Mustn't: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|content=When it comes to speech, there is: | |content=When it comes to speech, there is: | ||
Shouldnât (Bad) | Shouldnât (Bad)</br> | ||
Mustnât (Unthinkable) | Mustnât (Unthinkable)</br> | ||
Canât (Illegal) | Canât (Illegal) | ||
Revision as of 21:24, 16 September 2025
When it comes to speech, there is:
Shouldnât (Bad)
Mustnât (Unthinkable)
Canât (Illegal)
If broadly celebrating political murder of national figures is merely âShouldnâtâ, we will end up with âCanâtâ.
Free speech is **all** about âMustnâtâ.
We bet all of society on âMustnâtâ.
Itâs hard to remember how many times Iâve had to say this. Itâs like we donât understand and teach our own cultureâs particularly American genius.
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 âHate Speechâ 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.
In a culture of free speech, we should be able to count the number of public celebrations of Kirkâs murder on one hand. And they should all be from the most obviously backwards pitiable members of our society.
Saying the dumbest, meanest, nastiest, edgiest, most outrageous thing you can think of for thrills is not bravely exercising free speech. Itâs eroding itâs culture, frivolously.
Ghoulishness will either need to be prohibited by culture (shunning and made unthinkable) or by law (codification of hate speech).
The point of modern âCancel Cultureâ in revolutionary terms was to broadly cheapen traditional shunning. The rarest of punishments for the rarest of unthinkable abuses of free speech.
And our institutional organs fell for the revolutionary trap.
The judicious and rare practice of social shunning of those who truly transgress the unthinkable is a load bearing wall in a society of free speech. You canât afford to lose it in a free society to those clever revolutionaries who would cheapen it so as to overturn your society.
Long live American Free Speech.
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."
Contrarian opinion lightly held:
The so-called âNaturalistic Fallacyâ 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.
Said differently, assume that society may have previously used religion and/or nature to create a coordinated sense of âoughtâ, âmustâ and âmustnâtâ.
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.
Related Pages
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.