Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
Earlier today, I was pondering european speech laws (thanks to the david duke thread) and how I think their laws stem from their unconstrained vision. That free speech works in America because we have a constrained form of government. But I was tired and unable to post a coherent comment on these thoughts at the time, so I took a nap.
(I've been battling some funk this week, which has cut into my reading time. I haven't progressed very far in the book from last week.)
But I'm wondering if Syrah, or any other lurking fan of Visions could help round out the above thought.
This book is worth the money and the time it takes to read. It is not an easy read, but it is well worth it. It will help make sense of how people come to make the political and social choices that they do.
Is the constrained mindset less threatened by opposing ideas and positions by its very nature?
Is it that the unconstrained needs everyone to "believe" the same and with the same fervency?
Speech codes and laws allways seemed to me to be a product of and motivated by the fear that some one may not only speak differently, but even dare to think differently. (Thinking differently being even more dangerous than speaking differently.)
We don't have speech Laws per say, but we do have speech codes.
Larry Summers got into some trouble for saying something that was not politically correct. He is not alone. Violating speech codes will not land you in jail in this county but it may have real consequences depending on who you are and who you are addressing.
This is a bad trend I think. But then again, is it really a trend? Or has it always been so even here, i.e. the Wilson Administration era persecution of war opponents?
We don't have speech Laws per say, but we do have speech codes.
Well- I think we've always had forms of speech code- things that were or were not acceptable in public discourse. That would be a systemic, constrained process though, as Dr Sowell has pointed out that language in general is a systemic, evolved process that the unconstrained vision itself wouldn't be able to duplicate if it tried.
So, it seems to me that speech laws would be an opposite to speech codes. Trying to use the law to force someone to not say what they think goes against the nature of man. Speech laws are a solution that don't deal with the root cause.
Well- I think we've always had forms of speech code- things that were or were not acceptable in public discourse. That would be a systemic, constrained process though, as Dr Sowell has pointed out that language in general is a systemic, evolved process that the unconstrained vision itself wouldn't be able to duplicate if it tried.
So, it seems to me that speech laws would be an opposite to speech codes. Trying to use the law to force someone to not say what they think goes against the nature of man. Speech laws are a solution that don't deal with the root cause.
I see.
I think you have the better understanding of it.
From that we could argue the constrained are less inclined to use the Law when simple good manners would suffice. To the constrained, resorting to the law for something that custom and decorum would otherwise guide would be like using a sledgehammer on a carpet tack.
On the other side, the side of the unconstrained, good manners are not enough. But how can they then have that much confidence in the Law since they do not bind themselves to the law as much as to the rule of elites?
No- you ask good questions, which is why I sought your input. It helped me to better understand what I was trying to articulate. I think if we ever do write that book on L3N2, we will look back on these spinoffs as a window on how you and I both seem to be able to help round out the other's ideas. Really- one of my favorite things about these spinoffs in the last few weeks is how you've better helped me understand with your incredible ability to ask the right questions.
Speech codes are a trade off, in that one has the freedom in America to say what they want, but the trade off in this case is public shunning, or in extreme cases a libel/slander suit.
Speech laws are a way to force the appearance of an egalitarian society by unegalitarian means.
Long ago, sometime between the Holocene Maximum and the Little Ice Age, one of my college professors would hold unofficial after class sessions at the various local Thai restaurants where would all eat hot spicy food, drink too much beer, and argue over the topic of the night's class. I learned more about the class subjects in the after hours arguments than during the class itself. Learning is not always a direct process. Sometimes it requires interaction and argument to make it of use.
Reading this book is a lot like how reading Thucydides, Plato and Aristotle was back then. Those books hurt my head. They were not easy to read. And without someone to compare notes with and even to argue with, they would not have been penetrable.
This is defiantly one of those kinds of books. There is a lot of information crammed into each sentence, almost too much to grasp without someone to bounce ideas off of.
You have it more enjoyable for me. Thank you for that.
Speech codes are a trade off, in that one has the freedom in America to say what they want, but the trade off in this case is public shunning, or in extreme cases a libel/slander suit.
Speech laws are a way to force the appearance of an egalitarian society by unegalitarian means.
Thinking aloud . . .
Compel versus persuade?
Or, to make by force what nature has not found fit to make at all?
The concept of "The New Man" that seems to be goal of the unconstrained which to the constrained sounds a bit like an attempt to make a god of man.
What the constrained would see as hubris, the unconstrained sees instead as a form of piety.
Likewise- I'm thrilled to be joining you specifically in this book chat. I'm so glad we decided to do this together. But then, it was you that turned me onto this book, so it's fitting.
This book is so altering, I think it's just nice to have someone else on the road noticing the dramatic changes in scenery. Otherwise, it might feel a little isolating to notice the changed perception without someone else there to let you know you're not crazy.
I have always disliked the "left" - "Right" continuum used in politics. It always seemed so inadequate. It seemed to leave so much of the story unsaid and unclear.
While I am distrustful of using "constrained" - "unconstrained" in exactly the same way, it seems to be a much more useful way to draw the line.
While I am distrustful of using "constrained" - "unconstrained" in exactly the same way, it seems to be a much more useful way to draw the line.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Get some rest, and I'll see you soon. I'll say again that reading the first half of Chapter 5 was very helpful- really started to cement these notions for me. I will likely be popping on over the weekend to leave some more notes, so please join in when you can. Take care, {Syrah}.
You can tell what they think of our music by the places we are forced to play it in. This looks like a good spot for a livestock show. -- The Mothers of Invention were opening for Cream in April of 1968 in Chicago. The place was very large and did look like it had been used for displays of cattle and other such animals.
Frank says: