Transcription
Hello and welcome to Commonalities and Civil Discourse, a series of interviews that focuses on the importance of civil discourse in a free and pluralistic society. My name is Eric Smith. I am a research fellow at the Cato Institute and a former professor of rhetoric, which, you know, can inform you as to why I'm doing this particular series of interviews. We have today, and it is my pleasure to have them, Joya Hohnecker and Chris Busch of the Free Speech Forward podcast. Free speech, that goes along with civil discourse. We need free speech in order to have civil discourse, a good civil discourse anyway.
I want to ask you guys about your Free Speech Forward podcast. I decided to use some of your questions, the questions you use in your podcast, um that um I was happy to answer when I was on your podcast. Please uh check out that episode, viewers. Uh I'm going to use your own questions. You're already familiar with them, and it's a great place to start. So, let's start. Have you always been an advocate of free speech? What got you started on this path? And what is your origin story? Do you want to take the lead on this one, Chris?
Yeah, I guess so. I I guess you could say yes. I have always been a free speech leader or advocate at least implicitly from an early age in in life. I grew up in a household where it was very politically engaged and active, and we debated ideas and were encouraged to debate ideas even when we disagreed or didn't have them fully fully fleshed out. And so, that I think inculcated that sense in me from the get-go, and that probably was even then the seedlings for, you know, kind of speaking to Joya's and my origin story, we met at NYU where we both were students, her a graduate student, me undergrad, and we were in a philosophy and politics club on campus that held lots of events, you know, panels, debates, speaker series to kind of promote various causes and ideas. Um and the this was kind of early 2000s post-9/11 in New York City, no less. And there was one particular event we had probably a year or two into our club um that dealt with the Danish the infamous Danish cartoons. There was a Danish cartoonist who had made a bunch of cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad and kind of Islam more generally to draw attention to the growing Islamist terror threat um at that time. And that just resulted in massive calls for censorship, violence across the world. So, that was to us that was a prime topic to use as a lens actually to have a event on free speech. And so, we wanted to show those cartoons, bring in somebody who was uh associated with the cartoonist as well as a couple other panelists including from the organization FIRE, which is uh you know, a leader on this this cause. And essentially the university tried to censor us and shut us down. They gave us an ultimatum that we could either have our the cartoons or no event. So, that was just a really shocking kind of experience to see that it a university, no less, one of the leading ones in the country would not come down on the side of free speech. We ultimately resolved on a kind of protest compromise where we we had big easels with draped with black coverings over the cartoons, but that at least satisfied the university and we went on with our event because we had a lot of outsiders from outside of the university, but even when internal student groups and others, you know, kind of Islamist sympathizers try to shut us down or sabotage our event, we what really shocked us was that the university administration came down on the side of the censors, not in support of us and our right to free speech. So, I think that just really and this was, like I said, early 2000s, so two decades before our current wave of illiberalism and and cancel culture. And so, that just showed us early on even the importance of free speech to to be able to share ideas and express yourself. I don't know, Joy, if you want to add anything.
I'll just chime in a little bit of my own personal perspective on this, which was when that happened, I believe it was 2006 or 2007, so we are going on almost 20 years ago now. I was shocked because if you can't tell a little bit from the timeline, I was a teenager in the '90s. And if any of you all remember the '90s, at least my experience in the United States was that free speech was, in a sense, a given, and if anything, it was the cool thing to do or be. Most of the attacks on free speech at that time came from religious often specifically Christian fundamentalist organizations who, for example, were protesting song lyrics, and they didn't want profanity and such. And so, I just grew up assuming that free speech was part of the air we get to breathe as part of our freedom here in the United States. And personally, as someone who is not particularly religious, I've identified as agnostic atheist since I was at least 13, um so even in terms of the protest against Christianity and then going with Islam, I've always been someone who I have a certain respect. I believe all of the major religions do have gems of wisdom, but all of them often do need lampooning at a certain point. I is my personal belief, and so I obviously never had any problems with the lampooning of the Christian beliefs. And so, it was It's shocking for me to see that there was this hostility to the ability to be able to in the United States stand up for cartoonists mocking a religion in a way. That's part of what it is that we get to do here in the United States as far as I was concerned. And to Chris's point to even see that this came from a university which at that time I thought ought to have been a bastion of free inquiry and the spread of ideas. It it was shocking to say the least and I think it really galvanized both Chris and myself to recognize that if we really do value free speech, this is a value we have to start standing up for and defending and championing.
Well, that's a pretty good origin story. I'm sad it happened to you, but I'm happy it happened to you because it brought you here today. So, there's that. that's Yeah, that's definitely true. Both of you said something interesting about growing up with free speech. Chris, you said it was a part of your household growing up. Mhm. I think that's ideal. I I think it's what gave you what is called defensive confidence. The confidence to enter civil discourse in the first place. A lot of people don't have that. It sounds to me like you guys were kind of molded into being free speech advocates and podcast hosts and things like that which strongly suggests that this can be learned. True?
Oh, definitely. I mean, I'm certainly an advocate that I think any any value of import in human life, but particularly ones that deal with topics in politics and philosophy, i.e. kind of intellectual ideas can definitely be learned. That's how That's how we learned them, right? I think that's how everybody learns them either through the culture, through education, through exposure and experience. So, that is in fact a big part of what even Joy and I are all about with our organization 1776 Forward. All right. Excellent. say it's definitely something that can learned and sadly I see that it is something that is being unlearned. So even as a mother of a toddler, you can just see I feel in the past there was always that saying of children should be seen and not heard. I can tell you even from my experience right here on the playground that most parents do not have that attitude towards children nowadays. There really is, I would say the broad cultural consensus really is to listen to your children, to try to get them to express themselves, express their feelings, express what's going on. Express what's going on. Use your words is a common phrase that you hear on the playground. But I would notice that if this is what how we typically treat toddlers it's unfortunate to me that this is not often how we then treat elementary school children, middle school children, high school children. That as they go through what our current educational climate is like, there is more of a sense that you should just be aiming to repeat what you were learning from first just your teachers, your professors, and then also your peers. Instead of going perhaps on a process of inquiry, discovery, and then authentic self-expression, which should only be multiplying as you grow older. And instead I feel we're just throwing a blanket over what that ought to be.
Very good. The use your words. I I I I love that. It can sound a little uh for lack of a better term right now, condescending to say to somebody who is an adult. You know, use your words, put the bat down, right? But it is important. Using our words is we do it so that we don't pick up bats and swing them at people. Right? And it's hard to convince some people of that these days and that's unfortunate. But fortunately the world has us. So I'm going to ask you another question about free speech. Um what do you do with people who don't value it? Who can't use their words. That does become the difficulty. And to me, it's why I think this is such an important lesson to teach to toddlers, because using your words is also just not don't swing a bat at someone, but it's also start to get clarity on your emotional state. Usually, that's what we're saying when we're telling toddlers to use their words, it's because they're having a tantrum and they need to learn to express themselves. And there is, I think, a real learned skill about trying to take what is just often a vague emotion that has you just screaming and raging, and actually developing that ability to self-reflect and start to articulate and put those feelings into words. And it is a skill that, unfortunately, as much as I do believe we try to start to teach the rudiments of it to toddlers, that as we grow older and we develop our vocabularies, unfortunately, I don't see that most adults develop this ability for self-articulation to the level of the vocabulary that they attain or ought to attain as fully educated adults.
Why do you think that is? Yeah. That would be a fascinating question. I do not know the answer. I There are so many times when the the correct answer is I don't know, and I don't know. I I mean, I think it would take a real, you know, sociological, educational research to examine why is it that that so many adults do not. I mean, certainly there are pressures to conform. One thing that we know about humans is that we are I love Jacob Bronowski's phrase that we are social solitaries. We are both social and individual beings. And there is a way that as we develop, it is in that stage more when we are probably like teenagers or getting into puberty that we we become more aware of ourselves as social beings, and there is probably more of that drive to conform that I think most teenagers experience. But then there ought to be on the other end of that, that flowering into full adulthood when we get to be both, when we get to be both social beings but also individuals who have authentic selves and views and experiences that we ought to be able to articulate. And it seems that, unfortunately, too many adults never actually realize that stage of adult development.
What was that term you use? Social solitary? What was that? Social solitary, Jacob Bronowski. Love that. Excellent. I love it, too. I'm going to use it. Um I forget his name or her name. Um His name. Um The Ascent of Man was his great work. He was an academic, a philosopher, a real a real polymath. And it was one of his key observations about human beings. Excellent. Thank you very much. Uh Chris, anything to add?
Yeah, I mean, I would just pick up on that, you know, to to go to the I mean, I have many of my own theories, but I think that that they all somewhat center around education. I have lament I mean, we talked already about how we're not taught, you know, kind of the value of free speech kind of explicitly as a value, certainly a political value. And I think that's just reflective of, in general, our our pedagogical and topical kind of focus on education. I mean, you know, it it's it's very oriented towards teaching kind of hard sciences and social sciences, reading, writing, arithmetic. Um But I to me, the knowing your emotions, knowing how to communicate, um understanding kind of basics of human psychology, philosophy, politics, all of these topics, like to me, those are the things that make us fully human and that we are not given an automatic guide to when we come into the world and and that we therefore need education and learning and practice and training on to be better. They're not They're just not innate skills intrinsic to being a human being. We We've developed understanding and insights of what works and what doesn't work and how emotions interact with thoughts and the like from, you know, over thousands of years of history. So, to me that I lament that I feel like our a lot of our education system does just even topically doesn't prepare us for how to be a human. And I feel like if we could do more of that, if there were outlets or forums to teach and preach these values, that that is one one value that could be had. But in the absence of that, to back to your earlier question about dealing with people who kind of need the use your words advice, adults who need that, you know, I I guess another tactic or or strategy I think of employing is just getting curious, asking questions, you know, kind of probing in a kind of non-loaded or leading manner to just really understand and get people to kind of draw out what it is they really think. Kind of I I guess a derivative of Joya's point about, um, you know, letting people articulate what it is they really think and express it. Um, we talk a lot about even this concept of, uh, thinking aloud in public as like a critical part of understanding what it is you really think and believe and that doing that by talking it out with other humans, as Joya said, we are social beings, that that's a key part of just even the intellectual journey that we all go on. And to tie it even back to free speech, I think that's part of the problem when we don't have a robust free speech culture as people self-censor and feel they can't or don't want to think aloud in public if they don't have their thoughts fully formed or they don't know all the answers to a topic. I want to advocate and I think we do it our organization the opposite that we all should speak up and and speak out and join the debate no matter how um you know, how informed or articulate we may be yet that it's that that that's the very process through which we form articulation and understanding. So, you know, I think asking questions to somebody who maybe is in a little bit more of a of a of an antagonistic posture or just a not coherent posture is maybe one way to both de-escalate and get them exploring. And then lastly, if that doesn't work, I use the term defensive confidence, but I think if you come into a conversation with that confidence, then you can at least parry any of the the barbs or jabs that are thrown at you hopefully to some degree of success.
Uh you mentioned that people with an antagonistic disposition. How do we talk to people who don't want to talk? Or rather, do we talk to people who don't want to talk? And if we do, how? Huh. Yeah, I'm throwing it back. Joey, I don't know. Joey, do you have any initial thoughts?
Well, well, I guess you know, there's different contexts, right? Is it because I would I would start by wondering why they don't want to talk. If if it's because maybe they're just not self-assured perhaps and not and and just shy, unconfident, you know, what have you. That's I think a different case than perhaps people who don't want to talk because they just already reject kind of the liberal value of discourse, civil discourse in in favor of an alternative perhaps you know, more coercive approach. Um so, So think those are different situations or or or contexts. And then you know then then there's just you know the kind of uh libertarian or homesteader type who just says, "Leave me alone, you know, I want to just withdraw from the world." So I don't think those people you really have to worry about because they're really taking the solitary side of the social solitaire. So you know they they they kind of don't matter in a way as in in in a free society frankly they're entitled to that right and and we should permit and and uh celebrate people who choose that path. I certainly do. Um I think it's the ones who reject discourse in favor of coercion or other means. I think that's that's the real case that you're probably getting at and um you know I mean that frankly that's what we have a political system for and that is you know where we erect rights and protections for rights and have a system to deal with that to prevent ideally the initiation of force but obviously you know if people reject that premise then you know you sometimes have to deal with that with defensive retaliatory force you know you know but it's obviously nuanced and and hopefully there are other ways that you can again I would start with the asking questions try and de-escalate and and kind of de-emphasize the situation. I don't think most people most human beings are probably at least you know in in our modern era in the West would default to that but it obviously is a growing minority of people who if not would avail themselves of course of means they are at least tacitly supportive of others who use them and so that I think that gets back to the point of this the value of educating free speech as a value that we need to hold because that really is the way to combat that you know when when you are in a society where it's socially unacceptable to use force rather than to debate and have discourse then that tends to keep a lid on it and I think the reason we're seeing rising violence and or support for political violence in the country is precisely tied to the degree to which free speech is waning as a value and a kind of social disapproval.
Joyia? I don't have too much to add to that. I I I was just going to add partly that this part of this is, I think, the solitary side of the social solitary equation of human beings. I do believe that at a fundamental level, human beings have choice that comes down to how you choose to direct your attention and your energy, and that we do have to do our best to try to meet people where they are at, meet people at the level of their choice. I would wholeheartedly agree with Chris that, at least in my experience, that a lot of that often comes from curiosity, that if you as as the the person on the other side can come from that place of just open curiosity and start to maybe peel back with that other individual what exactly may be going on. But then, as Chris pointed out, at a certain level, some people are unreachable, and if they do turn to means of violence, that this is what we know about free speech, that free speech does not include violence or threats to incite violence and such, that there is a hard line between speech and violence that is something that we do need to educate more people on, and that unfortunately, you know, that then perhaps there is or you know, all you can do is just use you know, force in self-defense, but we want to do everything that we can to not have to get to that point.
One of the important distinctions Chris and I often talk about is we distinguish a predator prey mode of life from what we call the creator traitor way of living. Creator traitor, which is the positive sum, where everyone is trying to create and contribute to mutual advantage, often creating what I like to call win-win-win situations. But, that it's important always to recognize that we are always also beings who are predators and prey, and that the evolution of humanity is that you know, we start as predator prey against other animals that we have to eat, let's say, to start with, and that there are humans who then treat other human beings that way, and that it really is one of the grand achievements and evolutions of humanity that we can rise above predator prey in our relationships with each other toward what what we call the creator trader ideal.
Wow, that's very interesting. I'm I'm I'm hearing a lot of new terms uh during this interview, and I really appreciate that. Um so, is it safe to say I take thinking and speech and words very seriously, and so we're we're constantly mining for some of the best terms like social solitary, and trying to articulate ones ourselves when we find that we can't find something in the discourse that we have received. Would you say in order to learn to argue effectively, you have to unlearn the predator prey mindset?
Definitely to a certain extent, because I think part of effective arguing is to put truth above your side winning, and it's an advanced perspective to recognize that you could be wrong in the moment and wrong about the past, but if you learn a new truth, that that is ultimately what's most beneficial for your future self. But, I think that is something that has to be learned. I think that uh most people we just habitually or if by instinct want to try to protect or defend either what we are or what we have been and really try to cling to that and it really is I think a new kind of realization and evolution to recognize that there is value to admitting oh I am wrong I have been wrong and I can embrace something new and become something better.
That's excellent. Christie, you have anything to add to that?
I think that was well said. I mean yeah, I guess in so far as if kind of that prehistoric we may call it predator prey mentality still pervades in a large number of humans that might be part of what drives, you know, kind of the the push to win or dominate in an argument versus actually learn and understand someone else. So I do think that probably is a somewhat if not innate just kind of evolved bias within human beings. So yeah, if just even being aware I think I mean part of one of the values when we had this lightbulb moment many years ago of our kind of predator prey versus creator trader kind of dichotomy was that it allowed us to now be aware of these dynamics and what more positive alternative can be which then just again awareness education if you will allows you to then start to see the patterns with and habits within your own behavior which you can then unlearn and and hopefully replace with better ones. So so I do think yes that that's one aspect of it but I also think I mean not to go down the social media rabbit hole but certainly given that that is kind of the the kind of digital public square that so much public discourse has moved towards obviously that medium does not bring out the best in people's argumentative or debate kind of skills. So, I think that's just that compounds maybe the problem of some of these more latent uh you know, kind of uh implicit lessons that we've all kind of adopted and need to unlearn.
When I engage in conversations, especially difficult conversations, I I also have the win-win attitude. I I I have this attitude that even if I lose the argument, I win in that I get closer to the truth, right? The other person has informed me uh of my flaws, my fallacious reasonings, and and now I I'm better for it. Um many people can't do that. In fact, they seem to attach their identity and self-worth to their ideas. Uh I guess I've learned to detach in a sense. When when you're arguing with me, you're arguing with my ideas, not me. You're saying my ideas are wrong, not me. Um many people can't do that. Um those two things are one in the same. Uh any comments about that? Um have you noticed it? And how can we get over it?
Absolutely. I think it's fascinating that we live in a culture and society where identity and identity politics is a term, a buzzword that's all around us, but the vision of identity is I think incredibly flawed. It's a vision of identity that either ties you to innate inherent characteristics, or it ties you as you're suggesting here to a current or previous version of yourself. Where I think part of education is helping people to evolve a healthier sense of identity, to see your identity as a as a being that is continuously growing and evolving and has this potential to get better, and that this is sort of the new vision of identity that we want to promote throughout the culture. That to help people grasp that sense of who they are and who they could be.
Very good. Yeah, I mean I've definitely seen it. Uh it's frankly something I've lamented. Um you know, I just I have a lot of friends who over the years we've tried to have political debates. I tend to be on the opposite side of most of my social circle. Um and you know, being someone who came from a background of you know, used to debating ideas and treating them as ideas not personalities, you know, it was more natural to me. Um and so the the inability to have that without people feeling their identity was being attacked, you know, that that sadly in my experience resulted in being unable to have more of these types of conversations and discussions and debates on these issues. And since I'm passionate about them, that that is kind of was always kind of like uh a big missing missing link or value in those relationships. But um you know, to me this is one of the great dangers and and destructive forces or effects of identity politics because which is really just another form of collectivism as as Joy noted because it shifts people away from a mindset of I'm an individual who's on my own path of learning and growing and can form my own thoughts, ideas, and values independently through my own reason and experience to oh, I must hold these views because I'm in X category, racial, gender, sexual, ethnic, whatever. Um and I did I I mean it's rampant now, but even 20 years ago you started to see it coming in. Um and yeah, so I I think that is that's again education and promoting these things is is how we can can overcome that.
Uh, I want to continue this a little bit with a question that I had on my own. I'm not stealing from your set of questions right now. Can you tell us what free speech how free speech relates to Weirs Regrets of the Dying? What is another regret? Um, Weir discusses that aligns with free speech. So this is Bonnie Weir who I'm going to forget exactly what her position was, but she was someone who worked in palliative care and worked specifically with with people on their deathbed and from her experience just compiled what were the most common regrets of the dying. There's something anyone can definitely check this out online. I think there's also like a top five in the regrets of the dying. But of the top five there's actually two that I think are are interrelated here to free speech. One has to do with people who regretted that they were not able to or did or chose not to at least express themselves. That they'd essentially pent up you know, negative emotion and this one I think is is significant because I think we know that for example, if you do just internalize a lot of negative emotion, it can have deleterious physical effects. It can hasten your dying. So there are I'm sure sadly were people who were on their deathbed basically because they just bottled in all of their thoughts and feelings instead of finding healthy outlets for expression. And the other the the key were the the perhaps the top regret of the dying was people who felt that they lived lives that were inauthentic to who they were and and who they could become. And and I think this is a very critical insight. In my own work, I'm such a champion of Abraham Maslow and his concept of self-actualization. And with that, he recognized it is another one of these both ands that all the self-actualizing people, it turns out in his research, have certain traits in common. But, one of the things that they have in common is that they all pursue their own unique potential. That just given our genetic nature and background, given the accidents of our birth and how we happen to grow up, and then combining that with our choices, we all are sort of balls of potential that can develop in unique ways. And it seems that the grand task of living is to find out who you are, become who you are, and find ways to contribute to humanity and to the world by bringing your best strengths and skills to the table.
I'm going to use this as a chance to plug rhetoric um as a topic and a subject. Uh because I Please go right ahead because it is a subject that more people ought to know more about. Well, it it also helps with that uh self-actualization, right? A lot of people don't talk, they bottle things up because they don't know how to express themselves uh in the right way for a particular situation. Um learning that rhetorical skill or those rhetorical skills can enhance that defensive confidence I was working on earlier. And um help people self-actualize. Am I on to something?
Oh, I I couldn't agree more. Yeah. That So, so let's let's take this back to the toddler who learns Oh, sorry. Let's take this back to the toddler who learns, "Use your words." Use your words is the toddler version of learn how to use this language that's available to you to start to articulate your experience. But, the sad thing is we only say it to To my To your point, we only say it to toddlers, and we don't help support individuals as they grow older. And what Use your words should develop into and I would say even starting in elementary school is an elementary school version of what is essentially rhetoric. It's essentially communication skills. It's a topic that we all should be continuously learning from toddlerhood into our adulthood. I would say that it's something that I still feel that I am trying to get better at every day. It's It's one of the motivations, one of the reasons why I love saying yes to all of these podcasts because one of the great benefits for me is that I just get increased learning through practice. I'm sure I have not said everything right. I hope that in 5 years I look back at this video and say, "Oh my goodness, I could have done this so much better." But that's part of the joy of living and of the human experience as far as I'm concerned.
Chris? Yeah, I mean Joy as she she touched on one of two words. You know, we when we even first set out to design this project, um and why I mean why we even chose free speech, you know, that's that's a whole other story. But um you know, we recognized I think early on that free speech kind of encompasses two critical skills of communication and critical thinking. And so to me, rhetoric really encompasses both of those. And so I like Joy said, I you know, please do champion that. I mean, on my list on that list of topics for being better humans that we don't get educated on, communication and critical thinking skills are are right up there because as you rightly noted, they go into how we express and articulate ourselves. And I think the more you talk about defensive confidence, if people learned proper communication and critical thinking, that is really just how they Those are the foundations for then understanding and what's inside and then expressing it externally. Um and and such. And and just to tie it back to the theme of the of the discussion, to me that's why free speech and a culture of free speech, perhaps even more so than a legal regime that protects it, is so critical. Because I would argue, you know, legally free speech has never been probably more strongly defended and upheld. We've had a court a Supreme Court that for now decades has continuously uh defended and even advanced and expanded the legal protections for the First Amendment. But sadly, we see that has done nothing to tamp down the growing illiberalism in our culture. And I think that goes back to this whole theme of education. But they're interrelated and and kind of iterative or uh circular, right? Because the more free speech culture you have, then the more tolerance you have for people to think aloud in public and to say things even if they make mistakes or they're wrong or they might even be offensive, God forbid, you know, I know offense is a is a horrible thing these days. It's like the the ultimate sin. Um but, you know, that that's part of a free speech culture. And when we lose the valuing, which means that people just accept and protect that right and that kind of environment, then then I think that's when people start to self-censor and then they lose, perhaps to Joyce's point about practicing, they lose the opportunities, the forums, and just the the reps, if you will, of communicating with with other people.
This makes me want to ask about what I'll call the dark side of defensive confidence, of using your words. Trolls. Now, I'm not just talking about internet trolls. I'm talking about IRL trolls as well. People who argue in bad faith. Um do we feed the trolls?
Um You know, I think it's I think it's a balance, right? I think So, yes to some extent because that is part of the debate. And in particular, like you said, the in real life ones. Um but I think you know, understanding where someone's coming from, what's their level of sincerity or their aim matters. If you can if you think someone is just trolling to kind of provoke or perhaps open up a discussion that they then may be open to, then I think it's it's worthwhile to engage. Sometimes you can't really gauge that until you have some back and forth. Um but uh you know, if they're really just trolling to get a rise, kind of like a drive-by, you know, to say something nasty or irrational, kind of uh kind of incoherently provocative, and then just kind of exit the the the forum, I don't think that really serves much purpose. But in so far as the trolls inspire other people, that that is a kind of effective or productive means of communication, then I do think it matters to engage them because you need to demonstrate that there's a better way of communicating and more importantly that there's a better, more coherent, rational idea or alternative to it. So, I mean for all of the drawbacks of social media, uh you know, I think uh even the term trolling comes out of the social media culture and public square that we now all live in. And so, I do think in so far as encountering this as frequently as one does online is one way in which you can start to kind of calibrate this this strategy and tactics of how to deal with the trolls. So, I it's mine's it's a kind of yes and or sometimes answer.
I I love that. I I like the idea I call it minding the um eavesdroppers, right? You may be talking to somebody uh who is arguing in bad faith, but other people are listening in. Or they're reading, whatever context it is, and you have to model that civil discourse, right? Uh to show them, you know, what it is to argue in good faith, right? And to also make your points because people are listening. It's for them now, right? It's it's not about the uh the person um on the other side of you.
Online life is just a a kind of extension of real world life. It it sometimes encourages, I think, worse behaviors than we would in real life because the anonymity or the seeming anonymity behind the screen creates that additional layer of separation, but, you know, insofar as they are related, you know, I think just, you know, uh speaking publicly, there is always someone listening to your point. I can't tell you how many times I've had people privately DM me, to use the online language, or even, you know, in public settings say, you know, I you they didn't necessarily react to what I was saying. They weren't even a part of the conversation, but they said, "I noticed what you said, and I really appreciated it." So, to your point, people are watching, and the more you cannot be a troll and model that, the better. I'll admit, you know, even I succumb to the occasional troll, too. It just trolling it it's kind of there's I think there's probably an arc to it, so I'm sure there's a Reddit sub thread or something out there that talks about how to be a good troll. But, you know, I think this is just but but, you know, frankly, this is why I engage in this project is as much for my own benefit and improve self-improvement as to try and model it for others. I'm certainly not putting myself up as kind of the paragon of anti-trolling, but I do feel like getting into the scrum, if you will, in the public square has helped develop some of these principles about how to how to kind of calibrate when and when and when not to engage.
This has been an excellent conversation. We're coming towards the end. I want to make sure I ask this question, which is one of yours. And I love it. If you possess the necessary or even unlimited funds and no time constraints, what project or cause related to free speech would you find most worthy of pursuing? Besides what you're already doing.
Chris and I talked about that and that really is we would be doing what we are doing, but just more of it. That free speech forward the podcast is part of our organization 1776 forward, where we're really trying to spark a cultural, philosophical, and political revolution for a free society grounded in these broader philosophical and psychological ideas about freedom, flourishing, and greatness. So, we would be doing that and more of it. Do you want to add to that, Chris?
Yeah, you know, I mean, we're we're still a somewhat nascent organization, but our vision and our purpose really is to educate, activate, and and provide a forum for to for other creators, entrepreneurs to find new and creative ways to express themselves and particularly express themselves in defense of philosophically liberal values, you know, values that advance a free society that maximizes freedom, flourishing, and greatness. That's our creed of what we call philosophical liberalism at 1776 forward. And so, you know, incubating new kinds of entrepreneurs, new organizations, partnering with them, kind of even bringing an entrepreneurial mindset to the intellect advocacy and activism sphere. That's what we're all about. And so, if we had unlimited resources and time, we could go full bore into that. And so, you know, just as a plug, you know, we have this podcast with the Institute for Liberal Values that we promote. And they're a great organization that we partnered with. That's one way to support us and them. And then we have our Substack as well, where we dive deep into the meaning of our statement on philosophical liberalism. And you can find us there at the philosophical liberal on Substack. That's one another way you can support us in that effort and subscribe and share this share our column with others as we dive into these ideas. But that's that's really what we're developing. So, we would just turbocharge that to the max with the unlimited resources.
You you mentioned the Substack. How can viewers find you online? Um especially the podcast.
Yep. So, on Substack, we are the philosophical liberal on Substack. And then, as Chris pointed out, we do our Free Speech Forward podcast in partnership with the Institute for Liberal Values. And our podcast is part of their dissident series. So, if you look for the Institute for Liberal Values their dissident series, you'll find Free Speech Forward. And and then we we're online on all social media platforms under our organization 1776 Forward. And our of course our website is really the clearinghouse for all of it, 1776forward.com, where you can read our our statement and manifesto of what we're all about and get in contact with us.
Well, thank you, Joya and Chris, for joining me today. Uh it was a great conversation. I learned a lot. And I hope we can keep in touch.
Likewise. Thank you for having us, Eric. It was it was an honor. And I'm glad we've had now mutual conversations on our respective channels. Let's keep Keep going.
Yeah, let's do that. say, I hope we do this more. Okay, maybe we'll have you on again. We'd love to. Thank you. And and vice versa, you're all you're always welcome. Uh viewers, thank you for tuning in to Competencies of Civil Discourse. Um it's always good to have you. If you are interested in rhetorical tactics, skills, things like that, you can also go to www.mutualpersuasion.com, where you'll find, you know, more terms that you can use and tactics and strategies for civil discourse. Thanks.