Hurtful vs. Harmful: Where We Draw the Line #CharlieKirk

Freedom isn’t fragile—but our egos are. In this episode, we get honest about what “free speech” actually means for real people, real businesses, and real communities trying to live with conviction without burning the place down.

We start with a raw business story—frozen funds, missed loads, and a trucking deal stuck in limbo—and use it as a mirror: when systems lock up, frustration spikes. The same thing happens in culture when conversations lock up. So we zoom out to the First Amendment, the gray lines around “hate speech,” and the tension between public rights and private platforms, campuses, and workplaces.

We’re not here to score internet points. We’re here to ask smarter questions, check our own biases, and build the courage to hold convictions with a Christlike tone—strong spine, soft voice. We talk algorithms, echo chambers, and why outrage feels productive (but rarely is). And we wrestle with the difference between opinions that offend and speech that truly threatens—plus what accountability should look like when influence turns into incitement.

📌 Key Topics:
 ✅ Cash flow chaos, decision-making under pressure, and keeping your cool
 ✅ What the First Amendment protects—and what it doesn’t
 ✅ “Hurtful” vs. “harmful”: drawing lines without moving goalposts
 ✅ Public institutions, private platforms, and who sets the rules
 ✅ Algorithms, confirmation bias, and training your feed on purpose
 ✅ Faith, tone, and why smug truth still misses the mark
 ✅ Practical ways to love your neighbor without losing your convictions

If you want more clarity and freedom, start here: question your certainties, train your inputs, and choose a tone that builds what your beliefs are brave enough to say.

Chapters:

00:00 Navigating Business Challenges

03:11 Freedom of Speech and Its Implications

05:47 The Role of Media in Shaping Narratives

09:00 The Impact of Social Media Algorithms

11:52 The Importance of Diverse Opinions

15:10 The Intersection of Faith and Politics

18:02 Finding Balance in Society

30:59 The Two-Party System and Its Implications

32:55 Social Media's Role in Free Speech

36:42 Accountability in Political Speech

39:10 The Importance of Questioning Convictions

41:40 The Intersection of Religion and Politics

44:10 Holding Politicians Accountable

50:43 Encouraging Open Dialogue

53:00 Understanding Subjective vs. Objective Truths

57:27 The Complexity of Debating Sensitive Topics

01:03:34 The Role of Politicians and Celebrities in Society

Transcript

Well, there's been the freedom fighter podcast and with everything going on, ⁓ Charlie Kirk situation arguments over ⁓ whether you have the right to say something or not say something and kind of what's hate speech terms thrown out like Nazi bigot homophobe was a anti-Semitic. All these terms being thrown around on both sides. ⁓

I just kind of wanted to take a second, talk about that, talk about what freedom is, or at least our definitions as uneducated fools ⁓ of freedom. But I pulled up the ⁓ first amendment kind of just overarching. What does it say? She had the freedom to religion, freedom speech, freedom of press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petition. just real quick, religion is believe or worship what you want or not at all.

Speech is to express your opinion and ideas freely. Press is the media can publish information without government control. Symbol is you can gather peacefully with others. And petition is you can ask the government to fix problems or change a law. So, obviously, Second Amendment, people argue, protects the First Amendment. That's why it's second. And I believe God gave us a...

our rights to protect ourselves. And it's just kind of protected by that. just kind of, I really have a place to go with this other than just to talk about First Amendment, Second Amendment, all the amendments, whatever. Yeah. I mean, obviously it's been argued a lot and it comes down to interpretation of that. Cause if someone has the right to express their opinions,

and their opinion can be deemed hurtful or hateful, then they don't have the right. Well, what's been changing over the last generation is defining what is hurtful and what is hateful speech. And so when you leave that and there's no black and white answer for it, it's subjective to society.

I guess.

I would push back, what is hurtful? What is hateful? And where does that, I've never heard anybody express it that way, I guess. I've always heard like, if it becomes a public nuisance, like you can't yell bomb on an airplane, you can't yell fire in a building. ⁓ Well, anything to incite panic. Yeah. Yeah. But not necessarily hurtful or hateful. I mean, that's just, like you said, it's someone's opinion. Right. What is hurtful or Just like with...

Charlie Kirk, the perfect example. He went out, I mean, all of his beliefs stem from his, all of his opinions come from his religious beliefs. And- I would argue he didn't start off that way. So, I never watched his stuff, so I can't really say a lot, but my understanding is the last five years, yes it has, but that's not where he started off as. Well, my understanding, and I've watched him for a long time,

He's always been very faith filled in this stuff. He might've been more vocal about it in the last five years, but every conversation that I've seen with him, he brings up faith and, and when he's debating people and that's, that's all he did is he was a really good debater and I'm sure he had some moments of being condescending and smug. Yeah. Which rubs people the wrong way gets clicks, know, whatever, whatever it was, but ultimately his beliefs or his opinions are, are

stemmed from his religious beliefs. when, and he changes his stance, he calls himself out when, he changed his stance about things like, you know, bringing up the abortion conversation and, ⁓ transgender stuff, like all that stuff comes from, and he says, because God created man and woman and you he, so he's expressing his religion through his free speech.

But if that offends someone else, then does that restrict his ability to do that, especially in a public setting? Because that's what people are trying to get shut down. And the fact that he went to college campuses, the argument was that's a private ⁓ institution. should be allowed to write, it's private property. That's not the state property. Like a state run like state pays for it. A state, the state college. Yeah. University of Nebraska. That's a state.

Our tax dollars pay for it. So I guess that's maybe what I don't understand because I was under the impression it's still private property and so they can because they can restrict certain types of activity and if they don't want someone speaking, you can restrict activity anywhere like courthouse is restricted, but it's public property. Police station is public. Let us restrict. can't go out and do a rally on the front porch, but.

I think that's the part is that people want to shut down the ideas that they don't agree with. even if I don't agree with someone, I absolutely think that it's their right and they should go into a public setting and converse openly. And I'll give an example from yesterday. So my daughter goes to University of Nebraska and she's in a culture class or something like that. And just yesterday, they're telling them more or less how they have to act and

be culturally with the LGBTQIA plus community. And that's my opinion. When you go to school, you sign up for curriculum. These are all the classes I need to take. So you take a culture class. There's an overarching thing. That is backed by the dean of whoever runs that portion of the college.

That's the school backing it is what is what I'm getting at. not necessarily the teacher. I don't know. Teachers believe so. Could have been the teachers beliefs and more rogue, if you will. But I don't know all the situations. I'm not trying to read into it too much, but

Why are they able to tell you how you can, you have to act towards a certain community? And that was Charlie Kirk's argument is you shouldn't be able to. And if they're only getting one side of the argument, then he wanted to present the other side. And like I said, I, I've seen it just yesterday with K through 12. Like should they be allowed to push those things on the kids?

And when the parents don't necessarily agree with it, like, I don't think so. I just went to the Supreme Court and I said no, or I think that was more the curriculum in school. So I don't know. think that the same thing with we've had our kids just have multiple instances of them sharing what they learned in Sunday school in class and being told, we can't talk about that here. So my daughter actually asked that.

in class yesterday, she said, well, how come we can't bring up religion in school? They kind of I didn't talk to her directly. I'm getting this through my wife. So but from what I understand, they kind of dismissed the conversation is that a restriction on freedom of speech? And also when you're in, I still consider it a private institution. It's not private school. is still it. It's not open to the public. Right. Like a public park is open to the public. But

an institution is not. It's only for people who are registered, pay to go to school there. So in that setting, they can restrict just like in the workplace, like there are employment laws about what, you know, HR stuff, but

Like, should the colleges be allowed to restrict what people are allowed to talk about in order to avoid conflict? I don't know. I mean, you brought up work. I think it's a slippery slope however you go about it. So what if someone's celebrating what happened to Charlie Kirk and you employ that person? Right. Honestly, that's one thing that I... I mean, if it was someone that worked for me...

I think it would put me in a tough spot. Like if one of my employees was going to post on the stuff, I would probably have the conversation of in the public, you represent this company and I won't be tied to, you know, any kind of hate speech. Like, and I, and I consider that celebrating someone's death, a hateful type of speech, but there's a lot of people that are just targeting those people, those, know, anyone who posts online saying, you know, celebratory posts, they're targeting those employers and sending those and trying to get them fired.

Like I don't think that that's right. And I saw one, there was this lady that was making jokes about it and was like, looks like Charlie Kirk got shot. And she's like thoughts and prayers and just, you know, mocking. And they went after her boyfriend's electric company and he has thousands of bad reviews now. People have gone and harassed him in the workplace. Like, I don't think that's right.

You know, so yes, I agree that they should be able to speak freely, but that's kind of where I'm what I'm bringing up is like there there's it's not always the left that's offended. Both sides get offended. I'm not trying to make this left or right thing. Right. But I'm saying typically in conversations, people look at the liberals as the ones who are offended by everything. But I mean, the rights just as bad. You get offended about, you know, the Second Amendment's conversations and stuff. ⁓

The whole point of college is to be a collaboration of ideas and they need to be more welcoming of opposing opinions. would argue the whole first amendment is to be a collaboration of ideas and to bounce things off. I guess going back to my initial point is like we're quick to call everybody names. quick to label. Like Trump's a Nazi. By what account? We're going to clip that and that's going to be our...

Yeah, like, but that I mean, I think the best example of how those things get portrayed in the media is we've talked about it before, but there's a picture where there's two soldiers and a guy on his knees and handcuffs. And one of the pictures, the guy or one of the soldiers is holding a weapon to him, you know, in case tries to run. The other guy is pouring water into his mouth. And what they did is they cut the photo.

so that you can only see the guy pouring water into his mouth. And then they cut the photo so you can only see the guy holding a gun on him and showed how it ⁓ portrays a narrative based on how they want to spin it. And that's what the media does is they take the bits and pieces and we, mean, nobody's doing it to us, but you see an hour and a half long podcast. They'll go find a clip of 10 seconds that something was taken out of context. Charlie Kirk did.

Like every negative thing I've seen was that like one sentence out of a five minute thing. Exactly. And then they spin it and then they add fuel to it. And then that's how they create this hate. You were talking about pictures and stuff. I just seen this on Instagram earlier today. ⁓ Tim Kennedy, former UFC and Special Forces guy, ⁓ he posted on Instagram. It's this truck going down the highway.

And it's got tracks. So instead of tires, it has tank tracks. And the guy has like a 50 cal mounted in the back of his truck. He's going on the street and all the pictures you can see the truck, you see the 50 cal, you can see the tracks. You see the cops talking to him. It's like, is this illegal in America type thing? Apparently, one of the guy's friends that knew the story chimed into the Tim Kennedy's post.

He said, what happened was because of the tracks, he blew a hydraulic hose and he was stalled out on the highway and the cops were actually super nice and helpful and got him, got him moved. But do we just take that one picture and say the cops are harassing this guy because he's looks like he's got a military type vehicle and a 50 cal in the back, which, you know, whole different argument, but we jumped to conclusions and it happens on both sides.

Well, and I think the most destructive thing, especially with biases, is when you get the confirmation bias and only ever listen to what you agree with, then it just, you might start out, you know, at a high school, going into college, kind of middle of the line, and then you start confirmation bias. And that's why we get so far apart is because people only listen to what they agree with. And then they get, we're so far apart. And if you look at

There's a video online on YouTube. can't remember what the name of the video is, but it shows the conservative and liberal beliefs over time and when the parties were established and how they, there were, you know, some liberal Republicans and some conservative Democrats, they just kind of towed that line. And then they show over time where they just start separating and all their ideas are so far apart right now that even just being neutral, the left considers far right, you know, and

vice versa, is if you're even somewhat moderate, you're, you're categorized as a liberal. And I think that that is because in the internet age, it became too easy to go with confirmation bias. mean, look at social media now with the algorithms, they want to keep you on stuff that you watch. And when people are posting videos that, that gain a lot of attention, it's usually clickbait where it's got some kind of

⁓ I don't want to use misinformation too easily, but I do think misinformation is best way to define it. Misleading. Yeah, misleading information where they take that one clip and that's where they add the fuel and then people watch it longer. So the algorithms say, well, I want to give you more of that content because I want to keep you on our platforms. And then the only thing they're able to find is that. Well, you just did it. When I said, you know, people label Trump as a Nazi.

You said, let's use that as our title. Yeah, exactly. It's easy to take a clip like that. Yeah. So it's. It's human, but to your point is how the algorithm, if you want to get through the noise of everybody else in social media and YouTube or whatever, if you have to create something that gets people attention, stops them in their tracks, you only have a couple of seconds, you know, with the thumbnail or the title ⁓ and.

But that's why it happens. then these algorithms are so smart. If you're just scrolling and you slow down long enough, they'll feed you more of that. you slow down again and they'll feed you more of that. Which can be used as a tool too. Like people that are wanting to get away from certain types of content, just skip them faster. And the ones like for mine, anytime a religious one comes up or something that's just like teaching, because I'm...

trying to learn more about the Bible. I don't spend enough time in the Word. So when I see people come up and just giving their perspective of it, it takes discernment because there's a lot of bad information out there. But I'll watch it longer, which then means it gives me more. So I'm basically training my algorithm to the stuff that I want to see. So where a lot of it's sports and trucks and other stuff. you know, I have to have your girls. No, that's the stuff that I'm talking about is they know I put it out there. That's what they put out.

there. You just go start an Instagram account and you put your whatever 24 year old male like ending as soon as you create it and then you go to the search thing ⁓ like it's gonna be full of. Yeah I created an Instagram for for real estate business a few years ago and that's what it was and so I went through and just found Bible verses and started clicking like on all of them just scrolling and so now when I open up my search it's only Bible verses so it's part of training the algorithm because like I don't want that garbage.

I want the good stuff. Yeah, but when you create it, that's what they start feeding you. That's the majority... That's what they believe that people want. ⁓ But yeah, I the freedom of speech argument, I agree it is the most important amendment because I mean if we restrict people's ability to express their opinions, then we become a dictatorship. So what is an opinion?

What is an opinion? mean, yeah, well, where does opinions start and stop, I guess?

Hmm. Is there a hateful opinion? I think so. Can you say it? That's part of the argument is should people be if, if people don't agree with President Trump, they should be allowed to post that online. But where does it become a crime when the posts that they're they're putting up are wishing harm on someone like

I if there's an active threat then I can understand that but I don't know I still think it's an opinion you know if people don't like someone then don't like them but the

I don't want to the trolls, but the Karens of the internet take that stuff and they want to ruin that person's life for having an opinion. guess where the danger lies and tells is when they're like, this person is a Nazi, Trump's a Nazi, and he needs to be stopped. He's an edge, how do you say that word? Threat to democracy.

Somebody will take that and run with it. and I've seen videos of, we call montages of politicians and, know, news anchors and all that stuff saying things like that and how it's just kind of, like I said, adding fuel to it and someone that's only consuming that content. If he needs to be stopped, someone needs to stop him and all this stuff. And I mean, you get terrible people that are out there that want to wish harm, but I don't, I don't believe that.

killing someone is going to stop their movement. And we saw the proof of that after Charlie Kurt died, where I feel like the nation just had a significant shift. Every church that I saw posting online said they had a higher turnout the week after he passed than ever before. And so the movement keeps going. And I don't know why the violence always becomes the answer. It's like when in every

opportunity in history, when people can't win with words, they resort to violence. And I think that's unfortunate. But at what point is speech become violent? Well, I mean, I guess if you're

I think the policy, I mean, maybe I'm just.

negative in this, but I think the politicians know what they're saying when they say Trump's a Nazi and he needs to be stopped. ⁓

I think they understand what they're saying. They might hope that nothing happens.

But they know that there's a higher likelihood of it happening with them saying it than not. Well, I mean, it's like in Congress after Charlie Kirk passed, they called for a moment of silence and a bunch of Democrats started booing and hissing and hawing and they call for prayer. No, they asked for a moment of silence. I thought initially they asked for prayer and that's when they came in hot and then they had the moment of silence. Maybe I maybe I misread the clip, but.

I saw a moment of silence and then they all, you know, docked at it. And is that a form of hate speech? Like, I don't know, but is it? I think that there's too many moving parts to really know one the right answer on that. Yeah, I mean, as I try to grow in my religious. People have the bracelets, what would Jesus do? And I try to.

⁓

to put it more in my everyday life because I feel like it's just a bracelet. It's just, I my kids have one. Like I don't think they're sitting there trying to dissect this situation. What would Jesus do? What would Jesus say? How would Jesus act?

We'll go negative on Charlie Kirk here. Like, yes, he was a Christian and yes, I think he brought a lot of people to faith and I think he did good over abundance of his, he produced more fruit than good fruit than to sour fruit, I would say. But we talked about the smugness and condescending tone that he talked. Like, I think he'd done better.

If he had just stayed neutral and not been smug and not been condescending throughout the whole thing. ⁓ I think it would have been better for his message. I think that's more in line what Christ would have done. So I'm not saying that what he said, his words weren't necessarily wrong. I'm not saying they were necessarily right or wrong or yes. But his tone and his delivery said enough that called

Cause people say it was a wrong way. Yeah. And I mean, just hearing people that knew him behind closed doors talking about how, like who was it? ⁓ Tucker Carlson, I saw an interview with Tucker Carlson and he's like, Charlie Kirk didn't have a hateful bone in his body. And he's like, I have a hateful component in my heart. He's like, when, when I'm mad at people, he's like, ⁓ you know, ⁓

say negative things about them, but he never would. Even people who disagreed with him, would just say that they're just sad people. And that, I believe, is a what would Jesus do moment. He gives so much grace to people that he disagrees with. maybe that was his defense mechanism in confrontation, was to laugh and kind of play it off and whatever. And we see those clips. And I I agree. I thought that he was smug a lot.

Just, I mean, same with Ben Shapiro and same with Candace Owens. I think they're very smug people, but I don't get on a stage and argue with thousands of people that disagree with me. So I don't know what I would do in that situation. I'd probably be just as bad, if not worse. but I don't think that violence is the answer. I think there's a time and a place for violence and that's not it.

Yeah, I mean, I guess it just. How do you stop it? Like, do you how do we get back to some sense of change that you wish to see in the world? Yeah, I mean, for me.

I think it all comes back to Christ, you know, like.

I hate to throw stones, but I'll pick one up and throw it right now. It seems like the worst.

The most, I'm trying to see, want to say this, like the most severe people are those that are the furthest from Christ. And you can make the argument on the right of the same thing. Like just because you are a Christian doesn't mean you're following Christ. And so I think anybody that's trying to do harm to another person,

as a Christian is not following Christ. So I want to make it on both ways. There's people that have hatred towards Christ and there's people that say they follow Christ, but they're not following his practices. on the same argument of what I saying with the confirmation biases and how it just gets you to go down this road that further separates you from the opposite side.

Imagine if the other side didn't exist. If there was no Democratic party, there's just a Republican party. How far would that go before it becomes a dictatorship? Same with Democrats. If there's no Republican party, how far would that go before it's a dictatorship and everything that the socialists organized? Honestly, we would turn into a communist country. So I think that it's healthy to have opposing opinions because it keeps us centered.

Like in order for us to continue operating as a sophisticated society, we need those different, differing opinions, which is why we have Congress set up the way it is. It's so that the, the representatives are bringing the beliefs of their populace, which is how they're voted into office. And which is why you have more Democrats coming out of California, Democratic politicians, which is why you have more Republicans coming out of, you know, Texas.

because they represent the general populace. And then when they go, they bring those ideas to the Congress congressional floor and they debate them and they go back and forth and then they come to agreements or not, which brings us to a government shutdown. But that's another note. ⁓ and, I think it's a healthy, good system. I think we need opposing opinions. So the same as, you know, ⁓ I've heard a lot of people talking about, ⁓ in marriage, like,

Your wife is not supposed to agree with everything you do. she is, God created her to be your discernment. That's why women are more intuitive than men, whereas men are more impulsive. Like how bad would it be if I just impulsively went after every business idea that I thought I could without my wife's discernment? Like there's nothing to give me that balance except my wife. And I think that's true in all good things. I mean, that's my tattoo.

is the lion tiger or the dragon and the tiger, which represents the yin yang. It's all about balance. Like you can't have any one party rule for too long of a time. And we haven't in our country's history, we've never had a long period where one ⁓ party controlled the house, the Senate and the presidency. There's always been balance of back and forth. And as society grows and changes, those opinions grow and change. But I feel like they're growing further and further apart. And then it's a tug of war.

where we're not discussing the topics with open minds and giving people the right to disagree. It's if you don't agree with me, then you just cut off. And I don't think that's healthy. So it's two parties better than three, four or five parties. I mean, I don't think that it would be as productive to have like you're talking about if we had four or five parties that were all equally, ⁓ equally yoked. Yeah, I mean.

however it divides out. don't know. I don't think that we would function as well with that. I I do think it's good to have, you know, we have the green party, we have the tea party, we have the whatever other small independent party. But I think that it's, I think we're too far along in this two party politics for those to get any real traction. So I don't think, I don't know what the effect of that would be. mean, I'm not a political science major, but.

I think that the two party politics creates that tug of war that keeps us centered. Gotcha. So I kind of want to go back to the hate speech conversation. We kind of went off from it. Do you think something's hate speech or do you think it's just? An opinion. Yeah, stupid opinion. Yeah. mean, we saw this really get feet with the social media stuff.

Social media, again, a private platform. I guess it's open to the public, but it is a private company. Facebook, Twitter, whatever else, they're all privately held companies, which they have terms of service that they can restrict certain things. So when Facebook is taking down posts that they don't agree with, that's within their right, because you don't have to use their platform. But with them having such a big impact on

society, should they be allowed to take things down or are those types of posts protected by the first amendment? That's, I think that's a really tough question and it's gone through Congress multiple times. I mean, they've had several congressional hearings. You've seen clips of Mark Zuckerberg on there a bunch of times. And I don't know. I don't think that we can restrict a private company from setting their own policies. Just like in my company, if I say, you know, when you're at a

a customer's location, I don't want you cussing, know, some just stuff like that. I don't want to break ties that could affect our ability to bring an income. You can tell your plumbers, like, I don't want you guys smoking at people's houses, know, stuff like that.

The whole swearing thing, it's like, that protected under freedom of speech? No, because they are an employee to my company. So it's like, yes, there are human rights, there's the constitutional rights, and then there's the rights of the employee. Like they don't have to be an employee with me. You want your freedom of speech to go swear at customers and go work for someone else. Yeah, I I guess.

Just as you're speaking, I'm thinking about it, but. If someone curses you, do you have the ability to like, can you just punch him in face? No, but if someone calls you a racist name, can you just punch him in the face? But there are cases of swearing at someone that are verbal assault. So at what point does speech become assault? Yeah, I think you can on a cop if you. Or rude to cop, there's some stupid law if you threaten someone.

And you say, I'm going to do X. That's assault. That's the way I see it. But just expressing an opinion, like someone says, I think that Trump's a racist. That's that's a clip that part, too. Well, I mean, that is an opinion, though, because at that point you're saying, think. Trump is a Nazi. He has to be stopped at all costs is is not an opinion. You're stating a fact you are.

by saying he has to be stopped at all costs, you're spinning somebody up. And I think you know that. And that's where my. So it's like if we were outside a bank and I said they got a lot of money in there, someone should probably go go steal it. Am I now an accomplice if that guy goes in and robs the bank? Yeah, I mean, I would say so. So how is that any different from these politicians? That's my point. It's like.

It's not just the politicians like the news anchors and stuff like that. And people on social media get in their echo chamber and start saying it. And, know, ⁓ yeah, I mean, it goes both ways. just trumps and Nazis. Easy button, because every every time you turn on the TV, you hear it So, yeah. And I don't I don't know enough about the law system to know what the legal answer is on that. But ethical and moral answer.

I think that they are absolutely accomplice in it. If they are going to continue to, like you said, spin people up and get them to do these acts of violence, I think that they need to be held accountable for that as well. I don't know what that looks like, but I do agree that if you are at all fueling that fire, then you are as much as an accomplice as someone who, you know, help dig a hole to hide a body. Like that's, that's how bad I see it. Yeah, I definitely agree. But

when they're the ones making the laws, how do you stop them? Well, this is the same. I know this is completely off topic, but the same with the bill that they introduced to restrict congressional members ability to trade in public or in stocks. Yeah. Yeah. I completely agree with that. I don't think it'll ever pass. Even if, I mean, it would take all of the people, the population.

to hold their local public official accountable and say, if you don't vote for this, then we're going to remove you from your seat before we'll ever see that happen. But it impacts them. Like I think that if you want to invest in, in, um, what do call them? Not mutual funds, but yeah. ETFs, EFTs, ETFs, it's a blend of companies and stuff and sectors and stuff like that, then great by all means.

But I don't think it's okay for someone that has knowledge that isn't openly available to the public, Nancy Pelosi, to go buy shares in the company. know that there's a bill coming out that's going to negatively affect Facebook. Yep. And so you sell your Facebook stock. vice versa. I believe that's insider trading. And if we were to do that based on information that we knew that wasn't open to the public, we'd be in prison. So I don't get how they can get away with it except for the fact that they're the ones who are making the laws.

So I really hope that we see some change that, it's gonna take the entire population holding their public officials accountable. Now, at the same time, does it really affect me? No. I mean, but I don't think it's right. No, I mean, I guess it does affect you because then it goes to power and influence. But it's like the whole question of how does a politician that makes

$250,000 a year go in with a net worth of zero and 20, 30 years after being in office, they come out with $300 million net worth. That math doesn't check. Really good returns. Yeah. Yeah. Three, about 3000 % annual returns. That's seems legit. So

He's kind of going on that same rabbit hole. What can we do? What can be done? ⁓

to help us as a nation. How can we get back to some sort of normal? Love your neighbor. I mean, I think that the open collaboration of ideas is good. It's productive. There's things that I might've... I remember seeing a post a while back that was like, check your convictions. And constantly the best way to grow is to...

evaluate the things that you are sold on. I mean, it goes back to quote I've said on here before, but, um, I'll paraphrase it cause I won't get it right, but we question everything except for our true beliefs and we never think to question those. I mean, it's basically what you're saying is like, these are my core beliefs and you never even think to question them. But I you should question everything like,

Why do I believe this? ⁓ Why is this true to me? Well, it's, I remember, you know, Bert, ⁓ Bert Kreischer, the comedian shirtless comedian, the machine guy, he, had a speech and normally I don't, I don't think twice about the stuff he posts cause he's, I mean, he's a comedian, so they're not the most serious people, but one of the best things that I've ever heard him say was he's, ⁓ he said he was asked, would you ever cheat on your wife?

And he's like, absolutely not. And he's like, and you know how I know that is because I've imagined a life that I don't get to snuggle up with my kids and my wife in bed. And I don't ever want to choose that life. So I've already made that conscious decision that that is, that's a core value of mine, that I would never jeopardize that. And so I think that that kind of goes along with checking your convictions is like, those are things that like my mind will never change on.

And I can't think of any... I mean, my religious beliefs are that certain. But my political beliefs, I don't have any strong conviction in that that can't be changed if I see evidence otherwise. So should your religious beliefs dictate your political beliefs or should they be separate? I think they're separate. Why? Well, I mean, I think that...

we can generally speak that one side of politics, maybe leans has a higher percentage of religious people than the other. Doesn't mean that that's- But our country was founded on religious freedom, Christian religious freedom specifically. Out of the 13 original colonies, I I get these numbers wrong, but like nine of them, you had to be a Protestant. You couldn't even be a Catholic. One of them, you could be a Catholic and vote.

And the other three, I think, were just open. I think it's separate. I think that if a Muslim is Republican or is a Democrat, it does not matter. And that's not what I'm getting at. Sorry. I'm saying should your religious beliefs. Is there anything wrong with you're a Christian and so you're Republican? Like, no, usually Charlie Kirk as an example. I've seen him talking about abortion. He says that.

his religious beliefs and his political beliefs are tied, but he can make the argument separately. But is there anything wrong with them being tied together? I believe this because the Bible says so. That's what saying. So I think what that comes down to, there's the ethos and the pathos and your values. And I have a picture of it on my phone off to show it to you later. But there's a circle that starts with your values and that like showing that that is your core. And then

your values impact your opinions, which impacts your beliefs, which impacts your communication. And so I think that if we say that your religious values are the core of your opinions, then they change your beliefs and change your communication. And so if people are making decisions in government, that's coming from their core values, which if you're...

Being a Christian is your core value. It's going to impact all your decision making. And I think it should. I mean, I think that the same way that you're saying being a Christian changes how you interact day to day. Like our day to day is business is when I do a business transaction and I have the opportunity to cut a corner that might screw someone over. I'm not going to take it because of my core values. The same is true when people are making political decisions and voting on a bill. I think they should vote based on their values.

They're put into that position because of their values.

So what if their values are different? I don't know how this would work out in practice, but say you're a Democrat in Tennessee and you have different values than, I don't know if this is factual or not, I'm just making something up. But you have different values and somehow you got elected.

I guess that's my problem with what you said and just kind of as a whole, our system, you're elected to represent the people, but you can have country values in a certain area. We'll use gun control. We haven't talked about gun control in here. So you can have a different value, 90 % line up, but that one thing doesn't. just you're not voting with your constriction.

constituents. Well, I think they need to be held accountable. mean, the way that every politician votes is public information. And if you really want to see, and that's part of checks and balances is if we have an applicant come into our business that says, I'm excellent at Excel and I know how to do this, this and this and this, and then they get in, start doing the job and they don't know how to use Excel at all, I'm probably going to pull them off. Yeah, but it's a lot easier. It's a lot easier.

when you own the business versus politician that gets in there, they have the whole Republican or Democratic party behind them at that point in time. ⁓ They have power, they have influence. Like if I'm already the established person and you're the income or ⁓ the new person would come in versus, yeah, I know I was trying to deal with a new person with me. the challenger or whatever, ⁓ you're at a disadvantage automatically.

I have name recognition. I've been doing it for two, four, six years. ⁓ so it's, it's harder. And then you have to not only persuade the owner of the business, you have to persuade your whole city, county, whatever it is, making it that much harder. Yeah, I definitely, I think it's a difficult process because one, it's a, a money problem. mean, we see someone could be the absolute perfect candidate for.

for my beliefs and the populace in our area. But if you don't know about them, then, I mean, they're never gonna make it to office. part of why they raise funds, why they hire professional fundraisers is so that they can get more exposure. I mean, those funds go towards, you know, their rallies and their media presence and all that stuff. But if they don't get the funding, then they don't get seen, they don't get noticed. So.

I think that.

It should be the norm to hold politicians accountable. Like most people, only know about a politician's beliefs on the debate stages. Like when they go on, what's your opinion on this? What's your opinion on this? And then they talk about it and people are deciding or supposed to be deciding if this person is a good representative of my beliefs. And if they're, if they say, you know, everything right that I agree with and they get into office and their votes go opposite of the things that they said.

then they should not be getting re-elected just because they're popular. So that's the way that the system is designed to work. Designed. Designed. ⁓ currently implemented. So and maybe it takes a platform that comes out and I know there's already some websites like that that show just a general how did my politician vote on these ideas? Yeah, but people are too busy in their own lives.

No one.

People wake up, they get ready for work, they go to work for eight hours, they come home, they have either social life if they're not married, they have, you know, in my case, wife and kids, we got sports, we got activities, all this stuff. Who has time? If I had an app that gave me a notification every time, I don't know whose our politicians we have I have no idea. It used to be Ben Sasse and Ricketts, Pete Ricketts, right?

So if I got a notification every time, because I don't even know what half the things they're voting on are. Like I don't, I don't keep up with it enough. But if I got a notification saying bill, whatever was voted on today, this is how Pete Ricketts voted. Like he voted yay and whatever. Then I could open it up and more more. bills are fricking 8,000 pages long. How do you even know? Like they bury everything in there. I just, I'm going off on a tangent to the whole systems. But

just knowing how they're voting on these things and I could be a more informed voter on the next election. And because, you know, it's kind of, I forget about it. Don't really think much of it. I just trust that they're doing that. And I keep bringing it back to business, but at the same is true. It's like when you hire on an employee and I'm just trusting that they're doing everything right, but I never go back and check on them. Then I have no idea if they're doing jobs, you know, the job, the way that I hired them to do it. Yeah.

And that's a good, I think it's a good analogy comparing the business to the politicians because they're public servants. They're meant to be. They're in the business of politicians or political business. Right. But they work for the people. So if they're not working for the people, then they're not doing their job. Well, now we're doing their job. Well, not right now when they're not getting paid. Oh, they're getting paid. Don't you worry about that. It's always in the footnotes.

Government shutdown, no service members, no post offices, but let's make sure we still get our... Yeah, they're not worried about not getting paid. ⁓

Going back to initial thing, it means we went off on our tangent, what... Tangent Tuesdays. You're pretty broad when asked this the first time, like, love your neighbor, but how can someone, what's a tactical, practical thing someone can do to open up this discussion on both sides to get out of their echo chamber and try to make this world a better place?

I mean, I think that the simplest answer is the right answer. Like it's not a complex thing is if you and I disagreed on something and we just stop being friends because we disagreed on something that's not loving your neighbor, you know, like it is perfectly normal to disagree on things. And I think it's if we look at it as more of a positive, it's the whole iron sharpens iron thing. doesn't mean that, you know,

If I only hang out with people who confirm, who support the confirmation bias, like I think in order to be chiseled and to be the most well-rounded you can be, you need to be around people who disagree with you. And I mean, in the men's group stuff, you're in a room with 12 guys that all have different life experience, have...

different levels of wealth, different levels of marriage, of parenting, all this stuff. And it's a sounding board to chisel away as I'm trying to develop my business. And I think that that's productive because most of them don't handle things the way that I would handle it. But I know that their values all stem from their Christianity. And so I'm in a room where the chisels that they have and how it's impacting me and my business is aligned with where I want to get to.

So I think that's an example of a collaboration of ideas that is productive. Where's it break down at though? Why can't we not do that? As a society? Yeah, as an individual, how come you can't do that? Like screw society, how come you can't do that?

I think people take offense too easily. think that if you look at how people break out and get defensive. I'll back off to what I'm getting at, guess, is there's Ryan Holiday has the book, ego is the enemy. And at the end of the day, that's what it comes down to. It's your own ego, it's your own pride. It's taking your right. I think that the most absolute, most destructive thing is

the people that are 100 % confident about something that is not true. Yeah. I tell my daughter that she speaks in absolutes all the time. Yeah. Absolutes. And I'm like, Alyssa, quit speaking in absolutes. Like you, when you speak in absolute, all you do is back yourself in a corner you can't get out of. so I just saying, I think this is the case. Historically, I've seen this.

Right. Like you're giving yourself an out. And my so my daughter, our 15 year old just started debate class in school. And so I've been having conversations with all the kids about the difference between objective and subjective truths. And like I can say that this wall is painted. That is objectively true. But if I say that wall is purplish.

Like you might say, well, it's actually more of a light blue. Like that is a subjective truth, right? Because your interpretation of the color, like, I think that that's where people say like, this is a wooden table. That's objective. It's a good table. That's my opinion. But if you say it's a bad table, I say it's a good table. Are we both wrong or are we both right? Like there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to an opinion. I think that's where people have this certainty about things that are subjective. And that's

If there's one snap of a finger thing that we can do is I would love for people to just understand whether they're arguing something that is absolute or subjective. Or not absolute, but objective or subjective. Yeah, and at the end of the day, why does it matter? Why does it matter what the color of the wall is? Why does it matter if this is made out of wood, iron, stone? Well, I think that... It only matters to you. It only matters to your ego.

Like, why does it matter? Like, if you tell me this is made out of stone and I know it's made out of wood, why does it matter?

Right. In examples like that, but the stuff that Charlie Kirk was debating, like abortion or gun control and stuff like that, that matters a lot. So, I mean, on the conversation of abortion, what he was really good at, and good debaters are good at that, is they start off by coming to some core agreements. Like, he would start, what is a woman? You know, so can we agree on these few things?

And then we'll go from there and we'll see where we start to differ. But he wasn't arguing with them. He was bringing him bringing them along to their to realization on their own. When you're arguing, when you say this is made of stone and I say it's made of wood. And I'm arguing with you. That's where the conversation breaks down. So when he would start by saying, what is a woman? Then he would start to get into he would he would come to some.

those core beliefs of where can we agree on, where are we on the same page? And then he would take it a step further, step further and see where the disconnect came from. And not disconnect saying that, you know, someone is completely wrong, but see where we start to disagree. And he would say, where do you believe that life starts? Cause he believes that it starts at conception. And some people would say, well, I believe it's not a baby until three months, or I believe it's not a baby till it's born. And so then he'd be like, okay, so that's where we disagree.

And so then he can start to object to them, give his beliefs. because they would say, it's not a baby until it's born, like until the day it's born, the baby can be aborted. ⁓ maybe the, they say the embryo can be aborted. And so he will debate that by saying, so a fully formed baby, the only difference is they're inside the uterus, looks just like a baby, like comes out the next day and it's a baby. You're saying the day before you can still kill it.

And so that's where he would find the disagreements. And I think that that form of dialogue is productive because you can find where the disconnects are. Like I believe that a baby is a baby from conception. But does that make it objectively true that a baby is like that? It's hard to find an objective truth. And that's my point. And when it comes to something like that, you're never going to change somebody's opinion. Like if someone says,

It's not a baby till the moment it breathes oxygen. You think it's at conception. You're not going to like something in their life has to change their their viewpoint. Right. You're not going to do it. And that's and that's. I guess kind of my point is at that point in time, if you're arguing with that person, your opinion versus their opinion. All that is is your ego. And the same is true about the Second Amendment conversation like.

People that are for the second amendment believe that everyone's right to protect themselves, which you know, the whole thing about protect yourselves from a tyrannical government, but protect yourselves in general with firearms shall not be infringed. And they believe that if more people were armed, then there would be less people committing crimes because the ones that do, you know, are held accountable very quickly for their actions. The other side of it is just the existence of guns is dangerous to people.

And if we just got rid of them, then violence wouldn't be a problem anymore. And those two, like there is no middle ground there. Like there's no way to just change those opinions because they are so far and you need to go back to the values of why they believe that. But people just go right to the end argument, which I mean, there's no way to change an opinion on that. Yeah. mean, but, it's even hard to find facts now because they're

you can find scientific research that supports whatever belief. So where do you bring supporting evidence? Because I can go out, I can find a news article that says, you know, more deaths are caused by, you know, car crashes than whatever. But I can also find one that says that guns kill more people than what, like you can find anything to support your opinion. So I think that, like I said, going back to the circles,

is starting with the values and then going to the opinions and the beliefs and the communication. No. So, but I still want to hear what you have to say before we close out on when does speech become harmful.

I guess when you're threatening somebody.

whether it's overtly or covertly. When you're, when you're

affecting human life or someone's ability to live life. I think that's where it breaks down. There was a guy I followed years I think I should be able to call you whatever stupid name I come up with. don't have to hang out with me. Actually, I saw a video last night of, I don't know, Salma Hayek or some Hispanic actress that was saying, if I was to

to call you all kinds of names in Spanish, you would just sit there unaffected. I could call you whatever I want and it wouldn't bother you at all because they're just words. It's like, but.

it's you who takes offense to it. Cause if I call you all those names in English, you're to be offended. And so if you brush off everything as if they're saying it in another language, then that's the best way to grow from it. But the, followed this guy many years ago and he just had a sick sense of humor. Like it was always had raunchy jokes and all this stuff. And someone asked him like, Oh, don't you worry about offending people? And he's like, I feel like as a comedian,

If you say everything is funny up to here, then you're a hypocrite because if your line in the sand is here and someone makes a joke here and you're saying you can't say that, then you're a hypocrite because you're offending everyone that has a line shorter than yours. And so he just chooses not to draw a line. And I agree with that to a point, but I think that that's just because I won't make any jokes that go past here because that's where my ethical boundaries are.

and someone else chooses to go over here, it does not affect me. I continue living your life. You want to call me whatever you want. Fine. Still a joke. It just doesn't have to be funny. Exactly. Shakespeare quote from Hamlet. Basically saying nothing is either positive or negative. It's our thinking that makes it so. Same thing with words. Words are neither positive nor negative. They neither have the ability to build up or tear down.

It's our thinking that makes them so. Right. So if you think, you think a word is good, it'll make you feel a certain way. If you think of words, bads make you feel a certain way. I'll mess with my wife with this. Like she'd be like, love you. And I won't say anything. She'll be like, love you. And I won't say anything. She's like, I told you, love you. I'm like, why'd you tell me you love me? I thought it was for me. Like, why are you telling me you love me? Like, are you saying it for you? Cause you just want me to hear it. Like.

So it's like words, we look for a meaning in them or someone to say something like she wants to hear it. So my wife is Hawaiian Puerto Rican and I choose life. I'm not going to play that game, yeah, she is pretty mad. But yeah, I mean, it's true though, like.

Why do we say words is because it means something to us. Like that person is being mean to you because it makes them feel a certain way has nothing to do with you. It has to do with something on the inside of them. And so going back to religion and like they have a God sized hole in their heart that only he can feel. and for the people that are watching politicians go and argue on, you know, on camera and they say nasty things about the other side and all this stuff.

I hope everybody knows that as soon as those cameras are off, those guys are buddies. They go out and grab a beer after. They don't care. Like it's all for the limelight. And after that, that's where it lays. But everyone else back home watching is fired up, ready to put on their gear because they think of everything as like... ⁓

hero and villain story. And my side is the heroes and their side is the villains. And when the people on the pedestal say this thing, it's our, you know, we got to take action. And I think it's ridiculous. So I think as a society, we need to be more realistic with one, not holding politicians on the pedestal. And the people too. And celebrities, especially, I don't think I think celebrities get way too much credit for it.

There's way too much access to influence people's opinions.