.jpg)
talkPOPc's Podcast
talkPOPc or the Philosophers' Ontological Party club, is a public philosophy + socially engaged art practice non-profit founded by Dr. Dena Shottenkirk, who is both a philosopher and an artist. talkPOPc sponsors one-to-one conversations between a participant and a philosopher (who always dons our amazing gold African king hat!) Various philosophers participate and these conversations happen in various places. For example, we go into bars and have one-to-one conversations. Various bars, both dives and fancy. We go to Grand Central Station in New York City. We set up shop on the sidewalk outside of City Hall in Philly. We go into bodegas all over Brooklyn. We sit down next to the deli counter and hold a conversation with someone who has walked in to get a ham sandwich and walked out knowing so much more about their own thoughts. We go into city parks or down dead end streets and set up the talkPOPc's tent. We listen. Here are some of those conversations.
talkPOPc's Podcast
Episode #128 R.P. Alex Mendez talks with talkPOPc participants Javon and Brodin about censorship, free speech and social media
2:00 They reflect on the notion of free speech in their personal life, noting that as Americans, they feel relatively unrestricted in their ability to express themselves. While they believe in the importance of free speech, they emphasize the need for understanding the potential repercussions of one's words.
5:00 They highlight the issue of entitlement regarding free speech, particularly noting that disenfranchised communities and working-class individuals, especially people of color, often understand the consequences of their speech.
7:00 They discuss John Stuart Mill's perspective on free speech, highlighting its virtues as outlined in Professor Schaun-Kirk's book. Alex questions whether these virtues of free speech remain intact when negative consequences, whether legal or social, are imposed on individuals expressing their opinions.
10:00 They discuss how anti-capitalist sentiments may face legal repercussions, citing historical examples like the Red Scare. While acknowledging the potential harm of hate speech, they differentiate between harmful speech aimed at individuals and discourse challenging societal systems.
12:00 They the permanence of statements made on the internet, using Kanye West as an example of someone whose controversial remarks, particularly those deemed anti-Semitic, have lasting consequences on his reputation.
15:00 They discuss the complexities of social consequences resulting from freedom of speech, particularly in political discourse. While acknowledging the straightforward cases where individuals may choose to leave relationships due to racist beliefs or behavior, they express interest in instances where political disagreements lead to exclusion or shunning.
18:00 They discuss the disparity between individuals' abilities to express themselves freely based on their social context. They suggest that while legal consequences for hate speech may be minimal, social repercussions can be significant, raising questions about the balance between allowing free expression and preventing harm caused by bullying or hate speech.
22:00 They discuss the limitations of physical spaces for exchanging ideas, noting that public places like libraries often have restrictions. Also, they emphasize how individuals' exposure to different viewpoints online is influenced by algorithms, leading to a skewed understanding of free speech.
26:00 Alex introduces philosopher Miranda Fricker's concept of epistemic injustice, which focuses on instances where injustices occur in how individuals are perceived as credible knowers or sources of knowledge. They explain that biases, whether conscious or unconscious, can lead people to view others as not credible sources of information based on their opposing viewpoints.
30:00 They discuss the impact of social media and the internet on the dynamics of free speech, particularly among younger people. They highlight the potential limitations of free speech in online environments, questioning whether it fosters the same virtues as face-to-face conversations.
33:00 They express concern about the divisive nature of American society, where individuals are often pitted against each other rather than working together to solve common problems. They advocate for a shift in societal mindset towards collaboration and problem-solving as a team, rather than viewing others as adversaries.