The Portal Wiki

Mustn't: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Mustn't (edit)

Revision as of 03:08, 21 December 2025

10,072 bytes added ,  21 December 2025
m
BeefSandwich27 moved page Can’t vs Mustn’t to Mustn't
No edit summary
m (BeefSandwich27 moved page Can’t vs Mustn’t to Mustn't)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[File:Can't-vs-Mustn't.jpg|thumb]]


'''Can’t vs Mustn’t''' is a conceptual framework describing distinctions between legal prohibitions, cultural taboos, and moral discouragements. The distinction is prominently articulated by '''Eric Weinstein''', who emphasizes the role of culture in sustaining boundaries of acceptable behavior and speech, particularly in relation to free expression.
== Overview ==
The framework identifies three layers of constraint:
* '''Shouldn’t''': Actions discouraged on moral or social grounds but not strongly enforced or prohibited. 
* '''Mustn’t''': Actions considered socially or culturally taboo. These are treated as unthinkable regardless of legality, with enforcement rooted in cultural norms rather than law. 
* '''Can’t''': Actions prohibited by law, formally codified, and punishable through the legal system. 
== Cultural enforcement ==
Weinstein argues that cultural "mustn’ts" are essential to sustaining societal order without overreliance on legal systems. If taboos weaken, behaviors once regarded as unthinkable may gain acceptance, producing pressure for legislatures to codify prohibitions. In this view, the erosion of cultural enforcement can lead to an expansion of formal legal prohibitions.
== Relationship to free speech ==
The framework is frequently discussed in relation to freedom of speech:
* '''Mustn’t''' operates as a cultural boundary, discouraging certain forms of speech or action that remain legally permissible. 
* The decline of such taboos can create demands to shift behaviors from "mustn’t" to "can’t," thereby inviting legal restrictions. 
* Weinstein contends that this dynamic threatens the long-term stability of free expression, as constitutional or legal guarantees cannot substitute for strong cultural norms. 
== Examples ==
* '''Flag burning''': Legally protected in the United States, but often regarded as something one ''mustn’t'' do in cultural terms. 
* '''Celebration of political assassination''': Typically considered unthinkable within cultural contexts, even if not explicitly prohibited by law.
== Implications ==
The framework suggests that:
* '''Culture precedes law''': Legal restrictions tend to follow cultural shifts rather than initiate them. 
* '''Norm preservation''': Societies that fail to sustain cultural "mustn’ts" risk replacing them with expanded legal "can’ts." 
* '''Freedom and restraint''': A functioning balance requires strong cultural enforcement mechanisms alongside formal legal protections.
== On X ==
=== 2024 ===
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1967970747730784591
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834499273406185522
|name=Eric Weinstein
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=When it comes to speech, there is:
|content=We seem to have opened the doors to hell because there is now no basis for ought. And we need must and mustn’t.


Shouldn’t (Bad)</br>
In the absence of religion or nature, there is no strong ought. And society needs ought.
'''Mustn’t''' (Unthinkable)</br>
|thread=
'''Can’t''' (Illegal)
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834498097025876438
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held:


If broadly celebrating political murder of national figures is merely “Shouldn’t”, we will end up with “Can’t”.
The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Said differently, '''assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of “ought”, “must” and “mustn’t”.'''


'''Free speech is **all** about “Mustn’t”.'''
In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Selfobserver-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver/status/1834498767388590224
|name=Self Observer
|usernameurl=https://x.com/Selfobserver
|username=Selfobserver
|content=The is–ought problem is almost the same as the naturalistic fallacy.


'''We bet all of society on “Mustn’t”.'''
How do you mean to get rid of it, and why?
|timestamp=Sep 13
}}
|timestamp=12:48 AM · Sep 13, 2024
}}


It’s hard to remember how many times I’ve had to say this. It’s like we don’t understand and teach our own culture’s particularly American genius.
=== 2025 ===


Mark this prediction: the First Amendment alone *cannot* save free speech. If you lose the nebulous concept of the unthinkable in common culture you will end up with laws against “Hate Speech” because directed murder and mayhem will normalize and spread like wildfire. You either load the prohibition against the unthinkable, on culture or you will be forced to load it upon the law.  
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1967969971407102399
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Mark this prediction: the First Amendment alone *cannot* save free speech. If you lose the nebulous concept of the unthinkable in common culture you will end up with laws against “Hate Speech” because directed murder and mayhem will normalize and spread like wildfire. You either load the prohibition against the unthinkable, on culture or you will be forced to load it upon the law.  


And, as a proud American Patriot, I want there to be no such thing legally as Hate Speech. At all.  
And, as a proud American Patriot, I want there to be no such thing legally as Hate Speech. At all.  
Line 35: Line 94:


Long live American Free Speech.
Long live American Free Speech.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1967970747730784591
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=When it comes to speech, there is:
Shouldn’t (Bad)</br>
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|Mustn’t]] (Unthinkable)</br>
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|Can’t]] (Illegal)
If broadly celebrating political murder of national figures is merely “Shouldn’t”, we will end up with “Can’t”.
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|Free speech is **all** about “Mustn’t”.]]
[[Can’t vs Mustn’t|We bet all of society on “Mustn’t”.]]
It’s hard to remember how many times I’ve had to say this. It’s like we don’t understand and teach our own culture’s particularly American genius.


|quote={{Tweet
|quote={{Tweet
Line 44: Line 122:
|content=Attorney General Pam Bondi: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
|content=Attorney General Pam Bondi: "There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society...We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech."
|timestamp=5:56 PM · Sep 15, 2025
|timestamp=5:56 PM · Sep 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=Sep 16
}}
}}
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Sep 16, 2025
|timestamp=8:16 AM · Sep 16, 2025
Line 51: Line 131:
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1834500203992547393
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2000768442098704883
|name=Eric Weinstein
|name=Eric Weinstein
|content=Contrarian opinion lightly held:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What the hell is happening to our leadership class? This IS what I meant by [[Can’t vs Mustn’t|“Mustn’t”]] in previous posts in discussion.
 
This isn’t covered by [[Can’t vs Mustn’t|“Can’t”]]. You *are* legally allowed to do this.


The so-called “Naturalistic Fallacy” may be just that. But we should probably rapidly reconsider the wisdom of trying to get rid of it. Or even pointing it out at scale.
And it isn’t covered by “Shoudn’t”. Like “That was bad. He really shouldn’t have said it.”
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2000767299167596634
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“passed away together with his wife, Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others
.” etc. etc.


Said differently, '''assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of “ought”, “must” and “mustn’t”.'''
From a sitting @POTUS.


In the absence of both, there is no coordinating source. And we may need one or the other to coordinate a needed sense of obligation.
I’m not afflicted with TDS. I can call balls & strikes, and this is madness and pure evil. You [[Can’t vs Mustn’t|mustn’t]] EVER do this from *our* Oval Office. Period.
|timestamp=12:51 AM · Sep 13, 2024
|media1=ERW-X-post-2000767299167596634-G8QmqeqaYAAM9K9.jpg
|timestamp=Last edited 3:17 AM · Dec 16, 2025
}}
|timestamp=3:22 AM · Dec 16, 2025
}}
}}


== Quotes ==


{{#widget:Tweet|id=1834499273406185522}}
<blockquote>
''When people will not defend the universities, they will not defend our public schools, there's no moment where some somebody in a position of authority says "enough"—The New York Times is not meant to be a propaganda instrument. The universities are not meant to be indoctrination camps. Science is not meant to be a post modernists free from all—'''There is a concept of mustn't. There are things you mustn't do. You're permitted to do them.''' They're not necessarily illegal. And it's not a question that you shouldn't do it, like, "all things being equal, I wouldn't do that if I were you". They're just things that you mustn't do. So the most frequent example I give is, you should be allowed to burn the flag and you must not burn the flag. It's not really "well, aren't I free to burn it?" Yep. "If I call it self expression, are you telling me I can't?" You can, but you mustn't. '''Well, where does this mustn't come from? It's kind of a first principles thing. It's part of our culture. It's part of the [[Oral Torah vs Written Torah|Oral Torah]]. If we don't start exercising adulthood, in terms of a culture, in terms of getting rid of these problems, people are taking away a very different message, which is that every institution is over.''' That everyone who—All there is, is money. There is no concept of a compact, or an agreement, or an understanding that isn't enforceable. A lot of what's going on with the blockchain is, blockchain is people talking about, how do you deal with zero trust? So, right now, what we keep wanting to show is that everyone is bankrupt. Praying, you just love money, you went into physics for the money. It's like, I don't even know what to make of these things.


- '''Eric Weinstein''' on [[Eric Weinstein: UFOs, Portal Podcast Reboot, & 2022 Predictions (YouTube Content)]]
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
0:11:03</br>
'''Peter McCormack'''</br>
''And what about with regards to technology censorship, we've obviously seen a lot this week with Spotify. Historically, Twitter over the last couple of years has certainly increased the amount of people that remove him from this platform. Facebook is similar. I listened to a show recently about surveillance and censorship within Google and how they manipulate people by manipulating search results. Do you think much about how we deal with that whole area? Yeah. What do you think? Is it something that needs to be solved with regulation? Or education?
0:11:39</br>
'''Eric Weinstein'''</br>
''It's very confusing. The key thing is that there's something that has to retard bad people doing bad things for bad reasons. And I would prefer that that not be law. I prefer that that be culture. I prefer that that have to do with the consequence of being a bastard on on media. And what we've lost is any sense of the word mustn't. So I think mustn't tends to come from religion, there's something that you it's not that you shouldn't do it. Like I really shouldn't have another drink. I kind of well,
''Mustn't is like, yeah, you can do that. There's no law against it. But it's, it's not on. So for example, flag burning. '''You mustn't burn the flag. You can. It's a free society. But you mustn't'''. Well, there's no law saying I can't Yeah, because you're an idiot. There's a culture saying you can't do it. And if you if you absolutely believe that your your country is the worst country on Earth—I can imagine somebody burning a Nazi flag. But that should be an enormous statement, that when a proud German family burned a Nazi flag, everyone would take notice. You don't casually burn an American flag or a British flag, even though both of our countries have done really dumb, horrible evil things. Mustn't has to have a form on the internet. We don't know what it is yet. It's like, it's like asking for it. The Internet needs its own version of a religion. It doesn't have to be a god. But it has to be some thing that has the word mustn't in its vocabulary, because right now what we have, if the API permits it, you know, it's like somebody saying, "Well, if you didn't want me to take all your stuff, I presume that you would have had a laser system to detect any kind of intrusion or motion and you would lock the door with, you know, triple police locks or something. But you left the door open, so you must have wanted me to steal all your stuff." That kind of thinking is is rampant on the internet, as well, if you didn't want to be abused, and stalked, you know, then you shouldn't put your house in your own name and you shouldn't use your own name on the internet. It's like, eff off you stupid gamer morons. I don't know how to speak about this. It's like, if you're gonna—if you're in a gaming environment, it's an exploit. "Hey, I noticed that your door was unlocked, so I walked through it." Really? There's no part of your brain saying, "maybe I shouldn't be doing this"?
- '''Eric Weinstein''' and '''Peter McCormack''' on [[Bitcoin and the Culture Wars with Eric Weinstein (YouTube Content)]]
</blockquote>


<blockquote>
<blockquote>
Line 97: Line 210:
== Related Pages ==
== Related Pages ==


* [[Degraded State]]
* [[Free Speech]]
* [[Free Speech, Free Minds, Free Markets (YouTube Content)]]
* [[Load-Bearing Fictions]]
* [[Oral Torah]]
* [[Oral Torah]]
* [[Oral Torah vs Written Torah]]
* [[Oral Torah vs Written Torah]]
Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/22183...25132"