Welcome to Pub Porch, Applied Stoicism in Modern Life. Hosted by Adam Pearcy and Mick Mulroy. Okay, we are back here on Pub and Porch Applied Stoicism with Mick Mulroy and myself, Adam Pearcy. We're here to talk about Stoicism and applying it to modern life. And uh in modern life, this last little bit of time, there's been uh a lot of dialogue around the idea of freedom of speech. Now, uh Mick and I, Mick, you and I both come from Western nations. I'm Canadian, you're American, and uh freedom of speech in many ways is something we I don't know if I'd say we take for granted, but we'd say it's quite deeply ingrained in the fabric of our societies, both in in the Constitution of Canada as well as in the Constitution of the United States, of course. So, but right now it feels a little bit like freedom of speech is under I don't want to say under siege because that sounds like it's a war, but I think there's been some recent steps taken um that have made it seem like freedom of speech is is uh is on precarious footing. Um so um we talked a little bit beforehand about some stuff you wanted to walk us through with at the beginning. So I think I'm just gonna stop talking and and give you the floor to introduce our subject a little bit more today.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and uh freedom of speech is something we can't take for granted, but we kind of should be able to do it, right? Because it's ingrained in in my constitute or the constitution of the United States. It's ingrained in many declarations of human rights around the world. Uh, it's ingrained in many conventions of United Nations, and uh and it's something that's absolutely paramount to a free society and democracy. Uh I am about to head tomorrow from uh where I am in Montana to uh New York City for UNGA, where I'll be there for a bunch of uh General Assembly for those that aren't familiar with it every year. Uh and I start with that because I wanted to read some stats that I looked up and validated. Uh because this isn't just about this this show, certainly isn't just about the US and Canada or our specific issues. So over the past decade, according to speech rights have been eroding in many countries, according to one study. 5.6 billion people, and there's 8.2 billion people, I believe, in 77 countries have been have seen declines in freedom of expression. Only about 300 million in 15 countries saw uh freedom of speech improve. So more than half of the world's population, 53 percent, now live in countries where freedom of expression and information are in what's called by uh this group that follows it, a crisis. So in as this is stoicism and how it applies to issues, I think it's clear to me that stoicism in many of its facets, uh certainly wisdom, right? You can't you can't actually learn things without an open uh discussion, for example, uh really emphasizes the need, the the basic core need for people to be able to speak uh and be heard, uh not to be told they're right, um in a democratic society where people are supposed to be uh participatory in their government, which is what a democracy is. So I'd like to start with uh one uh quote. It's from Epictetus' Discourses uh 2.17. How do we discover the truth? By dialogue, by testing each impression, by reasoning together, right? So freedom of expression requires uh that you do that, and therefore it should be part of any society. And we're seeing this in several factors, right? We're seeing it uh just to highlight on both sides uh a lot of groups on the right complain about laws that are being passed in Europe that are specifically about social media and what you can and can't post. Um, going beyond, you know, you can't just post to go do violent things, because that's obviously not protected speech, and my uh understanding. And I I do have a law degree, by the way, and I did teach constitutional law. I'm not saying I'm a scholar, but my understanding, um, all the everywhere around the world, if you're trying to talk somebody into or calling for violence against a person that's not protected speech, but you can have obnoxious views, you can have views that are really appalling. Um in fact, that's what freedom of speech is supposed to protect, because you don't need to protect popular speech.
SPEAKER_02Right. You know what I mean?
SPEAKER_01Right? You don't need the protection. So um there are groups, many groups on the right, that think, and especially when it comes to immigration and the issues that are that are going on in these countries, that the government, uh, the liberal government, is using um their ability to curtail their speech. Here uh recently, um there are questions in the United States about actually yanking um networks licenses, because you know, this is kind of a leftover from times gone past, where the government actually had to give you a license to be on the air. Um yanking the license specifically because the um the perception that they're newscasts are not positive uh toward elected officials, which is the most important speech to protect. Like when you can't criticize those that have power, um then you are really in what the group that studied this worldwide call a crisis. And this, just like the trend in autocracies versus democracies is going in the wrong direction, as one would guess, so is freedom of speech. Because you can't you can't exist in an autocracy where everybody has a freedom of speech, at least not for long. That's the first thing any totalitarian-driven uh leadership would try to curtail is your ability to criticize them. So it's a it's a very big problem. Uh I and that's that's how I see the problem that's existing on both sides, and something that people need to start um talking back against. And last point before we get into the application of stoicism, I'd say, is if you consider yourself a proponent of freedom of speech, you can't just be outraged about the speech that's being curtailed on your side or you. You have to be an advocate for anybody's ability to say what they would like without the government interfering. Yes, people cannot buy your product if they don't like you. That's certainly, but the government is the issue here. And you have to be willing, I think, certainly to be a good stoic, but just a good participant in democracy, willing to stand up for the other person's ability to speak, even if it's counter to your position, even if you find it um obnoxious, right? Yeah, uh, if you don't, then you're really not a prone of free speech. You're just a person who wants to be your views to be heard, and you only get outrage when they're curtailed.
SPEAKER_02Absolutely. And I mean, you know, it is it is one of those sort of common mindsets that you're protecting everyone else's right to do this because you're also protecting your own, right? It is a it is a a simple fact of being a citizen in a in a society that you have to make sure that you are um resolving yourself to the vigilance you must carry out, um, regardless of whether it benefits you or not, sometimes, right, in that moment. Uh, because at some point it may it may be the one thing that you rely on. Um, I should say, in um in the constitutional monarchy, that is Canada, right, in the parliamentary um activities that happen, our parliament returns to um returned to Parliament Hill this this week, basically. And we have something called question period, which is literally where two people face off at least at a minimum, which is the leaders um are questioned by the House of Commons, where all of the elected politicians are, right? And um it's like the Brits. That's possible. Yeah, is that well yeah, it's a yeah, we have a parliamentary bill buildup like that. So yes, you're right, it's like the Brits. And so we did question period this past week. It was interesting because you know the news plays it up like it's you know, two gigans throwing barbs, right? And you're like, well, yeah, but it's like, you know, it's two, it's two politicians, like they're nerds, right? It's fine. You know, but the interesting thing is is that like it is it is literally like you have the government and you have the opposition, right? You have the and they they are literally opposed to each other in some on a lot of these views. And and and you know, that's a core part of how this works. I mean, even I I know like I went to an American international high school when I was in the UK, so I know a little bit more about the US government process and the parliamentary actions they take there. You know, bills go through debate, they go through committees, they get talked about all over the place, right? And if we don't have this freedom to disagree, um, we lose um, I think objectivity, but also I think we lose um the verification of things being correct. And I think that's where we're probably going to talk about it as we go forward, but I think if we don't have that, if we don't have that discussion, um we are we are worse off. Um but we do have to protect it. I think that's a key thing that you're talking about. And the Stoics would always say, like, you're protecting it because like you're you're protecting it for it's well, if I were to just straight up quote Marcus and say what's good for the hive is good for the bee, like it is good for the hive to check and balance these things with freedom of speech and freedom to disagree. And so, you know, having only one viewpoint has never worked for anybody, so let's not go down that path, right?
SPEAKER_01And I think that's that's kind of where we are, yeah, and a close, attached uh right uh to freedom of speech is freedom of the press, right? Because the press has to have the ability to report the news as they see it. And I would agree with I think everybody now that sees um political bias on in a lot of the reporting on both sides, right? Um but they have a right to be that, you know. And if you are a person who likes MSMB, well let's use US uh MSMBC, you should be okay with people and want to ensure that Fox News uh also has the right to be to deliver the news the way they want to, and vice versa. Right? And and then and the reason why it's so closely attached is the whole job of the media is to expose the truth and to report it and to hold those in power accountable. Um that is why they are so closely tied to freedom of speech and why it's so important that they have the ability, without government interference, um to carry on without uh without fear of reprisal. Now, you know, the co-canceled culture, that's another part of this. I'm not a supporter of the canceled culture, at least what I the way I understand it. But you have a right, if you don't like what the CEO of a company said, um not to purchase that person's product anymore, even though that you know it has nothing to do with his political or her political views. But that's fine because you're a citizen, you're not the government, right? So you can you can you can do that. That's I mean, I don't, but um, people can, of course. Yeah, but that's again, when it comes to the constitutional form of freedom of speech, and I think in every country that has it, it's focused on the government's ability, right? Like in the United States, we have a constitution that enumerates the powers of the federal government. And then the 10th Amendment says anything that's not enumerated to the federal government is left to the states. Uh, and then, of course, the Bill of Rights, which is the first part of the amendments, is all about what the government can't do to people, right? Because people had lived in a monarchy uh that could do whatever it wanted until they broke free. So they spent a lot of time, and that's you know, even the Second Amendment, right? What you know, we're not talking about guns today, but even the Second Amendment was about the citizens' ability to have some kind of counterbalance to the government itself.
SPEAKER_02Right.
SPEAKER_01Right? It's really not about hunting, for example. It's about uh, you know, uh having the ability to defend yourself as a group. Uh the ability to speak your mind is mostly focused on the ability to speak truth to power. And of course, and the limitations are about their ability to make you stop. Okay. So I would hope that everybody doesn't just say, because everybody says, yeah, of course I believe in freedom of speech, because just to be to be frank, you sound like a moron if you don't. But you actually have to do it. And what I mean do it is you have to defend everybody's. So if you're if you're okay with the government coming after your political enemies, you are not for freedom of speech if you're whether no matter what side you are. It has to be more than just, of course, I like apple pie and I like freedom of speech. That's what I mean by you'd be a moron if you didn't agree to it. It's just it can't just be a throwaway um tagline. Right. If if it erodes, it erodes entirely. It is happening in the other places of the world. So those of you who are lucky enough to live in modern democracies need to see that, hopefully, help the people push back against it in other places, but realize that this freedom is not necessarily permanent for you. You have to defend your own rights and the rights of others. And I think Stoic opposition, right? So that's a great example we can use um through the tyranny of many uh you know Roman emperors, Nero, for example, and there's you could go down the list, where Stoics, although it wasn't really a wasn't like a political movement necessarily, right? We we call it that now, but it was Stoics that were willing to stand up to the tyranny based on Stoic principles, right? That's why they were aligned, uh, some of whom you know were exiled, some of whom were executed because there was no freedom of speech back then. But they insisted on still speaking their mind and talking truth to power.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. Yeah, so the Stoic opposition is a good one to bring up because this is not the first time we've had people make a stand um against um the acts of people that are definitely not, they're definitely pushing the boundaries of of you know legality for both human rights or you know just government civil rights, right? And the Stoic Opposition, it's interesting because it's a it's not a term they used in the time period. The Stoic Opposition term came out in the 19th century. But um the Stoic opposition as a group, right, they were particularly against Nero and Domitian, who were Roman emperors. And Nero is, you know, usually people talk about Nero because Rome burns and Nero fiddles, and you know, it's like very much a an autocrat with ultimate power, right? But the Stoics, I think, you know, it's it's calm, it's commonly, excuse me, it's commonly said, right, that the Stoics would always have stood up for stuff like this because when you look at our core values, right? Wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance, right? Uh temperance I don't know that really applies in this in the freedom of speech discussion, but you know, uh courage and justice absolutely would, right? Because like one of the key things about justice is it's benevolence towards others, right? And goodwill and magnanimity towards others. But I think, you know, we've always talked about it as well in this idea of it's like treating others the way you would want to be treated. So if you see some, if you see that someone is being treated in a way where they are being muffled, they are being muzzled, right? Then you get into this thing where you go, I don't want to be treated like that. I don't think that's right. And I do think that there's a courage that takes place there, which comes from justice of just saying, you know, this is not the way to treat somebody, and we shouldn't be doing that. But it can it does come with this core understanding of what do we mean by freedom of speech, right? Like you already said it before, like no one should be allowed to call for violence against others. And then some people would say, well, if I want freedom of speech, then I have to be able to, you know, show terrible things to kids or something like that. I'm like, okay, well, that's not the same thing. But those are sort of straw-mane arguments, right? That that that that fall apart when you really look at it from the perspective of like, no one's wanting to damage anybody. We're just saying that like, you know, hiding the differing points of view of any kind, um, they sort of remove the the quality of truth in that in that discussion. When you're not allowed to bring that forward, I think. But yeah, but the stoic opposition absolutely is a great great thing nowadays. And I think we see that today, right? Where you have people that are standing out there and I think going away from political lines and saying, this is not this thing that's happening is not right, and we have to do something about it. And we and you know, I I do think like um there's an interesting thing about obligation. Like, if you're a stoic, are you obligated to do something here? And I would say, well, we're not like an organization, like we don't we don't have actions you must take if you choose to call yourself such. We're not like a professional organization in that way, but it's definitely um there's a there's a there's an obligatory sort of note to a lot of what we're doing that as members of the hive, which is the you know, polis, back in the day it was a polis, right? It was a city-state, and now it's a you know, the hive is the society in which we're in, like you have certain responsibilities you must carry out, right? And you know, the key ones here are uh go always back to the key stoic tenets, right? And we have to carry those out.
SPEAKER_01So yeah, and I mean I agree that courage, justice, um I think all of them, wisdom, even temperance, right? Temperance is more about how you conduct your freedoms or your ability to speak, it's more about being civil with one another. But the first three for sure go toward uh a need in how one stoic would go about exercising their freedom of speech. Courage is certainly the ability to stand up for it, yeah. Right, and and again, it's it's easy to agree with popular speech, and certainly popular speech you agree with. You have to be willing to stick up for the obnoxious speech, right? So there's a lot of laws in Europe that says you can't deny the Holocaust. Well, I mean, obviously that's obnoxious. History is very clear of what happened, that there was a Holocaust, and six million Jewish people were um killed ruthlessly. But if soon as you start saying things like you can't say it, right, um that's a slippery slope, right? Because then what's next after that? So it's it's it's deemed obnoxious. I'm just using that because it's an extreme example. It's deemed obnoxious by almost everybody, right? Except for, well, I don't know. Um but then the next step is okay, well, he didn't say that, but he said something else that was close to it was obnoxious. And then you wake up one morning and then your speech is so curtailed that um you let it go, right? Because you weren't you essentially lost lost the your uh focus. So what I'm saying is it's it's always better, and there's many quotes, so I think there's one from Kennedy that I wish I would remember right now, to let people talk and then let other people answer.
SPEAKER_02Yes.
SPEAKER_01Like you are wrong, and this is the reason why you were wrong. So every time you say that, you're spreading you know disinformation or whatever. But when you come after them and say, because you said that, you create a whole conspiracy theory cyclone uh on the oppression of uh that is is not helpful, and it does, I think, start creating, and I think we already saw it in Europe where all of a sudden then you're you you move toward where you can't say anything negative about uh the the laws on immigration because then you're you're like being a Nazi.
unknownRight.
SPEAKER_01You know, like it just gets it just gets further from it, and it's like, no, actually, why don't you have the ability to make your argument rather than try to quash their ability to even speak their argument? Yeah. That shows that your argument is uh pretty weak in my estimation. So once again, you have to be willing to stick out for both both your positions and other.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, and I would agree with that, uh, you know, and I would I would discuss it from the point of view of like um if we go all the way back to the beginning, right, the progenitor of Stoicism would be Socrates, is what they would say, right? You know, like a Socratic father, yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So the God the the Godfather essentially, you know, creates this method of being able to say, how do I how do I know whether something's right or not, right? Like I'm gonna come up with a premise and I'm gonna start to look for evidence that that both and the interesting point is I'm not looking for evidence of my premise being true. I'm looking for evidence in the circumstance, right? I'm looking for evidence that proves it or disproves it or changes it, right? And um, you know, that's where I think a lot of this freedom of speech basically comes in and how you can think of it as useful. Like I've cited this example before, but it's a good one. In the space program, when the Apollo program was kicking off, uh there was a big accident called Apollo, one more or three astronauts died, and then they revamped the program, and one thing they brought in was something called the change control board, the CCB. And we still have CCBs today in the space program, it's a very common thing. And the CCB is basically you show up and you say, I have a change to the design I would like to make because of X, Y, and Z. And then everybody in the room is there to agree with you or disagree with you or literally tear it apart. And the goal is not to shred somebody. That's not what we're there to do. What we are there to do is debate the benefits, the drawbacks, the pros and cons of this so that we get to the right answer, right? And so um I would agree with you that what you said, right, you know, you what you used as an example was obnoxious. But at the same time, we gain nothing by shutting it down. We gain more by having the discourse to say, well, you are wrong because, right? Like it was it's an interesting, I can't remember if it was George Carlo or something like that, but they're like, You're you have the right to say whatever you want, but I'm allowed to also tell you when you're totally batshit crazy, right? Yeah, right. That's right. And we and we need that, we actually need that discussion, right? Like as human beings, right? If we going back to you know the ancient Greeks, which which which it's just a good example because of for people who had a limited view of what they could find because they were limited by the technology of their time, like to come up with the term atom, right? And if we never changed that viewpoint ever, right, like we never get nuclear electricity, right? We never get um, we never get uh an understanding of how the sun works, right? You you get stuck in this mindset of like, once you have an atom, there's nothing else, right? And by somebody asking the question, which at the time, many people discussing atomic theory, you know, they said, no, no, the atom is it. You can't do anything with the atom. And then all of a sudden, some I'll say obnoxious person comes along and says, but I can break it apart and look at all the energy that's created. Now, yes, it's very destructive. I'm not gonna get into that part, but ultimately, you know, if people didn't say the other thing, right, if people didn't say the other thing that everyone thought was untrue, right, they would never have changed anything. And I'll say one last obnoxious thing, and I'm using tech because tech is something that I know a lot about in the medical world, right? The person who invented basically the basis for modern sanitary practices, washing your hands, using gloves, using a mask, he was left out of for his profession. It's a Hungarian man, and I can't remember his name right now, of course, but he was a Hungarian man and he came up with the idea that that doctors were killing their patients essentially because they weren't washing their hands enough and they were breathing, and that you know, you'd have a major surgery, and they would the surgery would be go great, but they would still die. And they're like, what's going on? And the doctors were make he was basically driven out of his profession by his fellow doctors, right? But we know now that he was correct. And if he had never brought that up, like how much longer would we have gone without understanding like microorganisms and their effects? So it's it's it's it's it's very easy to pull this into the political spectrum of we need different points of view. But I think other people can see this in their day-to-day. And you and I have talked about this. Applying this kind of practice is a day-to-day thing, right? We're in a time period right now where there are very acute issues that are huge, right? You've highlighted some of them politically going on. But at the same time, I think you have to bring it. The Stoic opposition brought it into their every day that they had to discuss these things, that there couldn't be autocratic control of speech and whatnot. And I think that's that's why I like to cite these examples because we think of this as something tiny, and you cited it where you go, yeah, fine, whatever, just block that speech or whatever. But it builds up over time and it becomes something much much later that uh we probably didn't want it to be, right? Like no one wants to show terrible things to kids, but um, but you know, letting that's harmful, right? That's harmful, but getting into the point where you it's it's all these things where people are like, wait, that's like some of the book bands. We were talking about this last weekend, I think, a weekend before about book bands, right? Some of the thing about book bands, it's like, wait, that's on the list, and then you start to realize that like they've added 5,000 books to the list. You know, it's like Clifford the big red dog is on the list. It's right, it's like, what the heck? It isn't, it isn't. This is a dumb example, but so yeah.
SPEAKER_01Well, it's a book ban, like the book ban, I think if you remember what we did, we we read through some of the books that were banned, and they're like the most significant literary works in history, right? Well, the same thing's true of uh particularly scientists that were restricted again by the state. It's always about, or in in in in some cases by the church, which was functionally the state, right? So in it, and it's particularly science when it comes to um space, right? Um what the sun is, what the moon is. I mean, everything and how many scientists were not only restricted by the church state, were executed for keeping saying it. And then if you look back in history, there's some of the most significant advancements of science uh that led us to where we are today. And the first, the person who actually had the guts to say it, because it was against you know the perception of the church's view of the universe, um did it at their own peril. So in many ways, keeping the uh citizens' right to have the ability to express themselves is a lineage that we can't give up. It's not just for today, but it's been hard fought through, uh particularly in the Western uh civilization, uh, to get to where we are today, uh, and many people have lost their life for. And whether it's you know people who marched in Selma uh or these ancient scientists we're just referring to, uh, that, you know, from Galileo uh to many others, Copernicus, who had the not only this the intelligence and the foresight to see something others did not, but the courage to say it even though they knew it was going to be consequential to them personally.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. And when somebody says something like that, right? Like the trick is like if it's wrong, we should be able to debate it. We should be able to say yes or no. And you know, the thing about Copernicus is like, because I because I don't want, I think you and I would both say people can say whatever they want, but you also can be proven wrong. And one of the reasons why Copernicus saying what he said is very important is because he I think he knew people were gonna say that he was wrong, but he was kind of putting it out there as like, well, prove me, prove me incorrect. Show me how this is bad. And and I think I think it's Seneca who talks about this where he sort of says, you know, if you find something else that's better, right, go with it. He said he sort of says that because he's quoting that's almost forbidden.
SPEAKER_01Yeah.
SPEAKER_02That's right. He's quoting, he's quoting uh, he quotes a lot from Epicureans and some other some other philosophical parallel um colleagues of his that are not in the same school of thought. And he's like, Well, if you find something better, then then do that. And I think I know you know, I think for you and I, and I I'd appreciate you know, I'd appreciate if you'd correct me on this for sure, is but I understand it as you and I both think like talking about this is kind of the important thing, right? Like we're gonna we're only gonna get to the real truth if we talk about it. I think you know that's one of the reasons why we started the podcast because we weren't sure people were talking about these things.
SPEAKER_01So I found a quote. Uh I do not distinguish between you and myself. I am ready to be corrected by you, and if I am wrong, to change my opinion. That was uh the letters to Lucilius in Epistle 95, etc.
SPEAKER_02Okay.
SPEAKER_01Right.
SPEAKER_02I don't know if that was the one you're thinking of, but that yeah, that was yeah, that was one of the ones I was thinking of. There's another one though where he's talking about um Lucilius asks him, I think in the return letter, Lucilius is asking him about, yeah, but you pull from like other people, and he kind of goes, well, if they're doing it better than Stoics are, then you should like if it is better, then you should do that, right? Absolutely. And I think I think that's a really important thing to say there. But and Seneca's someone who's a high-ranking official in the Roman, in the Roman um uh government at the time. But I mean, let's let's hear I I have a quote that I I uh have always tried to remember, which is um from Marcus Marcus Aurelius. Now, I am quoting it from Pierre Hadot's book, The Inner Citadel. But basically, um Mark Marcus is essentially the the the as the emperor of Rome, he's the most powerful person in sort of a known world at the time. And he thanks people in his life, and he thanks his teacher, Claudius Severus, who who basically gave Marcus a glimpse of principles of political conduct. And so Marcus writes in Meditations, he says, he says, uh, he basically says, Thank you, thank you, Claudius, for the fact of having had a representation of a state, um, in my mind, essentially, in which the laws are equal for all, administered on the basis of equality and freedom of speech, and of a monarchy which respects the freedom of its subjects above all else. So Marcus is, he's writing, uh, he's right, or sorry, Marcus is writing to Claudius here. It's not, it's not specifically for meditations, I don't think, but he's saying he's specifically saying, freedom of speech, he's specifically saying that we need you know a monarchy that respects the freedom of its subjects, uh, which includes that equality and freedom of speech. So if we were to ask ourselves, like the most powerful stoic of in all of history, probably, what would he have said about this? This is a man who could literally like raise a town flat if he wished with the snap of his fingers, right? And that's his position on that. And you kind of go, so what's what's better? The person who says, Don't say that, cancel them, get them fired, take away their license, whichever, or the one who says, let's you, you, you know, let's have freedom of speech, let's talk about this stuff, and let's have different opinions. I mean, see the thing.
SPEAKER_01And that's what's and that was what for the most part advances society, right? It was the ability or the willingness, even if you didn't have the right, to stand up and say what you thought, whether it's advancement of science or um governance. Yeah. Now the I won't say it's the flip side, but you know, I don't also want to say that freedom of speech means everything's gonna be, you know, like sitting at the you know, Plato's Academy thinking big thoughts. Um, we have social media tied with freedom of speech, and you get a lot of BS on the airwinds that's just patently not true. Um I don't think that bodes toward not having freedom of speech, obviously. But you would hope that in this cacophony of uh information that's out there, that maybe AI would be something that could help us distinguish fact from fiction, right? Yeah. Uh more so than the current algorithms do, right? Where you have to read the little small print that I can't actually see that tells you like one commentator said this is completely not true. Like I would hope that you know, if it's completely factually inaccurate, that it would just like I don't know, turn red or something. And then I could just say I don't want to read anything red. That's an offshoot of freedom of expression. I it doesn't change, at least my position on the ability, especially for the state to like China, where they they block most of social media, and you get a social, I think it's a social like score that uh depend and and based on how good it is, i.e. the good things you say about the Chinese Communist Party, uh, you get loans, you get to get a house, to get a mortgage, you all this stuff comes with your saying nice things. It's it's it's a it's beyond just reducing your ability to speak freely. It is now promoting the state's interests by what you say, right? And then uh, but I do think that the fair point that some people say that is it's it's not all Shangri-La just because everybody can speak their mind. In fact, there's a lot of obnoxious uh untruths out there. Uh, I would say that's part of that's the that's the price you pay, so to speak. But I would also throw in there it would be nice to see, you know, AI, I'm sure, is going to do a lot of things that aren't helpful, but you would hope that it could do more toward uh seeing and identifying uh speech in the form of posts that are patently untrue. Because that is also a problem in our dialogue. It's really hard to distinguish now between what is past and fiction.
SPEAKER_02It is, yeah, but I think you know it goes back to giving yourself the you have and then you know, because the only thing we control is what we do, right? And every stoic would say that, right? So we're in a state where where in some ways we I think we've lost this ability to kind of think for ourselves in many ways. And that doesn't mean, you know, telling everybody else they're sheeple or something like that. That's not what it means. What it means is is question things when they come to you. Look at that, look at the evidence that contradicts it, look at the evidence that's for it, right? And make an informed decision and then talk about it. Because people are allowed to say whatever they want. That just means, though, that it's on your responsibility to make sure that you do your do your homework essentially on that. And I think that's really important for us. We we've talked recently about education and how you know we're teaching people to pass tests and rope memorize things. In reality, what we need people to do is think freely, and um, and part of that is the freedom of speech side of it. And we cannot think freely if we are not given free access to the opinions and data across the spectrum of the world, right? So, you know, I hope that I hope that as people listen to this, they think about ways in which they can do better when they're having these discussions to to embrace the fact that someone else saying that thing is actually a benefit to them, even if it's 100% the opposite direction of what they believe.
SPEAKER_01Yeah, and if people have the wisdom to listen to other people and change their perspective based on the facts, that's how it could happen.
SPEAKER_02Yeah, absolutely.
SPEAKER_01Right, with the ability of people to say what they want. And governments that want to take that away are taking it away to reduce your freedoms in your own society. And it is, you know, by the people and for the people. So um it is incumbent on everybody from any political side to uh to ensure that the other side has that ability maintained.
SPEAKER_02Yeah. And if someone asks why, it's because we are better off, at least in my opinion, when we have both sides of the both sides of the aisle is a political statement, but both sides of the dotted line, I think, is is probably the better way to look at it. But well, it's been an interesting week. This has been a very interesting discussion. Mick, um, I think this is one of those ones where you and I would definitely love to hear from the audience, their views or something like that. So, you know, by this time the website should be up and running. So hopefully everybody who's out there listening, if you'd like to drop us a comment or a like, that would be great. Love to hear from from you guys on this topic because again, it's freedom of speech comes with the ability to say what you think about stuff, and we've always wanted to engage the audience. So, Mick, any closing thoughts for us today?
SPEAKER_01So, uh as I do often, I'd I'd plug also essays if folks that want to write an essay on this topic or any other ones we've covered. Uh, we'd be happy to hang it on our substack and our and our website. Um, we want this to be uh interactive, you know, community, not just uh two dudes uh yapping at you. So yeah, exactly. That's what we're doing. I mean, uh we're yeah, yeah, no, that's what we're doing right now. Um we want it we want it to be uh call you know like a again like a community uh association.
SPEAKER_02Totally agree. Okay, well uh why don't we close it there? So I hope that as we progress into hearing from people on these things, you'll remember something's that I always say, which is head in the ice box, heart in the oven. But uh until next time, Mick, thanks for talking to you. We'll speak to you soon. Thanks, Adam.
SPEAKER_01Thank you for listening to the Puppin' Porch Podcast. If you'd like to find out more about the podcast or its host, head over to puppinporch.com and you can listen to all our episodes on Spotify, Apple, or whichever platform you prefer. And if you'd like to help out with the podcast, you can find us on Patreon. Drop us an email if you have a comment on any past episode, you have a suggestion for future episodes, or you have an essay on an important topic for Stoicism, send it to us and then we can be reached at info at puppinporch.com. Today's music was provided by bensound.com. Until next time, puppin' porch out