I got the thumbs up, that must mean it's time for busted pencils, fully-ledged education
educated educators, talking education, Dr. Johnny Lupinacci, me, Dr. Tim Slecker, and
whole, of course it is Jacob, the chairman of the board, you know why I'm putting so much emphasis
there is because it's his show today. So we call producers' choice, you know, and Jacob, I know
that you spend inordinate amounts of time preparing to stump Tim and Johnny, frighten us,
get us to, you know, make it sound like the bad, the big bad boogie man behind the boards, Jacob,
you know what I'm fighting to scare all the good people. You know, asking us about our favorite
TV teachers, you know, things like that, and actually big, big shout out to, you know, civic
media for really pulling out that episode, Terry Bar, love that, Terry, hope you're hearing,
because we thought that was a great episode, and you know, a little bit of stuff potentially
developing from that episode, we're gonna keep that under wraps for now, but we've got some
pretty good, powerful, you know, not a lot of, quote, traffic, but a powerful connection to
somebody going, damn, thank you, appreciate that. That's all I'm gonna say at that, Johnny
Lupinage, you know what I'm talking about. Yeah, because it's a producer's choice day, Tim,
I'm cutting you off, you're turning the whole show into some ramble about social media and like
great Terry Barrow and article, write another one about this, let's get to it, it's producer's
choice, man. Yeah, Tim, enough about Craig T Nelson coming on the show, okay, we know no one wants
to hear about that, it's time for the, time for the program. For two, two, producer, Jacob's choice,
chairman of the board. You and I will have two choices. Chairman of the board, Jacob. Oh,
Jacob chairman of the board. I bet the board is spelled B-O-R-E-D. We choose to go to the moon,
life's full of tough choices. He chose one. So every single producer's choice show
hands things in common. So there's a 60-second segment at the end, we always have our fun
producers choice intro song. And every show starts with Tim being scared of what I'm going to ask him.
And usually the show ends up being like something like what are your favorite dog breeds?
I keep it pretty light. We're going to have a serious intellectual smarty pants discussion
today. And I think there's no better way because we usually have Howard Zinn at the end of the show
to give us some philosophical wisdom. Before this topic, I'm going to let another poet introduce it.
Hey, Yo Iceman, I'm working on his turn, paper for college. What's the first amendment?
And then it just, you know, ironically, it's all censored after that point because he says a lot
of bad words in that song. But that's ice. He's talking about freedom of speech. Dr. Tim
Slecker, thank you for being my guest. Dr. Johnny Lupinacci, thank you for being here. I know we're
all very busy. But this week, people are talking about freedom of speech. It's big in our culture
right now. People are afraid to say some things. People are mad at other people for saying things.
It's a big, hot button issue. I don't want to talk about specifics. I want to talk about what is
this freedom of speech thing? And why do we care so much about it? So Dr. Tim Slecker,
maybe you could lead us off. But just for the uninitiated people here about freedom of speech,
what does it actually mean in a democratic society? Okay. What is it? What does it mean?
Probably incredibly radically different questions, honestly, because I think the, what is it
would be simply, well, it's, it's one of the amendments to our constitution. It's in the bill of
rights. And a lot of people point it out as saying, you can't take that away from me because it's
guaranteed in our constitution. So that's what it is. In other words, it's saying we have freedom of
speech. What does it mean? You know, if anything, there's, sometimes it depends what it, what it
potentially might mean. You know, because we also, at the same time, I had heard that, well,
you know, you can't yell fire in a movie theater, right? That was kind of always the,
well, you have freedom of speech, except when, when fire breaks out in a theater.
John, John, he's already pushed it on that one. Right. But I mean, that's how,
well, yeah, because you can, there's just a consequence to your action. Right. Right. That's
what I'm saying. When, when recognizing that, and that's what I was saying, Johnny is to say,
is that, you know, that freedom comes with responsibility. And I think that that part of it is
there too, is to say, you know, yeah, you can quote, freely say things. But the things you say
have sometimes consequences that can be incredibly painful for people who hear them or are affected
by them. And, and so I think that's the, the, the part there that even, you know, kind of potentially,
you know, hearing that IST kind of part in there, right? It, it kind of throws at you an emotional
plea that feels very kind of confrontational, even in that, that rap style that he puts forward
there, that, that kind of feels like I got this and it, and it's under attack and, and you can't
take that, that away from me. Well, it, it depends, you know, what you mean by, can you take away
the freedom of speech? No, can you help be held consequentially at fault for speaking things?
Yes, you can. We're seeing that, right? And so say we, you know, in the heat of passion, emotions,
maybe things take over, but that again, you know, you can't call. And I know, you know, we're kind
of referring to, again, this, you know, horrible thing that happened. And, you know, people's response
and things like that and character, characterizations. And we, it's, it's, you know, so, so yeah,
what is it? We know what it is. What does it mean? It, it, it means that yes, you can say,
but that, I think Johnny would say, you know what, words have consequences. If I could say something
about that. They have meaning. Okay. Actually, actually Tim, yeah, you're, you're, you're
meshing the words a little bit. And then you said, I might say, I say words illuminate certain
things and hide other things, words communicate meeting, sharing words as an action. And that action,
choosing those words has consequences. Whatever it is, you share. Like if you said your example,
you y'all fire in a, you know, in a, you know, crowded movie theater, that action, that choice to
share those particular words, right? Had its consequence. Maybe it, like, cleared people out
there, you know, maybe it made the fire department have to come there. Who pays for that? Well,
you falsely yelled that out. Like those kinds of things. So the action, but I, I want to come
back to this like freedom of speech, right? Because it's a fundamental human right in Jacob
asked, what is freedom of speech in relationship to democracy? Right? And I think you were saying this
Tim, you know, it's the fundamental right to express opinions, ideas and information.
Without censorship, restraint or punishment by a government. This is, this is why it's important
in a democracy. It's an important mainstay of a, of a democratic society is to have the fundamental
right to express opinions, ideas and information without censorship, restraint or punishment
by the government. And this worldwide is considered one of the most essential human rights
and democratic principles. So now emphasize the Tim here, you say, um, without censorship,
restraint or punishment by the government, okay? So that's a key factor of a democracy.
But not Tim, like you said before, if we're to break that down, like, you know,
we're just talking about that. So that's a definition. But let's talk about what does that mean,
especially if we're thinking about how you said, like, with any right comes a responsibility.
And I like that because that is truly embodying democracy. Yes, democracy is a way of organizing
and ensuring or underwriting particular rights, like freedom of speech or freedom of expression.
Right? But to explain that every right comes with responsibility. Well, you're free to express
yourself, but not to harm others, who lies, threats or incitement to violence. All right? So
most societies, most democratic societies are societies that, you know, believe, hey, human rights,
these are a good thing. Like, we also like value life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness,
the certain aspects that are, I would say, you know, well known monocles of the American
citizenship, or ought to be for everyone in America, right? We'd advocate that, right? You have
the freedom to express yourself, but not to harm others through lies, threats, or inciting violence.
So it's really about meshing out that balance. And, you know, I will speak to like, we're in
that moment, where it's like, well, you're infringing on my freedom of speech,
where your freedom of speech is hurting this group and that like, we are just point
in fingers in all kinds of direction. And again, the level of violence, I'll say it in discourse
right now, coming from all kinds of different political positions, has reached a level where I
think a lot of it actually does move beyond free speech and into the idea of like, hey,
you're actually threatening and inciting either violence or harmed others.
And whether you agree with the sentiment or the origin or not, taking it to that level moves
beyond freedom of speech or freedom of expression in sort of context, Jacob, of like,
governments and democracies, right? So the government in a democracy, if they're not valuing
freedom of speech, then they're punishing, censoring or restraining people from
sharing or expressing their, you know, their thoughts, feelings or any of those things.
Wow. So I could say something unpopular or something that many people would judge to be
just flat out wrong. And then I would suffer the consequences for doing so.
I could also rob a bank and I can suffer the consequences for doing so. But robbing a bank is not
considered a right that I have. So in that, can you explain to me as if I were a moron?
What does it mean to have a right if you then suffer consequences for that right?
Is the distinction that having a right means the government cannot punish me for that?
Because I don't have a right to rob a bank so I can be punished by the government
versus speech. I can only bear the consequences from my fellow citizens.
Yeah, let me, let me give you like a historical context. Jacob, you love history, man.
I love you. Yeah. Yeah. So if you think about it through history,
people have been punished for expressing wrong ideas. And you brought up right and wrong. And
and without going into a whole thing around like, well, we actually have this thing like scientific
literacy and scientific method and consensus and deliberation that helps us
arrive at, you know, understanding rights from wrong that aren't necessarily every moment situational.
But take for example, Galileo persecuted for supporting, right? Heliocentrism, right?
Or, or, you know, people being jailed for political dissent, right? Freedom of expression,
freedom of speech emerged historically as societies recognizing that suppressing ideas
suppressed truth and progress, right? Anytime you start to go down the road of suppressing ideas,
right? You start to do this or you start deeming, absolutely, this is right and this is wrong
without consensus, without conferring, without looking at, you know, trends or, you know, like we
would say, like our guest astrophysicist, Ethan, Dr. Ethan Segal would say, you know, scientific
consensus, the scientific method replicated over and over again by different people, different
professions around the world saying, hey, as we think through this, as we debate this over time,
we're converging on some new knowledge base from which we might better understand this.
That wouldn't happen without freedom of expression and freedom of speech.
So this kind of emerged as, hey, this is a tough line to walk, like we don't want a sense of people,
we also can't have it be anything goes, right? And so it's in between and, and you know,
if you think about it in another take, Jacob, you like to talk about like the marketplace
and capitalism sometimes. So another idea is thinking about ideas competing, right? It's not
my favorite analogy, but I think it works, right? You know, we benefit sometimes we might say we
benefit benefit from economic competition. We benefit when ideas kind of compete rather than
just being imposed by an authority. This is where it is and it is because I say so, you know,
we don't benefit by that kind of top down thing, but when we start to deliberate, discuss and have
sort of a common place of doing such. Again, I'm not saying that means anything goes, right? We tend
to have found some of the best ideas emerge, right? When we have inclusion of many ideas,
when we have an openness to listening to other views and we think about, hmm, why might I disagree
with that? And how do I act when I disagree? How do we engage in these conversations to, with
enough patience to get to somewhere where we arrive on similar to kind of how the marketplace
competition, right? Like goes, like we get better restaurants, better products because over time,
if you're presenting, you know, a subpar product, people might be like, well, I don't want to buy that.
That's garbage. That's, that's not, you know, I don't like the way it tastes or I don't like,
you know, the way it functions and I'm, and I'm moving on. The same, I think similar things go
for ideas. So I'm a big fan of the open marketplace for ideas, which could be translated to freedom
of speech and expression. That said, it's not anything goes, right? Just like there are certain things
I can and can't sell on the marketplace, right? So there are some regulations that fall into that.
And a democratic government is really responsible for setting that precedent, you know, not an authoritarian
like censorship, but a catalyst for open dialogue and discussion. You know, it kind of reminds me
because I'm a massive capitalist, as you were just saying. Sort of like JP Morgan or
Rockefeller, that's basically me. It makes me think about the competition for ideas, like you said,
and the sense that people have that as long as things are fair, they're okay with that. And
from my perspective on capitalism has always been that capitalism is a really great system.
If you maintain it and keep it competitive and fair and not when you allow things to turn into
monopolies and oligopolies and that really defeats the benefit of what is good about a capitalist
system. So maybe you guys might be trying to say here that it's similar things go to speech.
We're basically if you keep it open for a discourse rather than something more closed off. Tim,
please. I'm going to say, yeah, Jacob, because I heard Johnny saying that too is and you know,
it kind of reminds me of this of saying, you know, when we move away from inviting people that
we don't agree with from even allowing those disagreements to air or giving somebody, you know,
some form of, you know, alienation, right? It's just like, that's not a dialogue of competing
ideas. It has become, you know, some form of a punishment for having an idea, right? And how
did we get to this point that we're at is just because there's been, you know, in a long time
history of when I say actually relatively short here, though, too, like how did we get to this
point? People got incredibly left right to the point of saying, I don't like what you're saying
and I'm going to somehow create consequences because I don't like what you're saying as opposed
to saying that let's have a conversation about this. Let's have a dialogue. I like Johnny's
connecting it to to kind of science and how we move things forward is this because we we absolutely
keep open the space of conversation of moving up of learning something here, adjusting what we
thought before we understood it that way, having that space and somehow, well, whatever you want,
some people would say not somehow, but there's it's a very thing. We have now in America have come
to a sense of, you know, we we see somebody who disagrees with us as somehow, you know,
some form of what a the a pariah that needs to be silenced. I mean, there should be a clear
distinction made in words between adversary and enemy, right? Somebody who disagrees with you
isn't necessarily your enemy, especially if you're sharing the same space, the same,
sharing the same air, sharing the same humanity, right? I mean, this is something that I think
you're talking about as as lost in this record up and who's right and who's wrong, not where
difference gets us, right? Which is which is the I got a good example. I want to just go like
seriously a personal example that I think illustrates for me freedom of speech and it deals with
with religion. From from from my own standpoint, I, you know, this was in college and in college,
I started drifting away from the Byzantine Catholic dogma that that I had and was, you know,
becoming a point at, you know, an agnostic Christian of which I believe myself to be and I
know some people will go, you can't do that. I know, but I am and I was and I remember having a
conversation with somebody who was very concerned about me because and at that point, I didn't even,
you know, I was a sheltered first generation college kid. Very concerned about me being Byzantine
Catholic because of later and when we were we were both dead is what she was saying is that she
really liked me and wouldn't get to spend time with me in heaven. John, it's seriously, it's going
to go and and I thought, no, seriously, I'm giving you freedom of speech here, Tim. That conversation,
but I wanted to have a conversation of going, but if I'm believing and I think at the same time,
how is it that you're excluding me because I'm not excluding you because you're not Catholic and
I felt at that point that the interchange of a conversation of ideas stopped at that point and
that's not a freedom of speech, but the conversation became, it wasn't something to go forward,
but here's what happened at that moment, though, too. I respectfully went, you know what,
you're still a great person. I still like you and it didn't turn into me taking their
their hardcore belief in what they believed in and me saying you're wrong for holding that belief
and I don't and I want you, you know, that that's maybe that's good story, Tim. Good story, Tim.
He's just this and me. No, I'm not. I'm giving you a pat on the back for your freedom of expression
day. The only thing I'm going to point out though, Tim, is neither of you in that story are the
government. Neither of you. I know. I know. I know. It's a great example of like, hey, let's be open
to different ideas and talk about how close mindedness may be hurtful and harmful to our humanity
towards one another. When we're talking about freedom of speech, right, we're looking at a really
clearly defined authority like a government, especially in relationship to a democracy. And we
can learn a lot by talking to our friends who have lived in dictatorships. This is why I'm like,
you know, don't romanticize centralized governments or centralized governments, the right to speak
freely to have freedom of expression. And the best thing I can say, I'll exercise it right now too,
Jacob, your example about capitalism. I appreciate it. And I like it. But I'm going to exercise my
freedom of a speech in this country that I'm cutting your mic. I'm sorry. I'm the host. I'm
cutting your mic. I don't know how this and I'm not going to sign off. Johnny, I'm not going to
sign off. Go ahead. Have a show without me. Okay. Have a show without me. That's what I'm saying.
I'm exercising it. But I'm saying like capital, he said capitalism is generally good for everyone.
Unless you're at the bottom, that's how capitalism works. It's a system of exploitation.
It's not the only economic system. And I have a free like I can say that like as a one a
study person who studies economics, but also as somebody who can say, I have freedom of expression
to point out that capitalism sucks if you're at the bottom of it. If you're at the top or the
middle, it's like it makes some sense. Like we get some products, but like we're not like
burning our hands to make those products, or you know, we're not the child labor factories
that make capitalism possible. So like that's a, like that's a freedom of expression. I can say
that and the government can't say, we're mostly a capitalist economy. You're going to jail for
saying that. You know, Jacob could disagree, Tim could disagree, listeners could disagree,
but the government can't like punish me for my freedom of expression. Now, if I was making
that up, if I didn't have proof for I was just spreading lies, then they could, right? And so
there are some boundaries to that. It's just more examples about how it works and me, you know,
being a bully on the air right now. But if I could offer somewhat of a criticism, Johnny,
because I agree, freedom of speech fundamentally when we're talking about an illegal sense,
it's about the government and what they cannot do to the citizens. That is what the legal
framework of freedom of speech is. But as a hardcore historical one, yes. And as a hardcore
Maoist myself, though, I will tell you that there are other forces at work in society that can
impact your life just as much as the government, such as mega corporations who prey upon us,
our churches that control major aspects of our lives, our schools. There are more than just,
schools are government unless there are private school. There are more than just state
apparatuses that control the working class like myself and what we can or cannot say.
So isn't there also a wider principle of freedom of speech that applies in our world that we,
that as citizens, we should try to take into our own views?
Yeah, but in that, that's a great point to bring up Jacob and in a couple of contexts,
freedom of speech doesn't exist for people living under Mao.
Right? Like the Maoist government doesn't say, you have freedom of speech, absolutely not.
Especially because against things, there is punishment of it. It's a signifier of democracy,
and I love the point you bring up because we have to ask ourselves, is our government able to stand
up to those influences like mega corporations who say, yeah, freedom of speech, but this guy
said something bad about a company that, you know, might hurt our company. And if it's slanderous
or a lie, that person should be held responsible, right? But if it's true and it's fact-based and
it's based in evidence, right? Then they shouldn't be punished for sharing that. And I get it, Jacob,
you're saying like, hey, we're the working class. Like we got to be careful what we say,
because there's always that saying, like don't like the hand that feeds you, right? And that goes
back to like, can a corporation really overreach and do more punishment than say a government?
Because I'll just say it, Tim, like you brought it up before, like we have some people getting
fired in different areas that aren't government saying this person shouldn't have, like they said
something that we don't agree with. It's not the government saying that. It's a company
who has pretty much the right to enact the consequence for things said. Now it should be shocking
and things to say, like, but I thought we have freedom of speech. Well, we still have freedom of
speech. And as Jacob kind of pointed out, just maybe not as much as we thought in reality, because
companies aren't necessarily democratic institutions, even if they exist in a democracy. And I think
every working person out there knows this because they're like, yeah, freedom of speech.
But if I talk to my boss like the iced tea song that we started the show with, my boss is going
to fire me, even if he's a pretty cool guy, whether he's Republican or Democrat, like if I don't
respect some boundaries around what I can and can't say or do, right? Then there's a consequence
to my action. I think it's a sobering moment for a lot of people who may have thought like,
well, I get freedom of speech. I can say whatever I want, right? In comedy or, you know, in my own
opinion or on blogs, well, like, yeah, you can, but not without consequence, right? Dr. Tim, what do you
think? Yeah, I'm not probably the scholar point on this. I'm maybe more mushy kind of feeling
at this point. I'm just more looking at the moment and seeing that the pushing of people's
emotional buttons and I don't know. Again, I had a great conversation again this morning with
somebody who is very much more conservative on the right and we both just had this sense of
going like, like, dude, I really like you and he liked me and we were both admitting that
this is horrible that somehow this isn't an example of the way things should be because
the humanity that people I disagree with have, I have to see that humanity and I think that's
kind of like this moment. So while we're getting wrapped up in, and again, not really legalese, but
talking about, you know, the government taking it back and all this, just kind of come back to this
too and just saying, like, there's a humanness that, and there's Tim using the way he says that
human, there's a human aspect here that it's sad to me to not see each other as somebody I disagree
with, but I'm never going to deny your humanity in that sense. And I've just seen it happen so
often and even to the point two where, you know what, as we said, leftist woke ideology, I actually
see saw some of that happening too where I was kind of like, like, I think this is going too far
on the left. And I pointed it out in the bounds of what I thought was academia and a safe space.
And I bore some consequences for challenging some of my academic colleagues that I wasn't as far
left and as far woke as them. And they let me know that that was the wrong answer or the wrong
thinking that I had. And got alienated within the bounds of academia. And I felt that in that moment,
I really was just like, this is horrible because, you know what, I, how is it that me not,
they had a litmus test for me and I failed it. And that, and that was a left litmus test.
And I was like, I think I'm a pretty strong, I guess when I say liberal, but I guess not what I
really meant was is that liberal in the classic sense is the way I saw myself in Johnny, you know,
liberal democracy, not a liberal political. And that my difference of opinion shouldn't have gotten
me alienated. And I was quite shocked is an early academic to find myself alienated for not
passing the litmus purity test. I have one last serious question for you to gentlemen today.
States rights is a big deal. But when it comes down to what does that actually mean? It turns out
that almost everyone who ever says that they care about states rights means when my state
disagrees with the federal government, but it agrees with me, I believe in states rights.
But when my state disagrees with me, then I do not agree with states rights.
That gets me thinking about this whole freedom of speech thing, not as a law, but as a virtue
that people as citizens believe is good. Do people today really care about the value of letting
other people have opinions and express them? Did they ever? Has that changed? Tim, I know you
were just starting as a teacher in the seventies when there was a lot of discourse and a lot of
protest. Are or are we just noticing these disagreements more because of social media?
That I know yes, the social media has such an amplification in this place to dismiss it as saying
this is the way things always used to be. No, it's not. It's different. The algorithmic amplification
of rage, of disagreement, it's intentionally programmed to create chaos and disengagement
and sadness and put up boundaries. That's how here we go. For some reason, that's the capitalistic
economic model of social media is that that business plan that they have, which is the more
rage, the more, quote, clicks, the more clicks you get, the more profitable it is. And guess what's
profitable? You want to get people engaged is not the right word at all, but you want to get
people going. You create rage and you amplify, amplify rage because rage creates clicks, clicks,
creates economic opportunity for social media. That is different. That is so different today. And I
think I know it amplifies the worst part of our of our natures. That's what I got to say for
that. Interesting. Interesting. I I agree it's different because of social media Jacob. If
that's part in there, I'm not sure that this is too closely tied to to economic profit because
I don't know how many people get angry click and buy. Or if like if there's a lot of ads
necessarily attached to it, although it does kind of create this different kind of tunnel.
But being like, you know, like you could get pretty far down a rabbit hole where the algorithm
is only showing you particular views, which select the technology can kind of limit the diversity
of ideas that probably really exist out in your in your community. And I will also say this
it distances and I'm big on this like there are consequences to all actions. So if I'm sitting
outside in the backyard and I'm talking to the neighbor and I'm saying some of the things I read
online, maybe even though my neighbors are posting online, but we're saying them to each other,
there is a social consequence that's very different in person than online. And I'm not advocating
for violence, but I can say like I think a lot of people would be a little less lipid with their
words. If they're in the presence of other people where someone's going to look at them and say
not acceptable or maybe even worse, like they're, you know, their words inside violence and
have put them in harm. And so that that's I think the distance that that social media platforms
has created has incubated, like Tim has said, some of our worst behaviors and those behaviors
then become habit. And it's sort of just this vitriol kind of space that exists. That like the
social contract of being out in public together used to not like it kind of mediated it. So I'm
that's me being a little nostalgic nostalgic there for Jacob, but I'm not sure either of us answered
your question. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. But I do want to point out a shorter version of
the question and we can hammer it out quick. Yes. Okay. Do people really care about freedom of speech
now and did they or and if they didn't, did they ever? I say, I would say they don't understand how
important and how good they have it. And they're complaining about infringement of freedom of speech,
but they have yet to experience what that's like. And so I think there's a lot of like comfort
in what people have believed is, oh, it's my right to say or do whatever I want. Because there's
been a lot of acceptance and a lot of leeway. But I believe that that is something that's going to
be called into question pretty closely. And I don't think we've experienced that anyone alive here
in the United States who spent all their time in the United States have experienced truly what it's
like to have a loss of freedom of speech. I agree, particularly to Johnny when you pointed out,
because yeah, the government right now is not enforcing any type of restriction on freedom
of speech. I mean, they're getting pretty close to be honest within our realm of freedom of
speech. There's there's some stuff that kind of is like, hey, is this in question? It certainly is,
but I would argue and this comes back to Jacob's question too. That's always been. There's an
important question. I was going to say, yeah, right. The flavor of whoever's in charge of the
government kind of has their own kind of anti-free speech flavor that gets put out there. Yeah,
for sure. But Johnny, hey, actually economically though, the more time you spend on social media,
it is economically. So what you just said about creating rabbit holes, that creates time online,
that's the profitability right there. So just a clarification there.
Well, the thing about it, Tim, is that if I'm on my phone right and I'm looking at my Instagram
reels and I see a bunny that jumped and it landed safely in the grass and it was adorable. I go,
oh, that's nice. And then I flip and I keep going. But if I see some idiot said that California should
get thrown into the sun, I'm going to spend the next 35 minutes staring at this thing,
commenting, re-sharing how mad I am about that because the president just said something crazy.
So that's how, and I might not even be on purpose. Instagram doesn't have to set that up.
It's kind of natural that I see something bad and it makes me mad and I see something good.
And I'm like, oh, that's good. Well, except Jacob that it will, we do know this. It will say,
Jacob spent more time on that sun comment. Let's give him more of those because that's,
I think that's what Tim's talking about. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. We want to keep
him engaged longer and we know that he looks at that longer, right? I certainly have that.
I mean, I spend my time looking at hockey reels and it just constantly keeps giving me longer
or more hockey reels. It knows how to keep me glued to it, right? So I think that's what Tim
saying is the economic driving force there, that makes sense. I would argue it's an infringement
on freedom of expression and speech to say, to say like, you can't do that.
But that's my personal view. I mean, that's would be a great debate to have because some might
say like, well, that's actually, you know, manipulative or bad, you know, should be against the law.
And I'd be like, well, like, it's my right to stay looking at, you know, like, I want to watch
more hockey reels. Like, that's my freedom to be looking at those and don't tell Instagram
that can't send me more hockey reels because that's what I want to look at. I absolutely agree. I
will fight to the death for my right to look at stupid stuff on the internet. That's very
important to me. But Dr. Johnny Lupinacci, Dr. Tim Slecker, I'm afraid we're out of time. I believe
we're going to cut away to the football game here in a minute. But before we do go, there's one last
thing that we like to do here on the program. Let's go. In 60 seconds, Tim, you brought this up
a bit. I think during the show, at some point, we have our ideas as kids and then we realize that
people disagree. I want you to tell me, Tim, the first time you remember somebody you really like
or that you love saying something you thought was stupid and realizing that sometimes the people
with dumb ideas are people that you actually like. My Uncle Jack, you know, at Thanksgiving,
made a comment about teachers and they're overpaid and that made me mad. But I also love the guy.
Absolutely. There's the example. Tim, that's the important lesson, I think. I mean,
everybody needs to go to Thanksgiving and realize that the people in this world with terrible ideas
are represented by half the people around this turkey. And I think that's important to keep in
mind when you're on Twitter and you're getting mad at people. Remember, this is just like that guy
who eats turkey with me once a year. And maybe we should all give each other a little rest on some
of these things. Johnny, do you remember the first time that somebody that you like or love had a
really dumb point of view in your in your mind? And that taught you a little lesson.
I mean, yeah, probably from really early early on, I mean, I mean, I'll just kind of quote the
great Will Smith, right? Not the hockey player, but the rapper, although I like them both. You know,
parents just don't understand. I mean, like, I love my parents. They love me. But they said a lot
of stuff that I was like, I don't agree. And I would say, oh, yeah, why? And they would say because
I said so. And also, you know, they provided the shelter. They provided the food. They provided
the safety. I mean, so there wasn't real, it was a good crash course and authoritarianism at a
young age. And it taught me the difference, you know, later I can look back at it. It's a life
skill and listeners. You can relate to this. Our adversaries don't need to be our enemies.
Right? Like your parents may disagree with you, especially when you're young. They can tell you,
you don't get to just play outside until whatever hour or you can't eat candy all day long,
right? I disagreed with them as a young person like, yeah, I should be able to do whatever I want.
Right? But no, they in that moment, they were my adversary, but they weren't my enemy.
So the lesson, I think Tim talked about this too today, the lesson in today's producer choice
for me is just how important that distinction is, disagree with people, but keep the humanity.
An adversary is a wonderful thing. An enemy is something that we don't necessarily don't need.
Right? Don't make your adversary of enemy when it's not necessary. It can disagree.
There it is. There it is. Just don't understand. Yeah, man. All right. Anyways,
we have football games to go to. We got all kinds of stuff to happen here. Let's go.
And with that, Tim, do your thing. And now it's time for your moment of
decision. We should remind them that the words of the declaration of independence apply
not only to people in this country, but also to people all over the world.
People everywhere have the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Hey, thanks for listening. Today's producer's choice. That was a little bit of a heavy one,
but nonetheless, it was a great time. And remember to grab other great podcasts,
filled with all kinds of busted pencils content, an Apple podcast, Spotify. Of course,
you can always find us at the civic media website. Hey, and don't forget to catch us on Monday
for home room and every Wednesday for class and session. And of course, just like this Friday,
you catch us again next Friday for a special drop of producer's choice.
And pencil busters don't forget on Saturdays to tune in and catch the busted pencils broadcast
on 3 p.m. Central time across all the civic media networks for one hour of your favorite blue
color scholars, tune in Johnny and keep busted pencils.