ENTP: I Need Intellectual Fodder. Where is it? WHERE IS IT?


Anyone want to argue? I want genuine argument however humor and jest can definitely be a part of it. I’ll start it off with a topic and a response:

Is there a limit to free speech?

I consider myself a liberal dude but that term (and all political terms) seem to be largely misunderstood, especially by their self-proclaimed adherents. So, free speech, the idea coming from Enlightenment Liberals, seems limitless to me, unless it somehow can be shown to violate what J.S. Mill called the “harm principle”. An example of this would be yelling fire or bomb in a closed and populated space inducing fear, panic and, well, harm. So this kind of speech is where I draw the line. But, like any good human guideline, the lines are transparent and flexible. Perhaps I can think of speech that does violate the harm principle yet I find morally acceptable. In today’s climate, our fractious political identities from all ideologies and philosophies causes anyone who feels offended to deem unwelcomed speech “harmful”. And this is not just from the SJWs and social left. In fact, I’d argue the right is worse but they have the “moral majority” and hegemonic control over the monolithic political and cultural structures they’ve been actively erecting out of fear and domination over the last half-century or more. This doesn’t vindicate the college campus “liberals” or celebrity elites on the left of their bigoted, ignorant and social engineering politics either that seek to silence rational thought. I’m just arguing that the conservative view is the dominant view in this country as evidenced by Fox News’ majority viewers, Rush Limbaugh’s talk radio popularity, the right-wing ownership of local news and politics in almost all the rural parts of the country, large Evangelical population, over-militarization of entertainment heros (video games, novels, movies, etc.). And there are many stats I can provide if this becomes a side argument but to keep it from deterring the free-speech argument let’s assume I don’t bullshit and this is factually correct.

So, on the issue of free speech, what I see happening reminds me of a quote from Antonio Gramsci, “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”. Are we now in a time when the old conceptions of free speech are dying yet no new ones can be formed due to the irrational factions now competing on amplified platforms? What consistutes free speech in today’s world and how should it be applied?

Thank you,

-Christian “Scythers” Barber


I do! I’m surrounded by Fe all day and I need this shit.

Never mind. :expressionless:

I feel I’d have to do homework for this argument. Like review the laws and policies of free speech. You pretty much just open and closed the argument with data and facts.

The extent of free speech is determined by the laws of each nation.

There’s no limiting of free speech (in a nation of free speech). There’s a desire to control all the nuanced negative outcomes that free speech creates. But it would just create more negative outcomes.

Like should authoritarian government ideologies be regulated for the fact that it is anti free speech?

If your talking about free thinking…that’s different. There’s no true freedom of opinion. On the internet for example, Your opinions are controlled by a pre programmed algorithm. The tv just tells you about what Trumps up to, disregarding all of the plutocratic mischief happening under the radar.

Maybe I’m not grasping the context of the “argument” your bringing?? I have no Ti. Maybe you can elaborate or get me in tune with the framework your coming from so that I can argue and yell at you in your home court.


I think you’ve got the gist @Sammy but let’s put aside the legal constraints and focus on the more nebulous yet important ethical and moral concerns surrounding free speech. Such as the point you raised about authoritarianism. Basically, why is free speech important and are there moral reasons it should be allowed? I want your informed and experienced opinion about it. Fuck the technical answer unless you’re bringing in technical aspects you agree with or which shape your views surrounding free speech. I’ll try to give you something you can argue with. I think we should limit corporate control over free speech through mediums that operate over public services such as the internet. This means Twitter and Facebook should have less control over what gets said on their platforms based on the sheer amount of public internet users that use their platforms. I’ll stop there so I can elaborate on the areas you may have disagreement with.


Based on what you wrote here and on the “what offends entp thread”, It seems like your veiw is that you are for regulations on the spreading of misinformation.

So yeah this is regulation of the free market. Which I am in favor of if it’s to offset income inequality. But this would be an attempt to regulate people’s opinions…which seems like it would be the opposite of regulating opinions…but it’s not.

The internet is still young. As time progresses people will become wiser. Babies have iPads Now and become tech savy by 10years and know how to filter through the BS more efficiently. The older generations will be gone eventually which will end the old school conservative veiw.

Also, because of the freedom of information and how it is narrated, we are able to veiw CEO pay compared to their median wage employee…a starting point for putting company’s at the mercy of the general public. So if Facebook does something shady, they are called out by the public and end up caving to public demand. The notion that corporations still have full authoritative control is starting fade. It’s a mild start, but it’s just a beginning phase.

Regulating how information is spread would just slow down progress of humanity in general. It seems like humanity’s declining, but it’s just getting over a hump as a result of the internet.


I’m not sure that I ever said I wanted to regulate information at all, or if I did, shame on me. I said Facebook and Twitter should have less control. Such as who can join their platforms and speak. I hate most people so I hate most Facebook and Twitter users but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be allowed to hear what they have to say :kissing_heart: I think we agree a lot based on your last post.


I interpreted this as a law being created to control public opinion. But I guess your just saying they “SOULD” have less control, as in they should grow hearts or something?? Lol.

Well I was trying to create some type of polarity to argue over. Lol


I setup the experiment so how could I judge you for returning the favor?


I said Facebook and Twitter should have less control.

What do you see as the problematic aspects of the control these platforms have over content? Hate speech? ‘Pornographic’ and violent material? Fake news?

I have a hazy idea of where I draw my lines but I’m curious where yours are. My biggest issue with how social media manipulates content is the algorithms. I don’t like how algorithms become feedback loops that reinforce the ideas people already hold. I understand that people like to have their own thoughts echoed back to them and it boosts site traffic but I find it unethical.


Yeah, that’s an interesting take on the echo chambers of social media and the algorithms are abhorrent but we have to put responsibility back in the people’s hands over their own thoughts and actions. Things like Citizens United show corporations have more free speech than we do. They set the agenda and topics of speech.


What I’m asking is in what specific ways you feel social media should have less control/in what ways do you find censorship on these platforms problematic. You’re speaking in general terms and from what I can tell I mostly agree with you, so there’s little to argue. If you want debate (at least from me) you need to be more specific about what you see as the problems/how you would change things. Such as, should social media be a free-for-all with zero regulation? I would disagree (see more below).

I’m not very informed on what is or is not censored on social media. A quick google search shows me that both the US right and left feel they are unfairly censored, and more censorship is needed of the other side. For example, the right claims pro-life information is often censored on Facebook, such as this movie https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-roe-v-wade-movie-has-an-all-star-conservative-cast-and-a-bone-to-pick-with-the-media/2018/07/16/bb4ab352-8912-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b91a959bedd1

while this artwork

is routinely flagged and removed from Instagram for being “inappropriate”.

All of that seems like bullshit to me. Leave it up and let people make up their own minds.

But should Facebook censor something like this: https://www.newsweek.com/teenagers-raped-girl-and-streamed-attack-facebook-live-say-police-859472

Fuck yes they should. I also agree with the censorship of hate speech to a certain extent, especially comments made outside a person’s own profile and cyber bullying pertaining to minors. That’s just my soft heart speaking.

Yeah, that’s an interesting take on the echo chambers of social media and the algorithms are abhorrent but we have to put responsibility back in the people’s hands over their own thoughts and actions.

In what way do you propose we but responsibility back in the people’s hands? Theoretically limiting algorithms that cause echo chambers is a great way to do that, forces people on both sides to confront and sort through what they don’t agree with. Algorithms have more to do with who gets access to information and who reaches a wide audience than censorship does. In practice I think it’s better for people to be aware of how the information they are getting is filtered/manipulated by the source they receive it from, but you and I both know most people don’t consider that.

For me most of this discussion (and many others) comes down to education, and is less about censorship/free speech. Limit as little as possible, but teach people how to both think for themselves and examine the viewpoints of others with a reasonable degree of tolerance and objectivity.


But the two things are linked though. The algorithms often end up shaping thoughts, opinions and actions.
In the past people may have been more aware that they don’t know enough to have a thought or opinion… It’s easy for people to now be under the illusion that they know everything because there is validation available for everything. Even a mildly held opinion can become a dogmatic view point quite quickly.

When given the freedom, people choose to be dumb, haha.

But like Sammy says, maybe it will all calm down, since this format is the norm for further generations.


How do we teach people tolerance. Do we create a rule book? A law? We can’t teach people as a whole. There’s always so many versions of truth and morality. Then comes people who know how to manipulate opposing moralities into Facism in one way or the other. Donald Trump for example manipulated the idea of freedom and progressiveness (plotocratic code for economic globalism and capitalist stronghold) into government control by stimulating the vulnerabilities of people. People are easily swayed through polarities. With every law passed, their is an automatic polarity. With every moral idea comes an automatic polarity. Polarities are essential to democracy, but…

…money creates the narrative of polarities. So this should be the focus of regulation.

Controlling algorithms or the existence of algorithms wouldn’t solve our problem. People are getting woke to the algorithms scheme. Universal consciousness will eventually adapt. People will always be stuck in echo chambers. Everyone thinks their out of the cave at all times. No one googles “how to have free thoughts.”

Edit: @batshitty and @Spice I’m aware that I might have taken your comments out of context…but I am trying to create a little animosity in this thread to make it fun for everyone! :face_with_symbols_over_mouth::imp::heart:


Two specific examples to illustrate my more general argument surrounding limits on free speech (public vs. private): Alex Jones and Roseanne Barr. I think both people are pathologically deranged, imbecilic and hate mongering cretins. But they should not be banned or removed from social media just because they say stupid and potentially harmful shit. The “harmful shit” quotient is the object of my concern and this is where I put the responsibility back on the people. It should be obvious to anyone with a discerning mind and functional brain that there is not much substantiated in the claims and rhetoric of these two public figures. It takes just the least amount of critical thought and limited research to conclude that they are technically, morally and ethically wrong in their statements and worldviews. So, instead of banning them and thereby artificially inflating their status among their fan base and giving tacit credence to the idea that “they’re being silenced by a cabal of liberal elites in the mainstream media!” we should spend our time debunking them and debating their ignorance. I think Twitter, Facebook, et al should not have the right to ban people from their platforms as they are making money off of the open and public use of the internet through advertising, algorithmic target marketing, data selling etc. We have increasingly given corporations the rights of privatization and personhood while simultaneously deregulating limits on their control of resources. If their sites were a paid subscription service (like this one) then I would have a vastly different stance on this but they’ve entangled themselves with the public solely to profit from our collective ignorance which they are free to regulate and control at will. To conclude, the problem is that currently social media platforms have too much control over public content (whether or not they own the medium). They aren’t charging the public to use their platforms yet they are at the same time some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Why? Because of their ability to control free speech. I say blow the lid off the mother fucker!

I agree based on all the points made above ^^

I would say anyone who would Google this doesn’t understand what “free thinking” is (obviously, hence the need to look it up haha). That’s what’s always been funny to me about self-help gurus. It’s oxymoronic.


I think this clearly violates the Harm Principle and goes beyond the domain of free speech.



How do we teach people tolerance. Do we create a rule book? A law? We can’t teach people as a whole. There’s always so many versions of truth and morality.

Correct, we can’t teach people as a whole. Gotta get them while they’re young and fresh, at least if you don’t want it to take fucking forever. But even extremely rigid mindsets can change. This guy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/i-wanted-to-understand-why-racists-hated-me-so-i-befriended-klansmen/2017/09/29/c2f46cb8-a3af-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html?utm_term=.ecf894ad9f54 is an interesting example of someone with the patience and tenacity needed to alter adult bigotry. Not that his success rate was that high, but it can be done. I don’t think this translates online though, you need to be in each other’s physical space.

Maybe this is less important for Gen Z as the internet has always been part of their world. In general I think Gen Z has a higher degree of tolerance, partly related to how changes in media portrayals of people traditionally othered (race, sexual orientation, gender etc.) have changed significantly in the past few decades. Social media is a big part of this equation too. Kids are exposed to things that fall outside what is deemed appropriate by their families. They engage with curiosity, and see examples of people trying things that could never be accepted within their immediate social spheres but is accepted online. Not that there isn’t still hate and vilification (you see extremes of this on both the right and left), but there is a ton of info out there to sort through, and I agree with you that young people are getting wise to algorithms. I also think Gen Z may be the most depressed generation, but that is a topic for another thread.

With every law passed, there is an automatic polarity.

Can you speak to this a little more? I’m not sure I agree but I’m interested.

No one googles “how to have free thoughts.”

I just did. An interesting mix came up:
30 Ways to Free Your Mind Immediately - Lifehack
Free Thoughts on Free Thoughts: 200 Episodes and Counting … (libertarianism.org)
Free Thought Is for White People - The Root
A History of Freedom of Thought - Foundation for Critical Thinking

Shit I just realized I have 20 tabs open!

I’m aware that I might have taken your comments out of context

No worries I’m pretty detached from this argument but it is fun!


Alex Jones and Roseanne Barr

I don’t really have an issue with what happened to Roseanne. She wasn’t banned from social media, though she did voluntarily leave Twitter for a short time. Her show was supposed to be renewed with ABC but was cancelled as a result of her racist tweets. To me that falls outside the realm of free speech. She isn’t censored, she just got fired for behaving like an ass. Sucks for her co-stars, but seems to fall outside what we are discussing.

Alex Jones is a tough call for me. If it weren’t for his rampant popularity I would be right with you, leave him up and let people sort through the lies. For the sake of argument I’ll say I agree with the ban. Because he had access to such a wide audience there was the potential to do a lot of damage.

we should spend our time debunking them and debating their ignorance.

We’ve all agreed here that most people don’t think for themselves, especially when motivated by underlying emotionally-charged ideologies. Jones is catering to these people and feeding misinformation that he knows won’t be challenged. Whose responsibility is it to protect the public from misinformation, and at what point do we determine that open debate about something obviously untrue is a waste of time? Should the public be protected? Should textbooks that preach creationism and deny the holocaust be used in public grade schools if the administration of that particular school is onboard? Where do we draw these lines? Sammy made the excellent point that it is very difficult to teach tolerance and open minds (past a certain age level). Is there a point when enough is enough?

I’ll draw my line at Alex Jones being kicked off Twitter. I’d need to do more research to feel stable about it, but ultimately this is a private corporation and they can choose to regulate what gets said. Dude has multiple defamation suits in the works as a result of shit he’s said about Sandy Hook. If Twitter as a corporation wants to wipe their hands of that seems ok to me. No one is telling him he can’t speak, just that they aren’t willing to host his bullshit. I’ve watched Info Wars a time or two and sometimes they say some pretty smart shit. They’re especially good at pointing out many people don’t have a solid backing for what they believe (though they focus on the left when really it is an issue on both sides). But they’ve been irresponsible about the accuracy of much of their information and now are losing privileges as a result. A newspaper doesn’t have to publish an article that doesn’t meet certain fact-check standards, but social media should have to host flimsy content simply because their platform is free?

I think Twitter, Facebook, et al should not have the right to ban people from their platforms as they are making money off of the open and public use of the internet

So you think a social media platform can set no limits as to what is appropriate conduct on their platforms unless they charge? For example, Twitter has a policy against what they call abusive behavior and, as far as I can tell, people are given numerous warnings before their accounts are suspended. Users who sign up for this platform agree to this policy when they register, and a small amount of research shows what conduct results in being banned.

Specifically address your stance on the regulation of hate speech on social media. What I hear from you right now is people should just ignore it. But from what I can tell Twitter does just ignore it until a substantial number of complaints have been made by users, and takes into account the severity of the situation. One comment here or there isn’t going to get you banned. Hundreds of abusive tweets directed at a specific individual may not get you banned, but could if complaints are made and recognized. What should be tolerated? Rape threats? Death threats? Doxxing? I think I’m ok with it if Twitter decides they don’t want to be 4chan or Reddit.

We have increasingly given corporations the rights of privatization and personhood while simultaneously deregulating limits on their control of resources.

I agree, but don’t know if free speech is a central component of this. Would be interested to hear more.

They aren’t charging the public to use their platforms yet they are at the same time some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet. Why? Because of their ability to control free speech.

Please argue this further. I don’t see a direct correlation between how social media controls free speech and how much money they make. Show it to me.

Youtube removed a few of Alex Jones’ channels that had millions of subscribers. I would guess they lost advertising money because of that rather than boosted profits.

I think this clearly violates the Harm Principle and goes beyond the domain of free speech.

Yes, I used a very cut and dry example. Interested in your thoughts on this: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24772724


What kind of sick twisted Infp are you to make that statement. :grin:

So not automatic polarity. (Oops, lack of Ti) But every law has an opportunity to be exploited by being in opposition to it. I mean this in a more meta sense. When Sammy says laws- he means any type of regulations or rules made by an authority or perceived moral authority figure.

So not that there’s a moral immediately apparent polarity, but that a polarity can be created through opposition of a rule or law to empower an us vs them agenda that serves a bigger or hidden agenda.

Like something that most people agree on that seems morally virtuous like making it harder for kids to get their hands on cigarettes… Then someone comes along and says we shouldn’t let these laws that prevent kids from smoking take affect because the (liberals or conservatives) are trying to tell us how to raise our kids… but this politicians true agenda is to make regulations in general look like micromanaging families. So that regulation registers in people’s minds as a negative thing to prevent regulations on corporations.

I’m just saying we should be careful about the rules/laws or universally accepted formalities that we want to impose. Cause it could seem morally right in one decade and a tool for politics in another decade. Rules are always subject to change, but their should be intent to have rules withstand the test of time.

Not sure if you are interpreting this in the way I am intending for it to be interpreted. Let me know.

Edited to unclusterfuck Sammy’s lack of Ti.


This is akin to democracy and of course I agree with it (in spirit). But no one voted to have Twitter as an arbitrator because no one voted to have Twitter period. They’re allowed privileges to host commercialized products on public services (aka the internet) but that privilege should come with a social contract in the form of democratically elected governmental regulations. Unless they charge for access giving them exclusive rights to the patroned content based on one to one owner/user contracts. The reason why I think this will be answered in another response to one of your statements but for now here’s an analogy that might help. Imagine I’m a tomato vendor and I want broad access to as many people as possible without having to spend on advertising so I setup a stand in a public square after obtaining a permit and all legal requirements blah blah blah. Do I have the right then to draft contractual policies and procedures with customers that enables me to deny equal access to my tomatoes based on my arbitrary whims? I would say yes if I owned the property I was on. This is the same with Twitter. Their domain is basically a permit to setup shop on the public internet but that doesn’t confer them the right to control who visits. Especially when a visit technically confers a hidden cost via useful and profitable user metadata.

You’ve made the argument yourself (i.e. algorithms, data tracking, metadata farming, advertising rights etc.). Then to top that off, they can restrict or censor however they feel.

Thanks for clarifying this. I truthfully didn’t care enough to follow the story too far. Just knew she said some racist Twitter shit and had a hiatus. I think you were able to make the connection anyway, so thanks.

I agree with you here but I’m tired of making excuses for stupid people who believe stupid shit. I don’t blame Jim Jones for the Jonestown Massacre unless the people that drank the kool-aid were forced at gun point. If they did it voluntarily based on faithful allegiance then fuck them (excluding the poor children). We all have our fleeting and momentary delusions but you have to actually contemplate your actions when committing suicide. That’s a meditated choice. So is believing Alex Jones enough to not fact check him and therefore instill his bigoted and irrational worldviews enough to assimilate them into your decision matrix or even Fox News for that matter.

I have a very simple stance on this and if you get a chance to read Wilhelm Von Humbolt or John Stuart Mill on the “harm principle” I recommend it. Essentially, if hate speech can reasonably be shown to be the direct reason for the harm of others then it should be censored.

A few of us in this debate have made the larger point I made in the beginning. Should we revamp our ideas of free speech for the IoT age?


@Sammy @LifeExamined

This is fun! I have things to get back to both of you about but I’ve been using this as a way to procrastinate finishing a very overdue research paper. Until tomorrow!


@batshitty Is it tomorrow yet?


Ok. Re edited my last comment for clarity…so re read when tomorrow becomes today.