< Back

More Bad Bunny Fallout, Trump on Crime, "Emergency Tariff Powers," and More

Main Discussion Topics

Bad Bunny Halftime Show Fallout and Republican Hypocrisy

Republicans accused Bad Bunny of saying vile things in Spanish during Super Bowl halftime
Carlos (Spanish speaker) confirmed Bad Bunny did not actually sing offensive lyrics as accused
Accusations continue circulating on social media despite being false
Bad Bunny show drew 121 million viewers compared to 2 million for TPUSA alternative event

Michael detailed the right-wing hypocrisy: "These are the same people, the same people that are criticizing Bad Bunny have incessantly defended the president of the United States who said we should, we, you know, he can grab women by their genitals. Bragged on that same tape about trying to get a married woman to make out with him has bragged on Howard Stern about sneaking into, or strolling into women's dressing rooms. Swears quite frequently on the open mic."

He continued with examples from Kid Rock, who performed at TPUSA: "Kid Rock frequently said of the Olson twins when they were 14 years old, why is every guy in America waiting on these chicks to turn 18 if there's grass on the field? Play ball... he also has a song that says, young ladies, young Ladies. I like 'em under age. See, some say that's statutory, but I say it's mandatory."

Michael's critique of Kid Rock's TPUSA performance included explicit lyrics from his song performed there: "This is for the questions that don't have any answers. The midnight glancers and the topless answers, the gander freaks cars packed with speakers, the GS with the forties, and the chicks with the beepers... All the crack heads, the critics, the cynics, and all my heroes in the methadone clinic, all you bastards at the IRS for the crooked cops and the cluttered desks for the shots of Jack and the caps of meth, half pints of love and the fifths of stress for all, the hook for hookers, all tricking out in Hollywood."

Mark noted the reality: "Tribalism is a mental illness, folks. I mean, it demands that you conform to whatever the tribe is saying, regardless of how irrational it is or how easily disprovable it is, just because you are a member of that tribe. So we here at capitalist corner are anti tribalistic. We are pro individual."

FCC Threats and Government Censorship

Congressmen calling for FCC investigation into NBC despite Bad Bunny not saying what they claim
Mark drew parallel to FDR's use of FCC to quash New Deal dissent
Discussion of FCC's original purpose versus current political weaponization
Trump administration using FCC similar to how Roosevelt did

Mark explained the historical parallel: "The FCC, as many of you know, federal Communications Commission was formed by Franklin Roosevelt, and it was, its ostensible purpose was to regulate the airways because it was a finite resource that needed to be doled out by the government needed to be overseen by the government... Roosevelt used it, Michael, in the same way that Trump seems to be using it today, which is as a means of at the time he was attempting to, um, quash dissent, public dissent about the New Deal."

Michael explained the arbitrary enforcement: "They have these rules, I guess, that, uh, you can't use certain language between the hours of 6:00 AM or, and 10:00 PM because the children might, you know, see this and, you know, we, we have to just limit everybody's freedom because a ch a child might see something rather than have the parents just not have the child watch."

Congressman Ogles stated according to Michael: "If you challenge or if you degrade the culture of this country, you're gonna face consequences. Like, screw you, dude. That's not what government is here for."

Michael emphasized his opposition regardless of content: "Let me just say, even if Bad Bunny were to have said everything they're accusing him of, I'd still be opposed to this. I'd still be opposed to the government, but they're just wrong. They're out there either dumb or lying for God's sake. You people can't find a Spanish speaker to interpret for you."

Mark highlighted Ayn Rand's critique: "Ayin Rand hit the nail on the head in her essay, uh, have Gun Will Nudge. And she talked about it's always in the amorphous, uh, public interest. Right. That's how they justify this garbage."

Mark explained the problem with "public interest" standards: "Their standard for judging what the public interest is, has to be arbitrary on its face, especially when you consider a public like the United States of America that has such disparate values in each of the communities, Michael, I mean, on the, as the article points out, on, on the one hand you have Quakers and on the other hand you have, you know, hyper liberal folks who have very, very different approaches to, you know, values and what is good. And so determining what's in the public interest or in the public good becomes an impossible task."

Mark continued: "What they wind up doing is making the bureaucrat's judgment, the arbiter. So whatever his whim happens to be at the moment is the standard that they use to determine whether something is, is, or is not in the public interest. It's non-objective law folks, and these are the kinds of laws that need to be immediately stricken from the books."

He noted the cost of FCC: "That organization, the Federal Communications Commission costs $330 million a year to fund this thing. It costs the taxpayers a billion or so dollars to conform to the regulatory process of the FCC. That's wealth siphoned away by the political class for no purpose other than to Quell thought and to Quell voices, particular oppositional voices."

Trump's Tariff Powers and Switzerland Incident

Trump threatened 30% tariff on Switzerland over $42 billion trade deficit
After conversation with Swiss official (not Prime Minister, as Trump claimed), raised it to 39%
Trump didn't know Switzerland doesn't have a Prime Minister and spoke to a woman, not the male president
Trump raised tariff because official was "aggressive" in defending her country

Mark explained what happened: "The conversation was he wanted to slap a 30% tariff on, on the Swiss, because we have a $42 billion trade deficit with them. And he's upset about that... he did not like the conversation he had with poor Karen. It, she was aggressive. She was nice, but she was aggressive. And because she was aggressive, he decided to slap a 39% tariff on him because of what she said."

Mark analyzed Trump's response: "I can only assume that she didn't kiss his ass and that aggressiveness only meant that she was standing up for her for one probably principle and for her country's interests unapologetically instead of bowing and scraping at the feet of the Donald. And he didn't appreciate that. She obviously hasn't learned what Zelensky and all the other leaders in Europe have learned, which is to first preface anything you want by copious ass kissing, and then you are likely to get what you want."

Michael pointed out Trump's ignorance: "Switzerland doesn't have a prime minister, and the president is a guy, not a woman. He spoke to a woman who's like part of the cabinet or whatever they have over there, you know, uh, he just doesn't know what he's doing."

Michael explained the constitutional problem: "There's two ways that he can justify this, uh, tariffs, his tariffs by the executive rather than going through Congress. And they are, if it's an emergency situation, national security or an economic emergency, neither of which we are currently in. I don't know how they would help in an economic emergency, they would hurt anyway. But how is it an emergency, a national emergency of economic or security when Trump's feelings get hurt by the way a foreign politician talks to him?"

He continued his assessment: "He's not playing four D chess, he's not a genius. He's a petulant man child. That's who's running the country. And there are an abundance of people out there who are cheering him on."

Michael quoted Eric Erickson's observation: "The reason that Trump never sort of recalibrates and fixes himself is because the base does not hold him accountable. They will not hold him accountable for anything. And that seems to be largely the base."

Legal Justifications for Tariffs

Section 232 of Trade Expansion Act of 1962 allows tariffs for national security threats
Section 301 of Trade Act of 1974 allows unilateral action against "unfair trade practices"

Mark questioned the vagueness: "Section 301 of the Trade of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to act unilaterally against, now listen to this Michael quote, unfair trade practices by foreign countries. What the fuck is that?"

Michael explained tariff reality: "Tariffs are attacks on the companies that are importing the goods into the country. They're not attacks on foreign governments or on foreign companies."

Mark addressed the "dumping" accusation: "When China produces steel and they send it here to the United States, and they're able to produce it cheaper than any domestic producer, the politicians call it dumping. They call it product dumping. And they act as if that is a vice, but what's happening? And we're getting that steel more cheaply and they say, we're getting it cheaply because the Chinese are cheating. They're cheating because they subsidize these industries. But does that bother? How should that bother us?"

Michael's response: "No, because we end up with cheaper goods with more goods, cheaper. It's good for production, it's good for the companies that are buying this stuff, they can expand, they can hire that sort of thing. Now, of course, you have creative destruction. Some companies are going to lose out. They should lose out if they can't compete in a free market."

He continued: "If the problem, which it is in a lot of cases is of the government policy of, you know, restrictions of regulations, of minimum wage laws, that sort of thing, then you gotta get rid of that stuff. You don't make it worse by putting tariffs on the stuff coming into the country. You roll the stuff back. It's like the argument against immigration. Well, you have to get rid of the welfare state first. Okay, well then let's argue for that rather than arguing for immigration restrictions because arguing for immigration restrictions is going the wrong way, just as getting tariffs is going the wrong way."

Mark addressed tariffs on capital inputs: "They're using it for stuff that are capital inputs, Michael, like steel and aluminum things that are now raising the price of these capital inputs, which is raising the cost for businesses, even startups, if you wanted to bring manufacturing back to this country... You don't put a tariff on steel and aluminum, the things with which you use to build these buildings and infrastructure in the first place because you're raising the cost of doing business and prohibiting this manufacturing from actually coming here and building infrastructure here."

Crime Statistics and Presidential Credit

Trump touting dramatic crime drop as his achievement
Crime statistics show decline began before Trump took office
2020 saw sharp spike in crime during Trump's first term
2021 plateaued, 2023-24 saw decline continuing under current administration

Michael traced the trajectory: "If you go back the eighties and nineties, saw super high crime rates like off the charts. You then saw a decline to very low levels. In 2020, there was a dramatic spike in crime. It shot it up still not as high as it was in the nineties, but it was a very sharp increase. Interesting. Who was president in 2020? It was the Donald."

He continued: "If the president is to get all the credit, the president should get the blame. So, and then 2021, it kind of plateaued. It stayed high 23 and 24, it started to the decline that has now continued under Trump. So Trump is taking the credit for this."

Michael acknowledged military presence impact: "You militarized the streets like he did in DC I have no problem saying that, that probably helped the drop in crime."

He compared to Connecticut example: "What they were saying on television was, look at the recidivism rate is down and it's due to these policies. So I actually investigated and it turned out that the recidivism rate had been dropping for some time. Actually, the drop slowed when Malloy took over and implemented his policies."

Michael's conclusion: "To attribute it all, to put state crime and attribute it all to the guy in the White House is just silly. It would be silly to ascribe the increase in 2020 to Trump and it would be just as silly to ascribe the decline to Trump."

Mark made the totalitarian comparison: "I was talking to somebody who's a Chinese citizen a few months ago, and they're like, you know, you could walk through the streets of Beijing. You don't have to worry about ever getting mugged. Well, sure, but what do you sacrifice for that? What do you sacrifice for the low crime rates, totalitarian states, you sacrifice your liberty."

He continued: "It's the government who's the biggest criminal of all the government who's watching you walk through those streets and making sure you don't do anything that doesn't conform to their ideology, and that can imprison you or take your life at a whim. That's the real criminal that you have to watch for."

Mark explained temporary effects: "When you bring military law down onto a civilian area, you're gonna temporarily put a damper on crime because there's curfews, there's armed soldiers out on the street. You're less likely to, these guys who go and commit crimes that are just opportunistic, they see the place to do it, and there's no guardian there to protect somebody. Well, they're gonna commit a crime for sure, and they don't have the incentive to do that when the soldier's there. But what greater thing is sacrificed in the meantime?"

Immigration and Welfare Data

Cato Institute study shows immigrants receive less welfare than native-born Americans across most metrics
Immigrants pay more into system than they take out
Discussion of individual rights foundation for open borders
Constitutional analysis showing no congressional authority to regulate immigration
Economic benefits of immigration in long run

Michael laid out his three-part case: "I am for relatively open borders. I think a case can be made to have checking points so that you can check if somebody is a criminal or has a contagious disease of some sort. Other than that, I'm for open borders and the case is threefold. One, individual rights, people have the right to hire whom they want, and people have the right to work for whom they will, whoever will hire them. People have the right to travel on highways, people have the right to walk on property that is not private, such as the border."

He continued: "To stop people from coming here violates their rights. You're initiating force against them. And you're also telling, you're also violating the rights of the businesses that want to hire them, the customers that want to patron them. So that's the first point."

Michael's second point: "The Constitution, Article one, section eight, does not delegate Congress the authority to regulate immigration. It simply does not. It's just not in there."

His third point on economics: "Immigrants, by and large, are a net benefit to the country economically. In the short run, they may displace some low level workers, but in the long run it's a net benefit to the country. There are arguments like, well, they commit such high levels of crime. No, it's not true. They commit lower levels of crime than, generally speaking, than native born Americans."

Michael addressed the welfare myth: "Then there's this argument that they consume large amounts of welfare. Now, I've known for quite some time, they actually pay more into the system than what they take out on net. What this article here does from Cato is shows that along most metrics based on the data, and they concede in the article, their data set is limited, but based on the data that they have, the immigrants actually get less and every demographic, less welfare than Americans."

Michael responded to the "underclass" argument: "What I say is they don't actually engage the arguments. If people come in here and can only do menial labor, so what? You might have a child that can only do menial labor, so should you not be allowed to have children because of that. And what about the immigrants that are entrepreneurs? Or what about the immigrants that are willing to do work somebody else doesn't? So they free that person up to go do something else, maybe start a business."

He addressed the culture argument: "That's been the argument since the beginning, since the start of the country. You don't preserve your culture by destroying its foundations. And the foundations of America are the belief in individual rights, constitutional government, laissez faire capitalism, and you do not save that by destroying them."

Mark shared a real example: "I heard a story of a Chinese family that came over and they came over through, they took a trip to Mexico because they couldn't get into America by any legal means. And they did that hard trek through the jungles and the deserts, which is extremely dangerous and made it into the United States. And all they wanted was a life of Liberty, Michael. They just wanted to be able to be free to realize their potentials. They didn't wanna parasitize the American government or the American citizen. They just wanted to be free of Chinese oppression."

He distinguished types of immigration: "More often than not, especially in a free society, that kind of immigration is promoted by an open society, by a free immigration world as opposed to the welfare state that we have now, which could incentivize a certain type of person to come over the border where they're going to receive benefits and parasitize the country. But this is the stereotype that the Republicans try to pin on all immigrants. But this isn't true."

Mark noted bureaucratic barriers: "I've known, you know, east Indian cab drivers who actually have doctorates in chemistry and they can't get a job in the field that they are actually an expert in because America demands a certain amount of certification or demands they have to hop through some bureaucratic hoops in order to achieve the same status that they have in this other country, which I think is horrible."

He emphasized context: "You have to be thinking about the context of the person who's engaging in the transaction for that job and that it's probably better than where they've come and it is a step up for them, right? Even if it's not preferred for you, it's preferred for them. And all of us start at menial labor, Michael, all of us start in the job not doing very sophisticated stuff."

Mark concluded with personal parallel: "It didn't take 10 years of working hard and working five jobs at a time and working until four in the morning on a Friday and then going to class at nine in the morning to study acting? No, it didn't have anything to do with that. But you know what, that's what immigrants are doing. They're coming from a worse place to a better place, and everybody should be allowed to do that. It's a right to improve your situation, to move from a worse place to a better place."

Conservative Movement and Trump

Analysis of how conservatives abandoned their principles for Trump
Comparison of 2016 primary where Trump won due to split moderate/conservative vote
Discussion of conservative transformation from constitutional principles

Michael explained the conservative defeat: "A lot of people say that, well, they don't like Trump or whatever, but he fights the left and they wanna beat the left. They wanna beat woke. So they go and they side with Trump. Here's the thing, once you've sided with Trump, you've already lost. His character's garbage. The policies that he advocates are policies that some of them would've never advocated 10 years ago."

He listed Trump's anti-conservative policies: "They're supporting a guy who tariffs, a guy who promises other citizens in other countries if they protest help is on the way and then doesn't help them out. He has bought shares in companies. He's driven up the debt. He locked the country down. He wants to ban or already has banned corporations from buying housing. This is not a conservative."

Michael's assessment: "You've sided with them and you're getting a lot of the policies that the leftists wanted. Conservatives you've lost. It's over. You've lost because you're not even fighting anymore. You've conceded by siding with Trump. And it reminds me of Ayn Rand's essay from the sixties, conservatism and obituary, because she called it. They're done. It's over with."

Michael analyzed the 2016 primary: "I remember the primary, there were like 19 candidates and everybody has touted Trump's victory. He slayed 19 candidates. But the truth is, it was the fact that there were 19 candidates that allowed him to win because the moderate vote was split. The conservative vote was split, and Trump took the populist part."

He noted Trump's actual support level: "Some conservatives that wanted to beat the left went to Trump and he was at like 40% for most of it. Cruz was winning some, but Rubio stayed in for Florida. Kasich stayed in for Ohio. By the time it was down to just Trump and Cruz, it was basically already over."

Michael described Trump supporter behavior: "When you deal with a lot of these people that support Trump, they won't engage in discussion. They immediately, this morning, a guy when I posted the thing I just read about Kid Rock's performance and the hypocrisy, he just comes on and says, oh, so you support grooming and you support transvestite drag shows for kids or something. There's no argument there. It's right away to insults. They like being vile. They think that makes them good or something."

Media Distortion and Perception vs. Reality

Discussion of how media creates false perceptions of danger and frequency
Example of 2000 shark attack coverage despite fewer actual attacks
Grandmother's fearful worldview from watching too much television news
Comparison to social media not representing actual interactions

Michael shared media manipulation example: "I think it was 2000 and almost every day on the news there was a report of a shark attack. And I remember thinking, oh my God, like what's up with all these shark attacks? People keep getting attacked by sharks. And lo and behold, at the end of the summer it was tabulated and it turned out there were less shark attacks that year than other years. That's what the media chose to focus on. So because it was salient, it made it seem more common."

He warned about skewed perception: "My grandmother used to spend all her time watching television. She didn't go out, she was bedridden. Just watch TV. And her interpretation of what the world was like was so skewed. I'd go outside and she'd say, make sure to lock the doors. And she thought that this world was this place where crime was around every corner, and it just wasn't the case. But that's what she thought because she watched the news."

Michael emphasized caution: "We do have to be very careful about not thinking that the news is representative of everything. It's like social media is not representative of everything. When I go out, I'm not running into crazy leftists and crazy trumpists everywhere I go. It doesn't happen. I mean, I do know them, but it's not everywhere."

Mark drew historical parallel with Jaws: "After Jaws, which terrified me and ruined my life by the way... after Jaws came out where people were hunting down great white sharks. They literally had to make the area around the Long Islands, a sanctuary for great white sharks."

He noted the reality: "You come to realize that they're not the monsters that Steven Spielberg made us feel they were. They're actually rather benign and frightened, even though they're a 36 foot long, 3000 pound carnivorous fish. You have less to worry about them when you're out there surfing or paddleboarding or doing whatever you're doing out there in the water. You don't have to worry about great white sharks, really at all. It's a very rare phenomenon when they attack you."

Living in the Best Time in History

Despite political problems, technology and living standards higher than ever
Discussion of Steven Pinker's data on violence and prosperity
Addressing nostalgia bias about past eras

Mark acknowledged the paradox: "We understand that our freedoms are slowly being eroded by the political class, while at the same time technology's increasing at such a pace is to outdo some of the negative impacts of what the political class is doing. So it's as if our economy, our economics, and our productivity innovation is still high enough to outpace the bad shit that's going on and to make this, frankly, the best time to ever be alive."

He cited evidence: "It was Steven Pinker that really turned me onto that, who made me realize that shit, you know what, what's going on objectively is not what I see in the news. We're actually in the least violent times in history, in the least violent times in history, even though the news makes us feel we are imperiled just by stepping outside our door."

Mark detailed technological advantages: "Right now in the fifties, no individual had access to all the information of the world as he does today. In your iPhone or your Samsung Android, you have a more powerful computer than ever existed in any corporate institution in the United States of America in the 1950s. You have more information at beck and call than any scholar. You have as much information as the Library of Congress right in the palm of your hand. That is an incredible amount of potential wealth. And now with AI, you have an even greater potential, Michael, to increase the productivity of the individual."

Michael quoted on nostalgia: "There's a quote that I looked up... it's usually attributed to Benjamin Franklin, Adam Pierce. And it's nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory."

He addressed selective memory: "How many of us remember all the good times that we had out drinking with our buddies in high school as opposed to all the times you spent vomiting at your buddy's house and woke up with a headache and couldn't get outta bed? We'd tend not to remember that."

Michael challenged romanticized views: "I saw, he talks about when you watch the game shows from the fifties, you could just see that life was better by what standard?"

Mark agreed: "Not by any objective, not by really any objective standards. So again, that's nostalgia because by objective standards, Michael, our standard of living is so much higher than it was then."

Tribalism and Independent Thought

Discussion of mental costs of tribalism
Analysis of how people assume positions based on criticisms
Importance of thinking outside left-right dichotomy

Mark characterized tribalism: "Tribalism is a mental illness, folks. I mean, it demands that you conform to whatever the tribe is saying, regardless of how irrational it is or how easily disprovable it is, just because you are a member of that tribe."

Michael described the pattern: "When we did an episode the other day and I criticized the Bad Bunny halftime show, I was basically accused of being a racist who just doesn't want to hear the opinions of brown people. And then I criticized the right for their handling of the bad bunny situation and I'm accused of being a pedophile protector and an approver of transvestite drag shows for children. It's really an insane world."

He expressed relief: "I'm so happy that my mind doesn't work like that, that I'm not stuck in that tribal meld. It's very gross."

Mark described the phenomenon: "They hear phrases, Michael that trigger them, and then the brain shuts off and a stream of unconscious dialogue comes spurting outta their mouths."

Michael noted being called leftist: "I'm thinking about what we said before, and I'm just, it occurs to me how many people watching are saying, oh, these guys are leftists. Look at all they do is oppose Trump. But just look at on what we're opposing him. We're opposing violations of free speech. It's a constitutional issue, an individual rights issue. We're opposing tariffs in favor of free markets, things that used to be Republican orthodoxy. And somehow when you now oppose that, you're a leftist."

American History and Ideas vs. Tribalism

Contrast between America as nation of ideas versus European tribal conflicts
Concern about America adopting European-style tribal politics

Mark lamented the shift: "One of the things that I used to love about American history was that it was really about ideas. Whereas European history seemed to be about families and conflict and which psychopath was going to gain control over the other psychopath's property and then dispense it to all his minions. And now we are closely aligning ourselves with that European drama of tribes versus tribes, irrational tribes versus irrational tribes. It's scary, man. We're in scary times."

Notable Quotes

Michael on Conservative Capitulation: "Once you've sided with Trump, you've already lost. His character's garbage. The policies that he advocates are policies that some of them would've never advocated 10 years ago... You're not conservatives by any stretch of what the word ever meant."

Mark on Tribalism: "Tribalism is a mental illness, folks. I mean, it demands that you conform to whatever the tribe is saying, regardless of how irrational it is or how easily disprovable it is, just because you are a member of that tribe."

Michael on Trump's Behavior: "How is it an emergency, a national emergency of economic or security when Trump's feelings get hurt by the way a foreign politician talks to him? He's not playing four D chess, he's not a genius. He's a petulant man child. That's who's running the country."

Mark on FCC Waste: "The Federal Communications Commission costs $330 million a year to fund this thing. It costs the taxpayers a billion or so dollars to conform to the regulatory process of the FCC. That's wealth siphoned away by the political class for no purpose other than to quell thought and to quell voices."

Michael on Immigration Rights: "People have the right to hire whom they want, and people have the right to work for whom they will, whoever will hire them. People have the right to travel on highways, people have the right to walk on property that is not private... To stop people from coming here violates their rights."

Mark on Best Time to Be Alive: "We're actually in the least violent times in history, even though the news makes us feel we are imperiled just by stepping outside our door... Right now you have more information at beck and call than any scholar. You have as much information as the Library of Congress right in the palm of your hand."

Michael on Immigration Economics: "Immigrants, by and large, are a net benefit to the country economically. In the short run, they may displace some low level workers, but in the long run it's a net benefit to the country... They actually pay more into the system than what they take out."

Mark on America vs. Europe: "One of the things that I used to love about American history was that it was really about ideas. Whereas European history seemed to be about families and conflict... And now we are closely aligning ourselves with that European drama of tribes versus tribes."

Referenced Books/Articles

James Allen's "As a Man Thinketh" (upcoming Saturday discussion)
Ayn Rand's "Have Gun, Will Nudge" essay
Ayn Rand's "Conservatism: An Obituary" essay
Cato Institute study on immigration and welfare
Steven Pinker's work on violence and progress

Key Themes

Hypocrisy and tribalism in political discourse
Government censorship through FCC weaponization
Executive overreach on tariffs and trade policy
Economic illiteracy regarding trade and immigration
Media distortion of reality and perception management
Constitutional limitations on federal power
Individual rights as foundation for immigration policy
Living in objectively best era despite political dysfunction
Importance of thinking independently outside tribal lines

Capitalist Thought of the Day

"Free speech is very important. As much as we criticize the right-wing influencers and sometimes the left-wing ones, they have the right to speak and they have the right to share their views and we have the right to criticize those views. I would not want the government to silence them. Interestingly, some of them want the government to silence others. That is not the answer, folks. If we want to prosper as a nation, as individuals, we need to embrace individual rights, and that includes the right to freedom of speech. Open discourse, that is how we stay healthy, we stay in a rational society by leaving communication open. You need to engage with people who think, who have different values than you because that makes us healthier to see the engagement between two opposing values so we can decide for ourselves which is better." - Michael and Mark