.

Speaker 1 (46:39):
Race is a protected category, right?
Yeah, it's also sterilizedtrans people.
You know, gay people can't getmarried, gay people can't have
children.
These would all be intolerant.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
Anyone saying intolerant things?

Speaker 1 (46:50):
You can't say that.
No, you absolutely can't saythat that should be illegal.
To say so, certainly to publish, like defamation.
If I say this person's dumb orsomething, that's not a big deal
.
But if I like say if I am acredible source and say this
person is like mentallyincompetent and should have
their corporation taken awayfrom them, and then people start
to actually take that and usethat, then that's defamation

(47:13):
right.
So it's different.
It's not like in public youcould just say whatever you want
, but if you say it in arecorded, you know, blasted out
platform, it feels like I meanit does.
Defamation and liable.
That's what we should keepgoing back to.
We already limit speech it doesDefamation and liable.
Use that same patterns togovern intolerant speech.

Speaker 2 (47:35):
But it feels like it makes a mistake of thinking now
is the end of enlightenment.
Do you know what I mean?
It feels like it's like oh,this is, we can now.
We can now designate what arelike good things and bad things
to say.
But the hard part is that,zooming backward in time, at any

(47:56):
other point in time the peoplewould have had the same good
intentions and would haveapproached the thing, and if
they had the same idea, theywould have been like okay, we
can designate what are the goodthings and bad things to say.
I feel like at this point intime, we would very much
disagree with their decisionsback then.
It makes me think that there'sstuff that we're not thinking
about now that people in thefuture would right now look back

(48:19):
at.

Speaker 1 (48:19):
Okay, these guys don't know what you're talking
about.
Let me try to mount, becauseI've tried.
This is what we keep going backto, and so I want to try to
really nail it like rightbetween the eyes with by
introducing a concept that'scalled asymmetry.

Speaker 2 (48:33):
Well then you've picked the wrong analogy,
because right between the eyeswould be like a concept of
symmetry, right, right?
Well, sure, sure, I'm going toput it off to the offside of the
temple somewhere, my argumentyeah, right in the temple.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
My argument is that and I don't know how this
probably needs to be defended ata higher level.
But at this point I'm justtrying to tell people to come
out of the shadows.
If you think it shouldn't beallowed that people say kill all
the X, please be loud and proudabout that.
And I want to be like that morein the future and say I'm a
free speech supporter, whichmeans I don't believe in

(49:09):
defamation, libel andintolerance speech.
But let me explain why thatworks the vital work, because
I'm not just trying to sellsociety down the river.
I don't want the powerful to beable to manipulate and govern
speech in ways that is not goodfor society.
So here's the reasonIntolerance speech is
asymmetrical from tolerancespeech.

(49:30):
It's not.
They can't be confused.
There's gray area, but there'shuge areas of clarity on both
sides.
Tolerance speech if you saylet's solve this problem, we
have a problem.
Here's the issue.
You guys aren't behaving in away that's acceptable.
It's not going to work becauseof these things that are facts

(49:52):
that you did.
That's a tolerant way to speakabout problems and about issues.
You can be very mad, you can bevitriolic about it, you can
even hate the people.
Your emotions are your own, butyou'd have to talk about it in
a way that is productive andconstructive, and real and
factual.
You can't just be like sayingpsycho, evil.

Speaker 2 (50:11):
You have to do that now anyway, to have anyone give
you any credibility or to betaken seriously.

Speaker 1 (50:16):
Are you serious?
What do you think Ben Shapirodoes all day long?
What do these people do?

Speaker 2 (50:21):
Well, he's doing entertainment stuff.

Speaker 1 (50:24):
No, but it's not entertainment.
He presents himself as a newsshow.
It says an editorial news show.
He doesn't say hey, welcome toSNL.

Speaker 2 (50:32):
But his listeners don't think that his content is
intolerant.
His listeners think that thecontent he's railing against is
intolerant.

Speaker 1 (50:41):
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Because again, it's not amatter of opinion, because of
the asymmetry.
There's an asymmetry betweentolerant speech and intolerant
speech.
You may say I agree with hisintolerant speech, but you can't
say it's not intolerant If hesays gay people shouldn't be
married, that's intolerant,that's bull crap.
But he goes gay peopleshouldn't have kids.

(51:03):
If gay people have kids, thenthose kids will be mentally ill.
People are mentally ill.
You have to be mentally ill tobe trans.
So these are false statementsthat are evil and intolerant.

Speaker 2 (51:13):
What I'm saying is but protecting categories and it
shouldn't be allowed, it shouldbe illegal.
Let's role play the discussionwhere you tell me that that's an
intolerant.
If I'm Ben Shapiro and I go,well, I don't think gay people
should be married and you're nowgoing to tell me I can't say
that.
But obviously I'm saying thatbecause it comes from my
understanding of the Bible andmy religion.
What I hear you when you tellme that I can't say that is I'm

(51:36):
hearing you be intolerant of myreligion.

Speaker 1 (51:40):
See how I'm turning that impulse into yeah right.
I'm turning that impulse intoyeah right.
I'm turning that impulse intoyeah right, twisting it into
You're being intolerant.

Speaker 2 (51:46):
Yes, we both think that the other person is being
intolerant.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 2 (51:52):
And we both have a sort of solid basis for that
argument.
You know what I mean.

Speaker 1 (51:55):
Okay, except the paradox of tolerance.
Okay.
So here's how the paradox oftolerance works.
Exactly that situation.
So I have.
So do you agree or disagreethat the statement gay people
shouldn't be married is anintolerant statement?
Even if you agree with it, itis intolerant to say that it's
an intolerant belief of yourreligion of homosexuals if we're

(52:21):
using that example.

Speaker 2 (52:21):
I don't know, because it's a statement of.

Speaker 1 (52:23):
They know it's not intolerant.
It's just a statement of factor something.

Speaker 2 (52:27):
It's a statement of opinion, if that's what they
think.

Speaker 1 (52:30):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
But now are you saying that, but it is an
opinion about other people,their lives and they are a
potential category homosexualshomosexuals you might have
opinions about other people Well, but some of them are
intolerant, some are intolerant,some are neutral, some are
positive, some are negative.
Right.

Speaker 1 (52:47):
Would you say it's a negative, intolerant thing to
say.
Factually speaking, can weagree that to say homosexuals
who want to be married shouldnot be allowed to be married is
an intolerant statement?
I don't know what the statementof my religion, but it's an
intolerant statement.
It's an intolerant belief ofintolerance in my religion.

Speaker 2 (53:07):
It very much depends on your point of view.

Speaker 1 (53:13):
I don't think it does .
I don't think it does I thinkat the same time.

Speaker 2 (53:16):
You're saying should not be married.
You're also saying but I'm notpreventing that from happening
at all, I'm not doing anything,I'm just stating my opinion,
which should be allowedOtherwise.
The alternative is that I'm notallowed to state my opinion
unless it falls in line withcertain societal ideals.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
I bring you back to defamation and libel.

Speaker 2 (53:38):
Same thing, but those have to have my opinion that
these people are damages, right,and so if I'm just having that
opinion, my opinion inside myhead, isn't damaging someone
else, it's the action.

Speaker 1 (53:52):
It's some sort of action that I do that creates
harm that there is, there is,there is, there is damage, so
there there can be damage.

Speaker 2 (54:00):
What's the damage from just harboring an opinion
that's different?

Speaker 1 (54:04):
Well, the defense.
Well, if it in your mind,that's fine.
We're talking about speech andpublic speech and speech with
broad reach, not just speak.
You know, you say it to yourfriends and family.
It's not illegal If I'm justhere, you know.

Speaker 2 (54:16):
I'm literally saying it to people who have, like,
actively consented todownloading my show, and I'm not
they're not accidentally there.

Speaker 1 (54:24):
Nobody's overhearing and he has a huge in the grocery
store.

Speaker 2 (54:28):
Yeah, but it's public and it has a huge reach to
people who are all going to bepopular and it's annoyingly,
it's annoying, but you, but youdrag.

Speaker 1 (54:35):
You dragged me off my main point, though, which is
which is that, with the paradoxof tolerance, yeah, certain
types of intolerance, oneparticular type of intolerance,
is allowed and all the othertypes of intolerance aren't, and
the one particular type ofintolerance that is allowed is
intolerance of intolerance.

Speaker 2 (54:56):
So yes yes.

Speaker 1 (54:57):
So in our situation, with the situation you described
, I, or whoever would, isintolerant of what Ben Shapiro
said, that if he saidhomosexuals couldn't be married,
he's being intolerant, and soam I.
But I'm allowed to beintolerant because I'm being
intolerant of intolerance.
That's the paradox ofintolerance.
It's the one exception.

(55:18):
It's the one exception to beinga tolerant person.
If you are truly tolerantperson, karl Popper says, if you
are truly tolerant person, thenyou have the requirement to
still be intolerant of onecategory which is intolerant
people and intolerance.
And so, when that so it's notjust oh, you're both being

(55:40):
intolerant, oh, you're ahypocrite, no, they're being
intolerant.
I'm being tolerant because partof being tolerant is being
intolerant of intolerance.

Speaker 2 (55:48):
But I just it would.
I think it would feel morepersuasive to me if it wasn't
like we're both doing the samething.
But I'm right because I'm right, no, I'm right because of the
paradox of tolerance.

Speaker 1 (55:58):
You have to understand the paradox of
tolerance.
You can deny the paradox oftolerance.
You can so try to make the make, make the argument to deny the
paradox of tolerance.
No, but what I'm saying is canyou say society's totally safe
to allow intolerant peopleinfinite resources and platform
to say anything they want?

Speaker 2 (56:14):
It's not, it's dangerous for society, though
that you're dealing, you'reyou're trying to communicate
this idea to people who see theroles flipped in the idea.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
So it's so flip the roles, flip the roles.
Can we flip that example?

Speaker 2 (56:28):
Can we do an example where I did like if he's like I
think gay people shouldn't beallowed to marry, yeah, I think
gay people shouldn't marry.
Comes from my religion, itdoesn't matter.

Speaker 1 (56:40):
It doesn't matter where it comes from, it doesn't
matter, because the principle ofthe paradox of tolerance says
there's two.
You can only one way, you'reallowed to be intolerant.
Well then, I would say only oneway, and that's against
intolerance.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
Okay, role playing, I would say, okay.
So then me as a person whounderstands religion, that
trumps everything.
So if your thing says that myreligious understanding doesn't
matter, then yours is now no, no, your religious your religion
has all kinds of beliefs youhave a belief.

Speaker 1 (57:10):
Maybe if you're, maybe if you're Christian, you
believe you should turn theother cheek, or I should,
whatever.

Speaker 3 (57:16):
So, but that's perfectly tolerant.

Speaker 1 (57:18):
You can have all the religious beliefs you want Also
the other ones, the other onesyou can have you can even have
the belief that that gay peopleshouldn't marry, but you can't
say it on a yell, it in acrowded room.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
If I'm religious I don't.
I don't put you as a person whogets to tell me which of my
beliefs I'm allowed to have inwhich I don't.
I get to have all of them, andthey're all about what you have.
Yeah, any of the laws that aregoing to come after me.
So if you're telling me whatwhat I'm saying is, you're
saying it's very cut and dry,just be intolerant of

(57:48):
intolerance.
And I'm saying, yeah, that'sthe very much not cut and dry,
because two different peoplewill see two different things
and label them completelyopposite as to what's tolerant
and what's intolerant.

Speaker 1 (58:01):
What's an example?
I can't think of a singleexample.

Speaker 2 (58:04):
I thought I already gave one, but both people which
one solid, like if you're sayingthe gay people lie, if you're
saying and I say, if you'retelling me I can't say that,
that's you attacking, that's youbeing intolerant of my religion
, which is a.

Speaker 1 (58:18):
I know, and that's allowed.

Speaker 2 (58:19):
And that's allowed because your religious belief,
that singular, one, singlereligious religious which you
can have, you just can't say itin a large religion, in a large
public space category, exceptthat part of it, but that's not
anything that's intolerant.

Speaker 1 (58:37):
No, no, I don't you.
Okay, let me.
Let me make the same exact casethat you're, that you're saying
, but you'll, you won't believeit.
But it's our religion that wedo human sacrifice Right.
It doesn't matter, it doesn'tgive a shit.
No one gives a shit.
That's your religion.
You're not allowed to humansacrifice people.
Exactly, exactly.
Religion's not just some carteblanche.

(58:57):
Oh, it's my religion.
Therefore, you have to not harmpeople with your religious
actions.
You can say our religionbelieves in human sacrifice, but
we don't do it because it'sillegal.
Exactly, you could say ourreligion believes homosexuals
shouldn't be allowed to bemarried, but we can't say that
because it's illegal to say that, that's exactly what that would
be moral progress for society.

(59:19):
That would be better.

Speaker 2 (59:20):
I don't know.
Is it better to just say it'sillegal to say the things I
don't like instead of, yes,talking about why?

Speaker 1 (59:27):
is better because of children.
Again, this is my premise.
Children are indoctrinated atvery young ages.
If they hear things that aretotally intolerant, right by the
leaders, those children, therest of their lives, are going
to think.
I heard the pastor say that, Iheard my dad say that, I heard
my mom say that that's what Ibelieve Totally.

(59:50):
But if it's like I never heardmy parents say that, and you
know, when I was 12 or 13, Irealized they really believe
that.
But by the time I'm 12 or 13, Ican decide for myself and
that's better, you know.
So I think it's to defendchildren mostly.

Speaker 3 (01:00:03):
I don't know, I mean, I mean why, are we just.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
you can have whatever you want, I feel like to defend
children, you should not exposethem to any religion until they
reach a certain age of maturity.

Speaker 1 (01:00:14):
Maybe that's where yeah sure.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
Just because I'm like yeah they're young and
impressionable and will believewhatever people tell them.
So that becomes a problem lateron in life.

Speaker 1 (01:00:24):
Make sure you expose them to science too, a little
bit.

Speaker 2 (01:00:28):
Just a tiny bit.

Speaker 1 (01:00:28):
A little bit, a little bit.
Well, man, we weren't way over,because this is such a
passionate topic and it'simportant.
It's important.
I'm glad you were pushing back,because I want, because that's
the truth.

Speaker 2 (01:00:37):
That's what the audience is going to want to
hear what I get, and I want tohear what people are to think
about this.

Speaker 1 (01:00:42):
Yeah, I'm loud and proud saying I'm going to take
it.
I'm taking a controversial view, which is not that I want to
limit speech, what I believe,any speech in any way.
That shouldn't be limited.
I just want to extenddefamation libel.
We should def, we should alsopolice intolerance speech
because I believe, carl Popper,that we will descend, we will
more quickly descend intototalitarianism if we allow

(01:01:06):
intolerance speech to happen.

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
So and you're right.

Speaker 1 (01:01:09):
It's a big question.

Speaker 2 (01:01:10):
But you heard it here .
If you have anything you wantto say to someone or you want to
write on the internet, go ahead, and if you think this is bad
and controversial, yeah, please.

Speaker 3 (01:01:20):
He'll come I will.

Speaker 2 (01:01:21):
I'm happy to.

Speaker 1 (01:01:22):
Yeah, and if you want to provide really good on this
was a kind of crazy argumentbetween two people who don't
know what they're talking about.
If you have like really goodstuff, send it my way.
I want to be educated on thisif I'm wrong, but I have a
suspicion that that I'm not.
So Right.

Speaker 2 (01:01:39):
Thank you for joining us again.

Speaker 1 (01:01:40):
Thanks, everybody Love it.
See you next week.
All right, everybody, take care, keep it concrete.

Speaker 2 (01:01:46):
Concrete, okay, bye, bye yeah.